1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MARCH 27, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page

309 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

SkyTrain financing. Mr. Sihota –– 309

Interim funding for social services contract consultants. Ms. Smallwood –– 310

Farm income. Mr. Rose –– 310

Presenting Reports –– 311

Moneys under ERDA. Hon. Mr. Reid replies to question –– 311

Tabling Documents –– 311

Private Members' Statements

Job strategy. Ms. A. Hagen –– 311

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Institutional reform in Canada. Mr. S.D. Smith –– 313

Mr. Lovick

Hon. Mr. Davis

Senior citizens. Mr. Cashore –– 314

Hon. Mr. Richmond

B.C. truck logging industry. Mr. Rabbitt –– 316

Hon. Mr. Michael

Mr. Lovick

Budget Debate

Mr. Serwa –– 319

Ms. Edwards –– 319

Mr. Chalmers –– 321

Mr. Blencoe –– 324

Appendix –– 326

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. SERWA :

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to welcome a friend of mine, a

neighbour from Kelowna, a very hard-working person on my campaign

committee. Her husband is a former trainer with the Calgary Stampeders,

presently with Okanagan College as a recreation coordinator. May I ask

the House to bid welcome to Ruth Recsky.

MR. LOVICK :

I would ask the House to join me please in welcoming a group of

students from Nanaimo District Senior Secondary School and their

teacher, Nelson Allen. This group of students is studying economics and

it seems to me somehow appropriate they should arrive when we're having

the budget debate. Please join me in welcoming them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

Hon. members, before we start oral question period — and because I

don't want to use up any of your time, if we could hold the timer until

I am finished — I just wanted to mention something that happened yesterday that should be brought to everyone's attention.

During

one of the brief periods that I was out of the chair, one of the

members of the House was recognized standing on a question of order,

and unfortunately that member wasn't aware that in order to be

recognized and to be recorded in Hansard ,

we have to be in our places when we rise to speak. As a consequence of

this unfortunate error, part of what the member put into Hansard

has not been recorded, because his or her microphone wasn't turned on.

I just pass that on for your information. When we rise to speak in this

House, we should be in our places.

Oral Questions

SKYTRAIN FINANCING

MR. SIHOTA :

My question is to the Minister of Finance. I am advised by the

minister's own officials that the government considered several

variants of the SkyTrain issue and that at least one version of that

issue was submitted to the federal government essentially for an

advance tax ruling and that the federal government warned against

proceeding. Was the minister made aware of these facts before issuing

the ultimate securities? Yes or no.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

It would depend on which specific proposal the questioner is referring

to. There were many SkyTrain proposals, some prior to my taking office,

so if he could be a little bit more specific I'd be happy to provide a

specific answer.

MR. SIHOTA : The question simply is this: was the minister advised by

his own officials that other variants of the SkyTrain issue, regardless of time — that some of them, or at least one of them, had been submitted to the federal

government for prior approval and the federal government had said no? Were you

advised of that fact before the ultimate issue was made? Yes or no.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I was aware there was an exchange with the federal Minister of Finance

and with the revenue branch on a specific proposal dealing with the

possible financing of SkyTrain that related to a rather narrow issue

which was totally different to the issue that was addressed after I

assumed office — totally different.

MR. SIHOTA : My

question then, on a supplementary to the Minister of Finance, is this:

if the government considered it prudent to have that exchange for

earlier issues of the SkyTrain securities, then why did it not consider

it prudent to do the same prior to the ultimate issue?

[10:15]

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple. That earlier issue dealt with a

legal aspect which had to be clarified by the revenue branch. The

subsequent financing proposals made after I assumed office did not

require any legal clarification, because we had spent sufficient time

and research effort to verify that legality was not a question.

MR. SIHOTA :

On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the minister says that the legality

was not an issue, but I'm advised by the minister's own officials that

legal and tax opinions were obtained by the Ministry of Finance on the

ultimate issue. Is the minister denying that as a fact?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

The question is confusing, Mr. Speaker. The ultimate proposal has yet

to be reached, so if he's referring to the last proposal or the second

from last proposal, I can give specific answers. Maybe he could clarify.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm speaking then to the proposal that was floated and then rejected

publicly by the federal government. Let's make that clear. Now is the

minister denying that legal and tax opinions were sought and paid for

with respect to that issue?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The

questioner is obviously unaware, Mr. Speaker, that there were two

SkyTrain financing proposals considered by my ministry since I've

assumed office. The legal questions that we've researched since I've

assumed office dealing with the SkyTrain financing matter dealt with

the rather contentious subject of land ownership.

The first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt) would be in a better

position to understand this statement, probably, than anyone else on

the opposition side this morning, but I notice that chair is vacant.

The

difficult question of land ownership, for one issue, and the difficult

question of the use of the guideway system as an appropriate vehicle

for capital cost allowance recapture — those two matters were confused

and confounded by virtue of the series of changed ownerships, over the

years, of the right-of-way, the land running from Vancouver to New

Westminster. As a consequence, a great deal of investigative work had

to be done to determine who did own the land. The bulk of the

investigative work was done on that rather narrow issue, which had

nothing to do with any tax ruling. It really had to do with the

question of whether it was appropriate for B.C. Transit to be using the

land as a security for the financing proposal itself.

[ Page 310 ]

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, the question was whether or not a legal opinion or tax

opinions were obtained, and the answer.... To somehow try to make the

member for Vancouver Centre accountable for that is totally out of

order, considering that the Minister of Finance ought to be accountable.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the minister knew all along that the federal government would not agree.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Question.

MR. SIHOTA :

The question is this: is it not true that after the issuance of the

B.C. Rail preferred shares, the B.C. government was told that the

federal government would not countenance the province's taking

advantage of tax loopholes, such as was done with the ultimate security

issues on SkyTrain?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Speaker,

the B.C. Rail matter was something dealt with by my predecessors. I

have no specific knowledge of those details. If the purpose of the

question is to determine whether in the subsequent sequence of events

since I've assumed office we have acted contrary to any understandings

with the federal Minister of Finance or federal government officials, I

can answer categorically that we did not act contrary to any

understandings or agreements.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr.

Speaker, it still seems to me that the provincial government chose to

gamble on the fact that the federal government would not say publicly

what it was saying privately. The gamble cost taxpayers $700,000.

The question simply is this: is the government prepared today to provide a full accounting of that $700,000?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, I gather the questioner is referring to my ballpark

estimate of the cost of the investigation and expenditure surrounding

the SkyTrain financing proposal. He seems to be labouring under the

impression that those are firm figures. They were not intended to be

firm figures; they were merely intended to be ballpark estimates.

AN HON. MEMBER : Answer the question.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Well, that's the answer.

I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, we are continuing our examination of SkyTrain

financing options, and when the final resolution is determined, we will

be in a position to properly apportion the appropriate costs to the

specific proposals.

MR. SIHOTA : A supplementary. Is

the minister prepared to table, publicly, a full accounting of the

money that was spent on this matter, regardless of the sum?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Once the SkyTrain financing proposal is finally resolved, we will be

most happy to take such a request on notice. But the point is, Mr.

Speaker, that until that matter is resolved, we find ourselves unable

to properly determine what the "sunk costs" might be, because we have

not yet finalized which of the various financing options we will

finally settle on.

INTERIM FUNDING FOR SOCIAL

SERVICES CONTRACT CONSULTANTS

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Social Services and

Housing. Contracts for emergency social services coordinators in six

regions around this province will not be renewed March 31 because of a

failure by this government to submit proper funding requests to the

federal government for their share. What is the minister prepared to do

to ensure interim provincial funding so that this crucial program is

not thrown into disarray?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr.

Speaker, the member didn't say exactly what services she refers to, but

from time to time we review the contracts that we have with various

organizations around the province to make sure that we are getting the

best value and the best service for the taxpayer's dollar. In the cases

you mention, we may be doing just that. I am not sure. If you could be

more specific, I could check that out for you. But I suspect from what

I heard that that may be the case. We may be just reviewing them and

re-tendering. I'm not positive.

MS. SMALLWOOD : For

clarification, to the minister again, there are six regions around this

province that have consultants on contract. The role of these

consultants is to motivate and support emergency services coordinators

throughout the district. Those consultants have been told that as of

March 31 their contracts will not be renewed. The reason given was that

the ministry has failed to provide an audit to the federal Department

of National Defence and that the ministry has failed to submit funding

requests for the federal portion of the funding of these contracts.

the minister is not aware of this critical situation in this province,

can we be assured that the minister will make himself aware and that

the minister will act before these contracts run out?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Well, like I say, I am not familiar with the detail on every contract

in the province, Mr. Speaker, so I would be happy to take that as

notice, and I'll bring back an answer to the member.

FARM INCOME

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture, who is

going to Ottawa to meet with other agriculture ministers and the

federal minister on Monday. I would like to ask him if he can tell the

House what proposal he intends to take to that meeting of ministers to

solve or help solve the crisis in farm income in this province and in

other provinces across Canada, and if he would also tell us at the same

time what he intends to ask the federal government to do. So there are

two questions: his proposals and his requests.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Opposition House Leader, at the meeting on

this Monday there are a number of proposals that are being discussed

relative to British Columbia agriculture. I do not have here all of the

exact dollar details we're discussing. I can get them if the hon.

member so desires. But I can tell you one thing. The crisis that the

hon. member refers to is the major item on the agenda. A national

agricultural policy and strategy for all the

[ Page

311 ]

provinces, including British Columbia, is the major goal and objective of this meeting on Monday.

MR. ROSE :

A brief supplementary. I'd be interested in the proposal, but

regardless of the proposal or the outcome, I wonder if the minister

would care to tell the House what he's decided to provide by way of

assistance, should the talks fail — especially to Peace River grain-farmers before planting time, because they can't get any money from the banks.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I can tell the hon. member that this morning we met with the Minister

of Finance and the hon. member for Peace River, and that we are having

discussions relative to what action can be taken by this government and

also how it can be plugged into the discussions Monday relative to

federal help. The Peace River district has been identified as the most

critical area in Canada at this stage, and you can be rest assured that

I will do my best to assist it.

Presenting Reports

MR. R. FRASER : As Chairman of the Special Committee of Selection I present

the committee's first report and ask leave for the report to be adopted

by the House. [See appendix. ]

Leave granted.

MONEYS UNDER ERDA

HON. MR. REID :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to a question taken on notice from the

hon. member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) relative to the ERDA

sub-agreements with the federal government. A letter received by my

ministry on September 18, 1986, from Flora MacDonald, federal Minister

of Communications, states that federal funds for ERDA projects were

fully committed to existing sub-agreements. No other sources were

readily available, and the date for submissions to the federal cabinet

for sub-agreements on cultural industries was uncertain. The federal

government has indicated to the province that funds are not available

for cultural sub-agreements at this time and has not set aside a date

at which funding can commence. The federal government has not submitted

the subagreement to the federal cabinet for approval; and

whereas

provincial cabinet approval was secured in early 1986, the province has

continued to work towards finalizing the text of the subagreement and

is framing the regulations.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board for the year ended December 31, 1986.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

JOB STRATEGY

MS. A. HAGEN : As the first member in this House to rise to take the

opportunity to make a statement, I welcome the opportunity and recognize the

work of those people who have preceded us in providing members of both the opposition

and government benches time to express some views outside the usual range of

our debate in this House.

The

issue that I have chosen to speak to this morning has to do with job

strategy, an issue that both sides of the House have addressed on many

occasions in the two or three weeks that we have been here. I want

today to make my comments in the longer range perspective.

have four points, then, by way of introduction of my topic, a plan to

tackle unemployment. Firstly, based on my few weeks here, it seems to

me to be true that for this House, as for other democratic Parliaments,

the values we have in common are more important than the things that

divide us.

Secondly, both sides of this House have an

intense respect for the role of small business in our economy. I have

always been impressed in my own community and as I've traveled around

the province with the ability of small business people to plan and

manage pragmatically. Small business people usually use all the

resources available to them in the best way they can. They have to do

that in order to compete. I hope members will agree with me when I say

that all British Columbia is no different in this respect. We must all

use our resources effectively to compete.

[10:30]

Thirdly, in his budget speech, the Minister of Finance said: "We

believe that taxpayers' money should be spent carefully." We on this

side of the House support him in that perspective.

Fourthly,

how does the public know that the taxpayers' money is used carefully if

there is no overall plan against which the citizens can assess their

government's spending habits? I do not just mean the budget, which

really is a relatively short-term plan, but a strategic plan that would

guide us for a generation. The Ministers of Advanced Education (Hon. S.

Hagen) and Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) announced this week that their staff

would be reviewing British Columbia's long-term requirements for fully

qualified trades people. That is fine as far as it goes, but the

problem is that it does not go very far. Indeed, why is it newsworthy

that public officials are doing their jobs? They should in fact be

providing the ministers with this type of advice as a matter of course.

The

positive side of the announcement is that it shows that government is

listening and is trying to be responsive. I commend them for that and

offer some constructive suggestions for the ministers to think about.

We all agree that employment is at an unacceptably high level, and we

would all like to do something about it.

A review of

long-term requirements for trades people is one small aspect of our

economy, but in what economic context are the officials to work? What

assumptions are they to make about the economy in the long term? Their

advice will only be as good as the economic assumptions they make — and they have to make assumptions, because the homework has not been done.

I think that as legislators we should be working in four major areas. First — starting now —

we should ask the public what they think the future needs of the B.C.

economy should be and are, and what, together, we should do about it. I

do not just mean another poll, but an attempt to get a genuine dialogue

going that will break down the divisions that currently beset our

society and give us such a bad image in the international community.

Such an action would convey several messages to international

investors: that the era of confrontational and unstable government of

the 1983-86 period is over; that we recognize that there are no quick

fixes or simple solutions; and that British Columbians recognize that

[ Page 312 ]

working together is the way to solve our problems. No one else is going to do it for us — not the federal government, free trade or the Americans, to name just a few.

Next we should be initiating a study of our entire labour force requirements — not just those respecting trades people —

in conjunction with business, labour and the colleges and universities.

We should be asking these same groups to work together to construct a

working model of the B.C. economy that would identify the major policy

alternatives and their implications.

Finally, it will be

down to us as the leaders of B.C. to frame an economic strategy that

all segments of the public can live with if not actively support.

None

of this is new to this province. In fact the Postwar Rehabilitation

Council established by statute in 1942 undertook necessary planning for

the postwar years, a very effective and productive process. While that

war is long since over, with our chronic unemployment it still remains

to us to win the peace and a better way of life for our people.

strategy such as I have outlined here will take time to develop and

implement, will take work and effort from all of us. That is why we

should be undertaking a broad program of public works to create jobs

for the unemployed as a short-term measure.

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say at the outset that when we designed the

sequence on this particular rule, the idea was that we would have an

interchange across the floor. We decided to give notice of that

interchange so that the minister or his parliamentary secretary or her

parliamentary secretary might be here to be part of that exchange. It

was to be a debate; it wasn't supposed to be a soliloquy.

Now

this is the first time we've had one of these sessions, and because we

had general debates at other times I notice the Minister of Social

Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is here, and I hope he'll

respond to my hon. friend, who's part of this. We're certainly prepared

to respond to the other statements.

Just let me respond

briefly to the statement given by my colleague from New Westminster.

Any list that I have seen predicting the job vacancies over the next 25

years seems to be loaded with low-skilled service-type occupations.

There are maintenance people required, clerical people, people who work

for McDonald's Hamburgers; or they are kitchen help or something like

that. The expanding jobs are not the blue-collar jobs, are not in the

smokestack industries at all, because they're highly paid; and because

they are highly paid, then they're forced to be automated; and when

they're forced to be automated, like our forests industry and our pulp

industry.... There's the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) sitting over

there. He knows that when the Powell River Co. invests in greater and

more modern and automated machinery, they require fewer and fewer

people for the same output. The same thing is happening in steel.

That's why U.S. border states are just in terrible shape financially

and economically, with high unemployment, where industries have fled to

the sun belt.

So if this is the case, then the job strategy

cannot be training for dead-end jobs whatsoever; it has to be training

for people who are psychologically and emotionally capable of change,

because there's going to be a tremendous change in our society over the

next few years. And it isn't just the case of educating people for a

particular kind of vocational change, but of training people with the

ability — the social ability and emotional ability and stability — to

adjust to these kinds of very revolutionary changes that are coming. By

doing that, you don't train for dead-end jobs at all. You train people

to be flexible; you train people to have a broad, basic education so

they can shift from one thing or other; and above all, you don't lock

people into situations for which there is no future — and we see the casualties littered in the one-industry towns.

So when we're looking at a job strategy or an education policy that will go into the twenty-first century, we should recognize — at least somewhat, at least get the vague outlines — where we're going, and we should be prepared for that. Thank you.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I didn't come here this morning prepared to respond to the statement,

but after hearing the Opposition House Leader I feel compelled to,

because, once again, we are left with the impression that only people

on that side of the House are aware of the things he is saying. We're

very much aware of what's happening in our society, Mr. Member; we're

very much aware on this side of the House. We know what's happening to

the jobs in our primary industries; we know that mills and mines and

the construction industry are on hard times, through no fault of anyone

in this House or in this province. It's not just happening in British

Columbia; it's happening around the world, and we're very much aware

that people will now be changing jobs up to five times in their lives.

are gearing our job training programs around precisely what you have

said, with the full knowledge that when mills upgrade and automate,

jobs are lost. Even if the lumber industry were to go back to those

halcyon days of 1979, '80 and '81, the number of jobs would be about

two-thirds of what they are today, and the same is happening in every

other industry. We're just as much aware of that, Mr. Member, as you

people on that side of the House, so our job training programs are

geared to that.

We know that a lot of the jobs are going to

be in the service sector in years to come; it's the fastest-growing

industry around the world. Tourism is the fastest-growing industry in

the entire world. So I just don't want anyone to be left with the

impression that we're not very much aware of that. It's the phenomenon

that's happening south of the border. Yesterday I was just reading

where General Motors is going to have to lay off 29,000 people because

those jobs are disappearing. They're much aware of it; we are very much

aware of it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MS. A. HAGEN :

There are two points that I want to make in my summing up. One is to

emphasize the last comment in my statement, and that is: as we move to

a longer-term strategy, as we move to looking to how we are in fact

going to employ people in productive work and in reasonable-paying jobs

that enable them to live with their families in the next decade, we

need to do something right now. And I want to emphasize again the

importance of putting people to work with skills that are available or

with skills that can be, in fact, a part of training in a municipal

infrastructure at this time. It is a very significant way in which

public dollars at all levels can be put to work both to help the

economy and to help with training needs.

When we look at

the longer term strategy, it is clear to me, in the time that I have

sat in this House, that although we are indeed paying lip service to

looking ahead to the future, there

[ Page 313 ]

not anything that so far has been suggested in dollars or in the manner

in which we conduct ourselves in this House that would suggest that we

are earnestly looking at a long-term development of strategy. That

effort is one that takes discipline. It takes the will and the energy

and the imagination of people not just in this House, but many others.

I'm sure all of us are inundated with materials that cross our desks.

I've been most impressed with the work being done in the regions by

those people in the field of job training: looking at targeting,

planning and developing programs that work in those communities, for

people who live in those communities.

We need a broad and

comprehensive process that will enable us to work together towards a

strategy that will not simply train people for short-term, marginal,

part-time, low-paid work. That's not the kind of society we want to see

emerging in the twentieth century. In fact, if we're going to avoid

that desperate scenario, we as legislators need to work with business,

labour, the academic communities and people in the colleges to see that

that program and that strategy develop. I would urge us to consider the

vehicles that are available to us.

INSTITUTIONAL REFORM IN CANADA

MR. S.D. SMITH :

As I take my place to state my views on the need for institutional

reform in Canada, I do so from the view that the system itself is in

danger of breaking down. Our constitutional system, for reasons of

process, cannot respond to our provinces' needs and, I suggest, for

reasons of politics will not change the present structure in any

significant way.

It is my view that for a province's

economic development potential to blossom as we contemplate the impact

of the economic milieu into which we are entering — a world of shrunken

boundaries, altered and enhanced trading relations, instantaneous

communications and transportation modes which change our most

fundamental assumptions about the geographic effects of this planet and

our place on it — and as we seek to diversify our economy, create new

jobs for our people and move ourselves with purpose and resolve into

the mainstream of a major global economic evolution, we must come to

recognize some of the limits our constitution and institutional

arrangements have in restricting our ability to achieve our goals, both

as a province and as a full participant within Confederation.

For

the purposes of this statement, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to assume

understanding of the rationale for and the impact of the issues raised

by resolution 54, which may be addressed separately at some future

date. As well, I do not want to recite a litany of grievances, historic

or current, respecting this province's relations with Canada. Instead,

I want to restrict these few moments to some thoughts of why

institutional reform ought to be seen by us as an issue of the future

rather than a hangover from the past. For that purpose, it is important

to note that the problem for us of effective representation in Ottawa

will heighten, as we approach the next election, because of a

significant political change now occurring in Canada.

[10:45]

decades gone by we have usually had a western-rooted political force

elected to the House of Commons which sought to advance our regional

views. That no longer is the case. Today all three federal parties

believe they will form the next national government; consequently, all

three now will conduct themselves as vote-counting, political brokerage

organizations who increasingly will see issues from the perspective of

what each of them will call "the national interest." When federal

politicians in Canada talk about the national interest, they are using

a code-phrase which really means the interests of the golden triangle

of Ontario and Quebec. Name the issue, apply the phrase "the national

interest," as used by the three federal parties, and then ask yourself

who benefits.

The reason why all three federal parties act that way is very simple, Mr. Speaker: because of our population distribution —

where the seats are. Perhaps the most graphic way to illustrate that

point is to note that in British Columbia there are 28 federal ridings,

and in the city of Toronto alone there are 29 federal ridings.

Mr.

Speaker, the constitutional underpinnings of the areas where our

economic blossoming must occur are all federal. We in Kamloops

constituency recognize that questions of trade will determine, in an

almost absolute sense, how quickly and how well we diversify our

economy while maintaining our present standard of living.

Communication

policy will determine how or even if we become major players in a world

knowledge-based economy. Transportation and trade go hand in glove.

Banking policy sets out how we build our capital resources and how we

use them to enhance and broaden the economy.

All four of

these areas of jurisdiction are basic to how well we achieve our goals,

and all four are the responsibility of Canada. We need real, effective

participation in developing and administering policies that affect

trade, banking, transportation and communications. To me, Mr. Speaker,

we're simply not real players in those areas.

Henri

Bourassa once said that institutional reform in Canada, like other

forms of epidemics and current fevers, crops up only periodically.

Others, even more cynically, have called institutional reform the latex

issue, because for all but politicians it's about as exciting as

watching paint dry on the wall. Mr. Speaker, whether or not those views

are true, the time is now to contemplate these issues once again, but

to do so knowing they have enormous consequences for our future, and

also with the knowledge that because all three federal parties also

want Quebec to endorse our new constitutional arrangements before the

next election, the time is propitious for the regions of Canada to seek

and to reach consensus on this matter with the rest of Canada.

Let

us all, therefore, get on with what we have to do in this place, which

is to seek ways to develop public awareness and support for expending

the time and energy that will be needed to formulate and successfully

advance a position for change which will improve our role in the

country and our ability to pursue our own vision for the future.

MR. LOVICK :

When I was elected to serve in this assembly, I had no idea that I

would be responding to a matter that really deals with what we call

federalism. I'm delighted, however, to contribute to that discussion.

Let

me begin my remarks by complimenting the second member for Kamloops for

what I think is a very thoughtful and articulate position, drawing our

attention to what appears, frankly, to be a crisis besetting this

nation. It has been a crisis, however, that has been building for a

very long time. Indeed, from the beginning of political arrangements in

our society people have talked about endangered federalism or the

non-viability of that particular form of government.

[ Page 314 ]

It's

tempting, of course, to give you a brief version of a famous joke about

federalism in Canadian politics. The story is that if every culture in

the world had to take

part in talking about how to describe an

elephant, the argument would be that Canada's answer would be very

specific indeed. The Americans would say something like: "The elephant:

would it thrive better in a free enterprise or a socialist

environment?" The French would say: "The elephant: a romantic affair."

In Canada, if we talked about the elephant, we would say: "A federal or

a provincial matter of jurisdiction?" So the arguments about federalism

have indeed been around for a very long time.

What's

crucial, of course, is that as our country has developed and grown, so

with it has grown western alienation: the sense that we in the western

provinces are simply outgunned. We don't have the same number of votes,

obviously, as a result of our population; therefore on a number of

significant issues we are foreordained to lose on the vote.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

Alienation,

however, is something that I think we have to treat very carefully and

with some reverence, insofar as we don't make the terrible and

irredeemable mistake of treating this problem in entirely negative

ways, namely by pointing the finger at our fellow Canadians in Ontario

or in Quebec and suggesting that somehow they are the source of our

problem.

For us to ask for a fair shake in Confederation by

a reform of the Senate is well and good, and I think any reasonable

Canadian would go along with that request. What we must not do, however — and I hope that the second member for Kamloops isn't suggesting this for a moment —

is suggest that we have a grievance because somebody has been doing us

dirty, or we have not been well treated because of a conscious and

deliberate act on the part of our fellow provinces. Rather, it is well

for us to remember a little bit about B.C.'s history. We in B.C. don't

like to remember the simple fact, but when we joined Confederation we

were called the spoiled child of Confederation. Ontario and Quebec were

absolutely convinced that the federal government of the time had sold

out; they had given too much to the new territory. So there is that

historical sense of grievance on the other side's part that I think we

need to bear in mind.

The issue of Senate reform — which

obviously the resolution of the second member for Kamloops on the order

paper is dealing with and to which his statement was clearly the

background — is one that again I think we have to be very careful of approaching. Certainly we accept — and we don't need to make any secret of the fact we accept —

that the Senate ought to be reformed if not scrapped outright.

Certainly people on this side of the House, from this political party,

have argued for at least 50 years that the Senate should be abolished.

We are, however, prepared to suggest that there ought to be a Senate

more like the American one, namely one that has a regional or

geographic representation. I don't think we differ on that basis. The

question, of course — and here is the one that we must, as I say, treat with tenderness and compassion and reverence —

is whether we can in fact somehow incorporate two principles in our

constitution simultaneously. The one principle is representation by

population; the other principle is regional

representation, because that indeed is what we are talking about.

I see

I am now out of time, Madam Speaker. I would just like to say in

concluding that I hope other members of the House in their prepared

statements will approach things in as statesmanlike and articulate a

fashion as the hon. member for Kamloops did.

MR. S.D. SMITH :

Just to summarize briefly, Madam Speaker, it is my view, strongly and

deeply held, that as important as a redress of our regional

representation is, with regard to Confederation . . . . I think most

fair-minded people all across Canada agree with that. But as important

as that is, I want to make and extend the point and urge people to

think about the proposition that equally important are the powers — the

effectiveness of the powers that would or would not or could or could

not be granted to the institution which carries forth regional

representation.

It is the case that in British Columbia,

thinking as we are in this institution, and as the member for New

Westminster just discussed, about how we take hold of our future, how

we develop our opportunities to provide jobs for our people, we must

come increasingly to understand that the economics of the future, the

trade relations that we want to pursue, the institutions that most

affect the evolution developing in the world economy, are in fact

governed constitutionally in Canada by federal jurisdiction. It is

therefore a matter not only of constitutional arrangement, but it is

becoming a matter of economic opportunity for us to have greater and

more effective ways to contribute to the Canadian Confederation so that

we can pursue the future on behalf of our people.

HON. MR. DAVIS :

Madam Speaker, I see I have a few minutes. I agree that institutional

change is needed in this country. It would have to be, I think,

constitutional change.

First, the powers of the several

levels of government. Governments today believe they must be all things

to all people, and this applies at the federal level, at the provincial

level and at the local or municipal level. I think this is wrong. It

certainly results in overlapping and too much government. I think that

the old BNA Act content which is still in the constitution should list

limited powers for Ottawa and give the residual powers clearly to the

provinces. National defence, international trade, money and banking,

matters like that should be clearly federal. People matters, property

matters, should be provincial, and there would be no confusion as to

overlapping.

Finally, institutions — I'd do away with the Senate. I think it should be replaced by an institutionalized first ministers' conference.

[11:00]

MADAM SPEAKER : Thank you, Mr. Minister; the time is up.

The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

SENIOR CITIZENS

MR. CASHORE :

I want to say at the outset that our House Leader has just a few

moments ago pointed out to me that the title for my statement in the

Orders of the Day is not technically correct, because it states that I

will be speaking on seniors and the budget. Apparently I had mistitled

it, for which I apologize, and I'm also sorry that that wrong title was

accepted. So I will make my remarks concerning seniors, but

[ Page 315 ]

I will endeavour not to apply those remarks directly to the budget.

Having

had time to reflect on discussions in this House, and knowing that I

would have the opportunity to make a statement today on the subject of

seniors, I want all of us to consider a new perspective, a perspective

that can be provided by a new angle of vision on a most serious

subject, the subject of the seniors in our society. That perspective

would have all of us in this House, government and opposition,

recognize that we have more in common on this issue than that which

would divide us. We have the combined responsibility of planning

effective stewardship of our resources and the shared responsibility of

providing appropriately for all of our people.

I am

appealing to this House at this time so that we might expand our vision

with regard to all parts of our society and recognize that we are, as

citizens of British Columbia, members of an extended family, and that

as part of that extended family the seniors are our parents and our

grandparents; and in that we have a special significance. Seniors

represent our very history, the story of our country and of our

province. Most of them have experienced the impact of war, the despair

of the great Depression, the loss of loved ones to epidemics, the rapid

and often devastating changes of technology and the

compartmentalization of a society that continues to struggle with the

loss of the extended family and increasing levels of feelings of being

isolated and pushed off to the margins of existence.

don't believe that whether we are government or opposition there is one

member in this House who would intentionally set out to make a decision

that would cause further unnecessary stress on the seniors of our

society, those who live close to the margins of what is needed for

adequate nutrition, adequate shelter, adequate quality of existence. As

much as we cherish the time-honoured traditions of this chamber and of

other chambers throughout the democratic world, and given the comments

that we have just heard from the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D.

Smith) which also deal with the tradition of democracy in our society

and trying to make it work, would not all of us regret our

participation if in any way we were to take

part in any decision that

would have a negative impact simply because we were entrenching our

positions?

Wouldn't we feel that if a disservice had been

done to our seniors, a disservice that could not be reversed because of

the damage that had been done, we had participated in something that we

would wish we had not participated in? I concede that we have the

problem of making plans that will work and, while we disagree on

various aspects of the ways that we can make these plans work, while we

have within a democracy the tradition of lively debate, let us agree

that the matter of seniors cuts across all of those traditions, all

party lines, all entrenched positions, and that our task is to unite

our society and come through that uniting of our society with a

holistic vision rather than with a division that would contribute to

that which divides us.

This Legislature is perhaps best

understood as sometimes having a family argument. We're talking about

measures that will measure our sense of care and compassion for those

who have nurtured us from the time we came into the world as utterly

dependent beings. We're talking about decisions that will decide for us

the nature of the future family dimension of our province. We're

talking about a vision for tomorrow, that we'll see one day whether the

age of technology is really a facilitator of a developing civilization

that enhances civility or a demonic age in which our ethical and moral

judgment has given way to a pragmatism that will destroy us from

within. I am calling on us to take a look at the longitudinal view of

our actions and to ask ourselves if those actions which are sometimes

viewed on a very short space of twelve months are actions that, while

they may in terms of bottom-line thinking appear to be right on, in

terms of the costs that can be caused by unsound social policy, could

be very costly for our society in the long run.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

In response to the member's comments, I can say right at the outset

that I agree with virtually everything he has said. I guess nobody

appreciates seniors in this House more than anyone else, but we always

tend to get the feeling that only over there do they care for people

who, in his words, are parents and grandparents. I am very much aware

of my parents and grandparents, Mr. Member, but I thank you for

pointing that out.

We as a society, someone has said, will

be judged in the future by the way we treat our seniors and by the way

we treat the less privileged, and I sincerely hope that is correct. I

hope that we are judged by the way we treat our seniors and those less

fortunate than ourselves, because I am very proud of the record of this

government when it comes to the services we provide for those people

who are pioneers and for those who, through no fault of their own,

happen to be less fortunate than most of us sitting in this chamber.

don't believe, as the member said, that seniors are isolated and pushed

off to the margins of society. I'll tell you why I don't believe that.

I stay pretty close to the seniors in my constituency. I can only speak

from personal knowledge, as most of us can, having close dealings with

the people in our own constituency. The seniors in the constituency of

Kamloops-North Thompson are extremely well looked after. They let me

know — and I'm glad they do — when they're not well looked after; they

give me a call if they have a problem. We have senior citizen

counsellors that we send out if they do have a problem, and I'm sure

many of them are familiar with their peers going out and explaining

some of the complicated bookwork that goes on between federal,

provincial and municipal governments.

But beyond that,

they're very well provided for, I'm pleased to say. They have many

centres throughout the province that they drop into. I know that the

one in Kamloops, which we funded, I think, to a total of about $100,000

to reduce their mortgage, is well used. I drop in when I can and help

them participate in their activities. We provide special transportation

for them throughout my community — and I'm sure they do in everyone else's —

with special buses. But beyond that, the families of these people are

there constantly, and that's the way it should be. Government cannot

take over all of the services that should be provided to seniors. For

those seniors in my constituency who don't have a family close by,

there are many volunteer organizations that are at the senior citizens'

places constantly looking after them, taking them places, entertaining

them, doing their hair, providing for the necessary services that maybe

they just can't do for themselves.

So I don't think, Mr.

Member, to quote you, that seniors are pushed to isolated margins of

our existence. I don't understand what you mean by that. Seniors are

very much in the mainstream of our lives, and so they should be.

[ Page 316 ]

I don't

think, again to quote you, that we cause any unnecessary stress for

seniors. If unnecessary stress is caused, I submit to you that it's

caused much of the time by those who would politic on the backs of

seniors and the less fortunate. We see examples every day in this

chamber and subsequently in the media of people politicking on those

who are less fortunate and creating unnecessary stress where stress

does not exist. We don't need alarmists, Mr. Member, and I'm not saying

that you are one, but when you mention unnecessary stress, I can't help

but hearken back to some of the speeches of the last few days that come

from that side of the House — speeches of an alarmist nature to get our senior citizens unduly alarmed and create anxieties that don't need to exist.

I'm not sure what you mean by a longitudinal view of our actions — that's a buzzword that I haven't deciphered yet — but

I think we have a great view into the future of our seniors and the way

they are looked after. I don't think there's a place on this earth, Mr.

Member, where our seniors are better looked after and more highly

regarded and better off than they are in the province of British

Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam will have three minutes to reply.

MR. CASHORE :

Madam Speaker, I think a note of irony has come into our discussion. I

purposely attempted to make my remarks conciliatory and to recognize

that I don't believe that there is one member in this House who is

superior in his or her attitude toward seniors. I still say that. I

also said that on reflection I think that we might benefit by taking a

look at the subject of seniors and asking ourselves how we might come

through that with the best possible decision and perhaps soften some of

our hard and fast feelings about what we consider to be solutions.

think it's very good that there are people in communities who work with

seniors, and we recognize the work that seniors do with one another. I

have concerns when people are pushed to the margins, and I'm talking

about the 160,000 senior British Columbians who live very close to

circumstances of poverty. When we talk about those people, we are not

being alarmist, Madam Speaker; we are talking about flesh and blood

human beings. We are talking about people who are saving the province a

great amount of money by caring for one another and by going to their

treatments and by doing those things that keep themselves out of

hospital.

So when I talk about a longitudinal view, I'm

talking about what may appear to be a saving of money in a one-year

budget. It may appear that way, but when we look at it in a five-year

block of time or a ten-year block of time, it could be very, very

costly, when we consider what has been stated many times as the

excessive costs of health care. So we're talking here about measures

that might in the long run over a long period of time — to try to avoid a buzzword — be very, very costly to all of us. This is the point that I think all of us can agree on.

[11:15]

One final point. I think that there is a very good tradition within

democracy where governments have been seen to have listened to the

voice of the people and softened what had appeared to be hard

positions. I think a very good example would be the Mulroney government

and the issue of the deindexing of pensions. If our government was to

take a similar conciliatory approach on this issue.... It's not a

win-lose situation between government and opposition that we're dealing

with, but it's a win-win situation where all people can benefit,

because we were able to back off and say: "Let's not be accusing each

other of this, that or the other thing, but let's see how we can work

together for those people who nurtured us from the beginning." I'm not

saying that you don't see it that way; I believe you do see it that

way. I'm saying, let's look at how we can work together to try to make

sure that those who are part of our extended family feel that they are

very much the people that we care about.

B.C. TRUCK LOGGING INDUSTRY

MR. RABBITT :

Madam Speaker, today my topic deals with the trucking industry in

British Columbia. I wish to address some of the problems regarding this

industry; problems such as over-regulation by motor carriers,

burdensome licensing and permit procedures, variance in uniformity in

the administration throughout the field and lack of cooperation at

times between government and industry. I believe we require a certain

amount of reregulation and some deregulation, and today I do not wish

to deal with general freight classifications or gravel trucks but

specifically with truck loggers. Earlier this week the second member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) mentioned that truck loggers did not

have an opportunity to obtain public timber or logs under this

government's present policies. This is not so. This was changed last

year by the former Minister of Forests, the hon. member for Omineca

(Mr. Kempf), and these changes resulted in truck operators, along with

other residents of this province, being eligible first of all to

register and then, under the small business program, to bid on small

business sales that are created.

I'd like to address some

of the efficiencies that the truck logging industry has tried to

undertake. They've gone into volume buying, such as fuels, in order to

get good prices. Operators are now buying trucks with larger horsepower

engines in order to reduce cycle times. They're buying larger trailers

to increase net loads. And they work long hours; it's not uncommon for

a truck logger to start at two in the morning and work through to six

in the evening, and then to spend Saturday and Sunday maintaining his

rig. This industry is probably one of the most efficient in this

country, yet even with this efficiency is having difficulty in showing

a profit.

Let me explain further. Government is part of

this inefficiency. In the interior, in the north, almost 100 percent of

all logs are hauled across government-monitored scales. This allows the

government both to monitor and to police load weights. This is done by

mobile scale masters monitoring weigh scales. Penalties are given for

overweight loads, and this is where the breakdown starts. Each

weighmaster interprets regulations in his area of enforcement in his

own way. Penalties are assessed and forgiven sometimes at the

discretion of the enforcer. This is one of the major problems. We must

have an even application of regulations throughout the province.

Truck

loggers do not have the same opportunity as highway haulers to

pre-weigh their load or to shift load weights and stay within legal

axle requirements under our present regulations. These operators depend

solely on mobile scales mounted on their truck and trailer. Under ideal

conditions these scales can operate perfectly, but let me ask you: how

often does a truck logger experience both ideal road and

[ Page

317 ]

weather

conditions? I can tell you, from experience, not too often. These

adverse conditions create a severe maintenance problem. Costs are high —

it's estimated at $16,000 a year per truck. Considering that an

estimated 10,000 logging trucks operate in this province, that's a

large sum of money. And the estimated figure of $160 million does not

include taxes or insurance on this equipment. A majority of these

scales are also imported. Approximately 80 percent of the materials are

imported, which means approximately $48 million a year going out of the

province.

Madam Speaker, we need a new system of monitoring

and creating policy. We need a new policy: a policy that will eliminate

the need for the expensive mobile scales that are presently being used;

a policy that will protect the highways from undue damage; a policy

that will meet the needs of proper monitoring of overweights. We need a

system that still recognizes both summer and winter conditions, which

is similar to our present system, the difference being that the new

system would be based on a combination of bulk size based on

measurement and load-averaging based on weight; a new penalty system

that would constitute a fine, established by regulation of the

overweight loads. The system will require cooperation of truck loggers

and forest industry, using forest scales to monitor and assess

penalties when overweights occur. This would do several things: to the

trucking industry, reduce costs and increase efficiency; to the

government, reduce costs and increase substantial revenue.

know that the Minister of Transportation and Highways is aware of some

of these problems in the industry, and I suggest strongly that he

review my recommendations and take some action as soon as possible.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I thank the member for his comments on this very, very timely subject.

As the member is aware, and as the industry is aware, the ministry is

giving consideration to bringing in a new bill having a great deal of

effect on the trucking industry in the province of British Columbia,

both intraprovincial and extraprovincial. I certainly agree with the

member when he talks about the lack of cooperation that has sometimes

existed between private sector truckers and perhaps the inspectors and

other members of the ministry. It has been my thrust since becoming

Minister of Transportation and Highways to do . . . .

MR. LOVICK : Point of order. I suspect, Madam Speaker, that you didn't see me rise. I understand — and I'm asking for clarification from the Speaker —

that the procedure we had agreed upon was that a person from one side

of the House would make a statement and then the other side of the

House would have the first opportunity to respond. Is that not the

case, Madam Speaker? I say that without rancour; it's simply because I

think we need to be mindful of procedure for future reference.

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

The point of order is well taken. The second member for Nanaimo will

have the full five minutes. I'm sorry, Mr. Minister; it's my fault.

MR. LOVICK : I suspect I shan't take the full five minutes. My colleague

the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) is our Transportation critic.

He asked me, if I would, to pay special attention to the statement regarding

the trucking industry from the member for Yale-Lillooet and perhaps offer just

a few comments about it. So if I may, I shall.

I'm

delighted to see that this is not a return to an old policy called

deregulation; rather, that the member is talking about improving and

tightening up regulations, to serve the interests of all the parties

better. I hope that is indeed the case, because the experience that we

have had with deregulation, primarily in the jurisdiction of the United

States, would certainly lead us to believe that that is not an avenue

we should pursue. Some of you perhaps saw recently on television, on

that well-known and popular American program, " 60 Minutes," an

investigation of what happened in the state of Tennessee when they

allowed complete deregulation for that particular transportation

industry. The problem was a crisis in safety, simply because people

were scrambling so very hard to make an honest living in the trucking

industry that they had to cut comers. That's what deregulation had done.

The

reason I am reminded of that is that I heard the member for

Yale-Lillooet talking about moves to greater efficiency within the

trucking industry, and one of the points he used was the long hours

spent by truck loggers. I fear that that is indeed a danger signal. If

people are in fact starting at two in the morning and working right

around the clock till six in the evening, or whatever it was you said,

I suspect that is dangerous. It is certainly a practice we ought to be

mindful of and try to discourage. Obviously, we want to see the

trucking industry thrive, but clearly we don't want to see it thrive on

the basis of casualties to the general public as well as the

participants.

I think, beyond that, Madam Speaker, I would

simply draw attention to two points. My information is that the B.C.

Motor Transport Association has indeed said: "We are not looking

favourably towards a policy of deregulation. However, we do" — the association, that is —

"recognize that there are means and ways to improve and tighten up the

system for greater efficiency and service to all concerned." As well, I

would just like the House to be reminded of the fact that the former

Premier of the province, William Richards Bennett, stated very clearly

that his government would not look toward deregulation of the industry.

I sincerely hope that that policy is still in fact the policy of the

current government; and perhaps the Minister of Transportation and

Highways could reaffirm that now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : I'd just like to make it clear that this procedure is apparently not acceptable. But I'd like you to make your comments brief.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Just very briefly, Madam Speaker, the minister is very much aware of

what the member has said about some of the problems in the industry.

There will be legislation forthcoming. We are doing everything that we

can in the area of service to the private sector, to the people and to

truckers throughout the province. We are emphasizing work with the

industry whenever possible. We will be following through, once the

legislation is brought forward, with new regulations, new rules and new

policies, and attempting to streamline and make the services of the

ministry as fair and equitable as we possibly can. I recognize that

there are some very long delays and some inequities that have happened,

indeed, since my term in office as the Minister of Transportation and

Highways, and I can tell you that I am addressing each and every

complaint personally in an attempt to straighten out the inequities

that have existed in the past. AndI would appeal to all members of the House: if they have

[ Page 318 ]

complaints

from the trucking industry where they feel they have not been treated

equitably, please put those complaints in writing and direct them

straight to the attention to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways, and I assure you, without any equivocations, that they will

be investigated thoroughly and, if justified, necessary corrective

action will be taken.

MR. RABBITT : Madam Speaker, a clarification first of all on the point of order. I heard earlier — approximately an hour ago —

from the House Leader of the opposition that he was requesting that the

ministers respond to arguments put forward by individuals from his side

of the House. I would like that same right, to have a minister reply

and have the answer on record in this House. I want the same right as

the individual over there does.

[11:30]

To go on, rereg and dereg are two areas that have to be addressed by

the entire trucking industry, and I know that the minister has been

east on travels with regard to this area. I do not feel that we should

maintain the old boys' club. I think, in the logging industry

especially, that we want to make sure that the rules are equal for all;

we want to make sure that safety is the one rule above all that is

accepted. The inspections that are being done now will allow for a

certain amount of reregging within the industry and will see that

safety is kept at the highest level.

There have been

various accidents throughout the industry and throughout North America

in the last few years. It has made things such as insurance difficult

for loggers; it has made it very expensive. The logging industry and

the trucking industry encourage the government safety program and wish

to work wholeheartedly with it. And I don't think that the remarks made

by the member have a direct effect on the logging industry as the

regulations pertain today. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, just on a point of order, for clarification. In the

standing orders,

section 25A, it does say that the proponent shall be

allowed a maximum of seven minutes; then any other members, five

minutes; then the proponent in reply. There seems to have been some

confusion here today, so just for the record, and since I am government

House Leader today, I want to clear it up for all members on this side

and the other side that the intent was to hear the minister's response

to whatever member spoke. The opposition House Leader and I have had a

brief chat, and I agree with him that the opposition should have a

chance when it's a government member statement. So just for the record,

Mr. Speaker, the two House Leaders, I think, and possibly the two

Whips, can get together early next week and work this out so there's no

more confusion. Because I think the intent is clear even though the

wording is vague.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Just before recognizing the opposition House Leader, I'd like to add for the record that the order is, to my mind —

and I don't say this to put anybody down, but it seems quite clear to

me . . . . That's the way I thought the order reads, the way I

administered it at the first speaker this afternoon. However, just

because that pertains as far as I'm concerned doesn't necessarily mean

that it's correct or right, so, as suggested by the minister, I will

undertake to have this looked into and would hope that we can clarify

it and would have no problems down the road. Because this is something

that was brought in for the express purpose of allowing members,

regardless of where they sit in this House, to stand and make a

statement on things that they think are very important not only to them

and not only to maybe their constituencies but to everyone in the

province.

It was never assumed when we brought this into

being that it was absolutely compulsory that any particular person

would stand up. But it was assumed, I suppose, that if the opposition

were making the statement, it would seem reasonable that somebody on

the other side of the House would have something to say in response.

But

as I say, we will take this under consideration and have a look at it

at the beginning of next week and try to sort out any ambiguities that

might exist in the order.

MR. ROSE : I would like to

reassure the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) that the

motive of this rule, which has not been in very long — it is a result of some work done about two years ago under the able chairmanship of the current acting Speaker —

was to give back-benchers on both sides of the House an opportunity to

bring up things of concern to them. It might be a dangerous

intersection, roads or ditches or lofty concerns of the future of our

nation and Canadian federalism. It didn't matter.

One of

the things that we did want, especially from this side of the House . .

. . When we raised a point, we were very grateful when the minister

could come in and respond to that point. Then there was to be a

rebuttal from, as it says under (c), the proponent — in other words, the person who raised the matter in the first place.

you interpret the rule strictly, on the government side it would mean

that no opposition member would have a chance, because if the proponent

took seven minutes, and we heard from the minister, who is another

member — he really isn't; he's a minister, but he was a member first .

. . . We're quarreling with

definitions, and we don't want to do that.

I think the intention was — and I was involved in this — that we have a

debate. So if the proponent is on the government side, and we want the

government minister, there should be some provision for someone from

the opposite side of the House to participate in the debate as well, or

else it's not a debate. It could be a love-in on that side, you know,

every Friday morning — marshmallow questions. The minister wants to

make a statement, and we're ruled out of it. So we wouldn't want that.

You know, love-ins are fine, but they perhaps have no place in this

Legislature.

So I think it is a good idea that we have

another look at this rule, and I think one thing it does indicate is

how difficult it is to draft something with the noblest of intentions,

and that is why we pay all this high-priced money to lawyers to do

those things.

So I agree with the acting House Leader and

the acting Speaker that we should really have a look at this, because

we want it to work, and we want it to be a debate, and we want it to be

fair.

MR. REE : Earlier this morning the first member

for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) filed a report as Chairman of the

Special Committee of Selection of this House. Mr. Speaker, the report

included all of the committees that were set on March 9, except for

that of Public Accounts.

[ Page

319 ]

I would ask leave that this report be reported in total in Hansard and Journals of the House.

Leave granted. [See appendix. ]

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. SERWA :

Mr. Speaker, further to yesterday's comments, ours is a government

which is committed to serving all British Columbians. We are prepared

to listen to their ideas and act on their needs in a fiscally

responsible manner. I would like to summarize the key points which I

believe most demonstrate our concerns for British Columbia's economic

future.

Firstly, we recognize that tourism is a growth

industry, and we have committed $15 million additionally for marketing.

An effective marketing program will generate excitement about all parts

of our beautiful province.

Secondly, economic

diversification is essential to the future of our province. Up to $10

million is being made available to the Ministry of Economic Development

to assist in economic diversification. This will help prepare us to

meet the needs and challenges of the twenty-first century.

Thirdly,

we recognize the importance of our educational system. The Ministry of

Education's budget has been increased by 11.3 percent. Funding for

colleges, institutes, universities and distance education will rise by

$38.4 million or 5.8 percent. This renewed commitment to education is

but one example of our government's concern for the well-being of all

British Columbians.

Finally, I would like to commend the

Premier and the Minister of Finance, along with their staffs, for the

forethought and effort put into producing this fine budget. This budget

is a blueprint for a more prosperous and dynamic British Columbia. We

are a free enterprise government, and this budget demonstrates our

commitment to establishing a positive climate for investing in this

province.

We will continue to consult with all levels of

government, with labour and management, and with all British

Columbians. Consultation and cooperation are already leading to a more

positive atmosphere in this province. It is our responsibility as

legislators to set an example in this House by working together.

MS. EDWARDS :

Today I want to speak on one of the areas that I have been assigned to

watch as debate leader, and that is the area of women in small

business. Certainly this budget shows that the Minister of Finance sees

some real position in our economy for small business. As a matter of

fact, on page 85 of the budget it says "small business has been and

will continue to be the major source of new job creation." Well, if we

put that together with what we know and have learned recently about the

place of women in small business, we discover a few interesting facts

and a very clear picture of where women are in the case of small

business.

The 1981 census showed that women headed 29

percent of unincorporated businesses in Canada, and that was going up

very fast. It went up from only 11 percent in 1964, so it was on the

move even in 1981. What the census also showed us was that 47 percent

of women-owned businesses were in the service industries, 25 percent of

those businesses were in trade, 16 percent were in agriculture and 12

percent in other areas. It showed us some other interesting things. It

said that generally women's small businesses were less profitable than

those that were run by men, and that, of the 142,000 businesses — that's the 29 percent — 44 percent had taxable income. That, of course, leaves us with 56 percent that have no taxable income.

Now

there was a difference, too, with these businesses as to whether women

were sole proprietors or whether they were in fact employers of paid

help. As sole proprietors, 93 percent of those businesses made less

than $25,000; that was in 1981 dollars. Only 7 percent made more than

$25,000; that compares to the figures for males of 76 percent and 24

percent. If they employed help, 87 percent of women still made less

than $25,000 per year from their business, and only 13 percent made

more than $25,000 a year. The average earnings for an unincorporated

business run by a woman was $7,595 compared to $14,908 for a business

that was run by a man. That's a bit dry, but what it shows is that more

and more women are getting into business; they weren't making a lot of

money at it.

By 1985 the Canadian Federation of Independent

Business did some work, and they discovered that women hadn't been

discouraged by this phenomenon; that in fact they were starting small

businesses at a rate three times that of men; and that their survival

rate in small businesses was much greater.

In 1984, 75,000

new businesses were started in Canada, and two-thirds of them were

owned by women. Of the new businesses, only 25 percent of men's

businesses survived three years; 47 percent of women's businesses did.

Now they also gave some speculation as to why that was so, but I don't

think that's as important right here as some of the other facts.

They

also discovered that women were very large in the management of small

businesses, whether they owned them or not. They also discovered that

in finding start-up capital, married women were three times more

successful than single women; all of them were far less able to do so

than men. This study in particular also said that seven out of ten new

jobs in Canada were created by small business, and therefore women were

creating far more new jobs than anyone else in Canada, including men,

governments or whatever, and so on and so forth.

[11:45]

Now

the B.C. Women's Programs did a survey of women in small business in

April 1986, and this showed that a business owned by a woman is most

likely to be a sole proprietorship in the service industry, operated

out of rented premises and grossing less than $49,000 a year. Nearly

half of the businesses surveyed consisted of the owner and employed no

other persons. Most of the rest employ no more than three persons. They

found that married women start their own businesses at a rate three

times that of divorced or separated women and approximately only one in

six is single. Nearly 40 percent of business women surveyed . . . .

This is an interesting statistic, because it indicates some of the

needs that we have and that I'm hoping will be addressed. Nearly 40

percent of the businesswomen surveyed have a college diploma or

certificate or a university degree. That 40 percent compares with that

same criterion — in other words, women with certificates, diplomas or degrees — in the general population of only 33 percent.

Another

interesting statistic is that 73 percent of these women finance their

businesses from personal savings. Married women, as we said before, who

had better access to capital, might have some borrowings, but they

would simply supplement their personal savings. In fact, most women in

[ Page 320 ]

business use their personal savings to finance those businesses.

There

were a couple of other findings put forward by the Canadian Federation

of Independent Business since then. Almost 61 percent of women

business-owners perceived that obtaining capital is the greatest unmet

need of women business-owners in British Columbia. The one single

problem most frequently encountered at the startup of their businesses

was difficulty in accessing financing. So this problem has been coming

up again and again for women in business.

But what we do

see is that women are creating the jobs that are being created by small

business. Everybody recognizes that small business is the employment

generator that is being depended upon to create a lot of the employment

that is to come in British Columbia, and women are doing that twice as

often as men. The employment growth rate, as I say, is three times the

rate of the national employment growth rate in small business. We know

that women are creating the jobs three to one. We know that

three-quarters of the small jobs come from new firms, the ones less

than five years old, and we know that the new businesses is where the

women are coming in. They weren't doing it so frequently a little while

ago.

We know that 47 percent of women's businesses are in

the service industry. It's interesting again to look at the budget and

see on page 15 that most of the job growth in British Columbia has been

and is likely to continue to be in the service sector, where three out

of every four workers are now employed. I believe the Minister of

Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) repeated that this

morning in one of his responses.

We should have a situation

where women in small business are doing well. They should be recognized

by this budget as a segment of society that is going to do some of the

work that needs to be done — in other words, creating jobs — and

everything should be well, one would think; that business-owning women

should be in a good position to benefit from the budget. They are doing

what the government wants, creating small business in the service

industry, and they should be able to look for a congenial budget. The

question then is: did they find that the budget was congenial to them?

The answer, unfortunately, is that they found that the budget was not

particularly congenial to them. In fact, there is one area where it's

particularly difficult for them to go ahead.

The budget

increased taxation for small business by 37.5 percent, bringing the

total provincial-federal income tax rate to 26 percent for small

business. This is if a small company has incorporated. This 26 percent

is now based on a small business rate of 11 percent, the highest in

Canada. One of the interesting things that we have to remember, because

we are neighbours of the province of Alberta, is that the small

business rate for Alberta companies is 5 percent. That means that many

people could incorporate in Alberta and conduct business in British

Columbia. It might be more economical for them to do so, with a 5

percent rate versus an 11 percent rate for British Columbia.

Remember that these are the women who take very little from their businesses — $16,000 is the average of what they took out in British Columbia during the growth years of the business —

and they are now going to have to pay 11 percent, up to $480, to the

provincial government, which says it wants jobs created. What that

means too is that these women get their money from personal funds. They

are not able easily to go to the bank or to other credit corporations

and get credit.

This is the major problem for the major

people in the small business segment of the service industry today:

they cannot get easy access to credit. So where are they going to get

the money they would reinvest in their small businesses? One would

assume that they would get it from the earnings of the business.

Instead of that, the budget attacks them with another 3 percent

increase, which means an overall increase of 37.5 percent in what they

will be paying — this increase of taxes for corporations.

That

will do nothing but depress the ability of these businesses to employ

people. That, of course, is if they have incorporated their small

businesses. If they don't, they are now hit with personal income taxes,

which are also increased. The minister says that by putting on this

increase in the small business tax he is hoping to prevent some

incorporations that would otherwise happen. So one assumes that he is

hoping to collect the small business tax rather than the personal tax.

Whatever it is, he is going to get more tax money out of these owners

of small businesses, and take away that particular pool of money that

could be put back into small businesses in the service industry that

would be creating jobs — and I don't think anybody is arguing that that is where the jobs are created.

has done several other things in the budget that are not going to help;

in fact, they are going to be counterproductive to creating jobs in the

small business sector. He has taken away the program that gave

assistance to employ and train people for small business. I believe

that program went in about two years ago. That is now ended. He has

raised licence fees, ICBC costs, and probably rental costs for things

that a small business might use. What has he done to offset that? He

has given a 1 percent reduction in the sales tax, which will in fact

create some difference for the small business person. But I think it's

generally being called "no bonanza." The 1 percent off the sales tax

will in no way offset these kinds of extra expenses, the extra taxation

and the extra licence fees that have been put in through the budget.

Instead of offsetting all these problems for the people who are creating the most jobs in the province — the people who are expected, according to the minister's statement, to create the most jobs in the province —

he has not set up any means which will make it easier for them to have

access to capital. Instead, he has reduced the special investment

interest subsidy program, he has reduced low-interest loan assistance,

and he has taken away completely the grant portion of the venture

capital corporations program. Every one of these programs could have

helped a small business owner, particularly those small business owners

who have very great difficulty accessing capital.

course, the minister says these actions will promote "self-reliance."

If I were a small businesswoman in this province, I would take extreme

exception to having the minister decide that he will promote my

self-reliance, after I have proven that I can start a small business

faster than men start small businesses, that we can make businesses

last longer than men can, and that we can survive on much lower wages

that we take out of the business — whether or not we're the sole

wage-earner. These women have faced up to bank managers and commercial

credit loan managers, and have had to grasp the bucks from their very

hands, if you like. They have, more than the average group of British

Columbia women, earned diplomas and certificates and degrees from

institutions, often facing the kind of difficulties that most men do

not face, because they have often had to get their education

[ Page 321 ]

part-time,

to go without being able to get any financial assistance and sometimes

to deal with the problems of child care while they go to school. They

have had the difficulty of getting summer jobs, which is far more

difficult for a woman than it is for a man.

Many of these

women have also wrestled to the ground, if you like, family care

problems in order to be in business. Remember, I said that there are

more married women in small business than there are single women. Most

of them — five out of six of them — are married or have been married at

some time or another. We all know that the studies are showing that

women still carry the major part of the load for the housework and

child care that is done. That is not a matter of complaint, but is a

matter to show that these women have self-reliance. They do not need to

have their self-reliance promoted by measures that work against their

getting access to capital.

The minister knew, I imagine,

that these women's problems were there, because he expects very

clearly, as I read a moment ago, that the service industry would create

three out of four of the new jobs that were to be created in British

Columbia. He said that the growth, unfortunately, of the service

industry . . . . When he went a little further into it and after having

said he expects the growth to be there, he then said on page 56 of the

budget that the growth will be less than 1 percent in the service

industry. He has said that there will be no change in the retail and

wholesale trade. Well, Mr. Speaker, if I may go back to the statistic

that is fairly solid — and actually the Canadian statistic is 47 percent of women's businesses are in the service industry and 25 in trade —

in British Columbia's statistics that were found by the women's

programs survey done just last year, 82 percent of women in British

Columbia owned businesses in the service industry — the ones that have been creating the jobs — and so they face the probability that there will be very little or no growth in those industries.

[12:00]

No wonder that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said

they were hoodwinked and hammered by this budget, that they were in

fact insulted by the budget. But this is not just a problem for small

business, and it's not just a problem for women, because when small

business is discouraged, as I said, then there is not the growth in

employment that small business usually creates. Remember, it's seven

out of ten jobs in Canada that, it has been found, are created by small

business. So that means that in fact the whole province is suffering

for the lack of encouragement and support for this sector of the small

business industry.

The consensus in general is that there

is nothing in the budget to encourage the growth of the economy. If in

fact the minister wants to go back to this small business sector and to

this whole employment generator that he has indicated that he

recognizes, I would ask the minister to take at least three steps to

offset the impending damage that could come from dampening small

business activity.

I would ask him first of all to remove

the 3 percent increase to the business tax. Even if he takes off the 3

percent increase to the business tax, we will still have a high

business tax compared to Alberta. I come from one of those

constituencies that border Alberta. Believe me, I know that people who

have that kind of difference will go and incorporate their small

businesses in Alberta. We don't need that. We do need some encouragement — and that kind of discouragement works even double — to the people in the small business area; we need to help them have access to capital.

Besides

that, I would hope that the Minister of Finance in his budget would....

And I'm not sure, because we're not quite sure where all the money is

going in the Education budget, but we have to hope that in fact the

access for women to quality education will be improved. It has been

clearly shown that it's the more highly educated women who go into

small business. If in fact we want more women to go into small business

and to create the jobs that they may be able to do if they got access

to capital, then in fact we need to make sure that they don't have to

deal with these problems that afflict women students. Many women, for

some of the reasons I've already stated, when they attend

post-secondary institutions have to attend on a part-time basis. Many

of the rules do not allow support for part-time students. We have to

see that these women have access to the best-quality education, and not

just the occasional night course that they can grab on the fly. Too

much of that is being offered now, and it isn't the quality education

that is given in the institutions with planned and thought-out programs.

The

third thing I would like the minister to do is to extend the available

quality day care. If in fact we want these women to be able to spend

their time managing these businesses, doing something that they do very

well, doing something that is going to be very good for the whole

province, we need to know that quality day care is available for them,

and that it is accessible in every community throughout the province.

The prediction is that women, by the end of the decade — certainly by the year 2000 —

will own half of the small businesses not just in British Columbia but

in the whole country. That indicates that we will have even more jobs

created if that happens. But we need to have that happen. We need to

encourage women in small business, where they're obviously useful and

successful participants. We have to let them continue to create the

seven out of every ten new jobs that are created in the country; that

would be an investment in people.

MR. CHALMERS : I am

pleased to rise again, Mr. Speaker, to add to my participation in the

debate on the budget. I had the opportunity to begin my remarks

yesterday and was interrupted a number of times — and quite justifiably

so, I was told later. If I appeared to be acting as though I was a

little short of knowing what I was doing, it's only because that was

true. I would like to thank the House Leader for the opposition and the

members present for the gentleness with which they treated me yesterday

while rising to the point of order.

The time has come for

me to get back to my comments. When I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker, I

was talking about the fact that I was very pleased that the Minister of

Finance ... on the job that he had done in putting the budget together.

I know the amount of work that the minister went through, and all the

people on his staff, to put the budget together, and I commend them for

that.

I was saying as well that I'm very proud to be part

of the Social Credit government, because it is a government that cares

about the people. That's been clearly demonstrated over the years. That

is why in every election, save and except one, since 1952 the people of

British Columbia have continued to elect Social Credit governments. I

think that's something that will continue for a long time in the future.

[ Page 322 ]

I was

talking briefly, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that the Social Credit

government is listening to local governments. We know that the best

government is the government that's closest to the people. Those people

on the front lines in the municipalities and the regional districts

know how to identify the problems in their local areas and how best to

deal with them. So we in this government are going to do our best to

see that decentralization takes place wherever it makes sense to do

that.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

The Minister of

Finance touched on a problem, when giving his budget speech, of how

municipalities and regional districts and, for that matter, small

businesses and large businesses all over this province are having

increasingly more difficulty in obtaining liability insurance. So we in

this government are going to be working with the Union of British

Columbia Municipalities to pursue self-insurance options for the

communities of this province, so the taxpayers are not burdened with

the increasingly outrageous cost of liability insurance, or in some

cases not even able to find adequate insurance.

We've heard

a lot about education. I firmly believe that we on this side of the

House are most concerned about education and doing all that is possible

within the framework of living within the budget in British Columbia,

and we'll continue to work to that end.

We're moving from

an industrial age to an information age, and the House Leader for the

opposition touched on this in his remarks earlier today. It's for that

reason that we will encourage new knowledge, skills and ideas in order

to build a strong economic future for British Columbia. Our educational

system will be ready to meet the needs of tomorrow. Our province offers

excellent public schools, independent schools, colleges, institutes,

universities, a world-class distant education system and a variety of

private post-secondary institutions. The variety and quality of

programs and facilities available allow our children to pursue their

education goals for the future, whether they live in my constituency of

Okanagan South or in Atlin.

Our government recognizes the

importance of our educational system, and I'm pleased that the Minister

of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) will receive an 11.3 percent increase

during the 1987-88 fiscal year. The provincial contribution to public

schools has been increased by $87.1 million — or 13.5 percent — to

$732.4 million. Of that, $42 million will go towards basic school

operating budgets; the remaining $44.8 million will go to offset the

reduction in non-residential property taxes due to a three-year

phase-in of the tax rate deductions. A further $40 million will be made

available to fund special initiatives for schools. These funds can be

used to develop new programs and to modify others, to ensure that our

young people are prepared to meet the demands of the future.

Many

of our young people will go on to attend our fine post-secondary

institutions. I know that the people in Okanagan South consider

themselves very fortunate indeed to have a fine post-secondary

institution like Okanagan College located within their constituency.

We've had talk in the last couple of days of how the schools are not

meeting the needs of the young people, but I know that in our riding

Okanagan College is working very hard and working closely with the

business community to ensure that the people who are going through

courses come out with the skills needed to match the jobs being made

available in the workforce today. Okanagan College offers our children

excellent programs and has a dedicated teaching staff, and I'd like to

see its role expanded so that our young people have a greater

opportunity to complete their studies without leaving home.

want our post-secondary institutions to offer the quality education

programs which our young people will need to meet the challenges of the

future. So I'm pleased that the funding will be increased by $38.4

million so that our advanced educational system can meet the cost

pressures and the higher expenses caused by enrolment increases.

Another $27 million will be allocated for special advanced education

initiatives.

It's essential that our young people,

particularly those from rural areas, are not stopped from attending

post-secondary institutions as a result of financial barriers or

geographic locality. Some students complete their education with

significant personal debt, and I'm pleased that the base funding for

student assistance will rise by 51 percent, or $8.9 million. This

program will be a combination of loans and grants which will limit the

debt incurred by students who want to pursue an education. I strongly

support the government's plans to provide incentives for part-time and

summer jobs for students, because I know that our young people want to

pay their own way.

Our province has some excellent

independent schools, and we feel that parents should have the choice of

sending their children to either public or private schools. In Okanagan

South, for example, we have the Kelowna Christian School, the Kelowna

Waldorf school, St. Joseph's School and Immaculata High School — all

excellent facilities giving first-class education to our young people.

And these are affordable alternatives for parents. Our government has

been providing up to 30 percent of the average per-student operating

cost for children attending qualifying independent schools. I'm pleased

that this basic grant will be increased from 30 to 35 percent of public

school costs. Total funding to independent schools will be $41 million

next year, with an additional $2 million for special initiatives.

This

government recognizes that the last few years have been difficult for

families who depend on government for financial support, and we have

made assistance for disadvantaged a major priority. Disabled British

Columbians and their families are very happy with the budget's

provision for extra money for special services and job training. For

instance, the Ministry of Social Services and Housing is increasing

funding to services for disabled by 15 percent, to $147.7 million — a

$19.7 million increase. The money will go to help parents care for

disabled infants, to integrate disabled children into regular day-care

centres and schools, and to provide job training and community

placements for disabled adults. This is a clear indication that our

government has been listening to the people of British Columbia and

cares enough to do something about their special needs.

am very pleased that the budget also provides another $7.8 million for

foster care, specialized care for children, help for families with

children with behavioural problems and encouragement for adoption of

children with special needs.

The GAIN allowances for

families and single parents will be increased by 5 percent effective

June 1, with a further increase of 5 percent on December 1, 1987. The

shelter allowance under GAIN was raised 4.7 percent last October,

[ Page 323 ]

and

will be further raised on December 1 by an average of 6 percent. We in

government realize that providing these families with financial

assistance is not enough. We realize that people on financial

assistance want to escape from their financial difficulties. They want

to get back into the workforce. Our government will make it easier for

single parents to return to the workforce, and they will do this by

increasing funding for day-care assistance by 30 percent, to $26.7

million. Many single parents are women, Madam Speaker, and I believe

this is a strong and long-needed measure to help the women of British

Columbia.

JobTrac is but one example of a government

program which helps people help themselves. Since the program was first

announced in May 1986, it has assisted people looking for jobs and job

training. It has assisted employers by training employees for jobs

which reflect the changing economy. To accomplish this, five different

ministries work together to make sure that we serve those needing help

in the most efficient way possible. I would like to commend this

government for having almost doubled the JobTrac budget to $80.7

million. We recognize that it is sometimes difficult for our young

people to secure their first full-time job or for students to find

practical work experience related to their career choice. JobTrac is

one way our government is helping the youth and recent graduates. Some

$50.6 million of the JobTrac funds will be used to help income

assistance recipients in B.C. get and keep jobs by providing wage

subsidies and other programs.

[12:15]

I'd like to say a few words about our health care system. I'm very

pleased that the funding for the Ministry of Health will be increased

by $237 million next year, or 8.1 percent over the current year's

budget.

Our hospital system is facing increasing pressure

as costs increase and as rapidly changing technology quickly makes

expensive equipment obsolete. This is in evidence in the Kelowna

General Hospital in my riding, where there is an increasing demand for

services because the quality of health care provided at that hospital

is attracting patients from throughout the interior. There is a high

demand for beds, and I will continue to be consulting with the Minister

of Health to ensure that the future needs will indeed be met.

This

budget is clearly a carefully and responsibly developed plan for B.C.'s

future. Not only have we protected health, education and social

services in this province, but we've also increased our expenditures in

each of these areas, all within the context of reducing our deficit.

It's

always a major challenge to hold the line on our deficit while

maintaining and in fact improving essential health, education and

social services. It's a challenge that most other governments

throughout this country have talked about but are unwilling to meet.

The easy route for the Minister of Finance would have been to let the

deficit increase by a couple of hundred million dollars or so,

providing handouts to some of the more high-profile groups in this

province, and let somebody else worry about reducing the deficit. But

this would have been an irresponsible approach, and this is a

responsible government. We are prepared to face this challenge head-on,

and we are determined to meet it in a responsible way.

are in the process of building a new economy in this province.

Responsible and far-sighted economic development is vital if we are to

become less dependent on external economic and trade factors over which

we have no control.

Our government is providing $3 million for the purpose of stimulating the economy through community economic development.

am pleased that communities in my riding of Okanagan South will be

challenged to use their initiative and establish local industries and

encourage local entrepreneurs. I believe it is important that great

local self-reliance will be encouraged, as well as new positive

thinking about the future of our communities. I know that in our

riding, Madam Speaker, there are many people poised, ready to rise to

that challenge, and I know that's the case throughout this province.

Speaking

of economic development, there are a number of areas of positive growth

in Okanagan South. Building permits in Kelowna alone increased 13.2

percent from 1984 to 1985. There are many projects being built that are

aimed at the senior citizen market. There's all kinds of industrial

growth being planned for our area, and I look forward with great

anticipation to that growth.

Tourism is also a growth

industry in this province, and I support the government's efforts to

promote tourism. We want to keep alive in the minds of the people

around the world the image of British Columbia as a place to have good

times, enjoy beautiful scenery and meet friendly people. This of course

requires good advertising, Madam Speaker, so I'm pleased indeed that

the Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture will be receiving an

extra $15 million for a marketing program. The number of tourists

coming to British Columbia from the Pacific Rim is on the increase. The

creation of a Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism is an important step in

the developing of the potential of the Pacific Rim tourist market. I

intend to work closely with the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and

Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid), the local governments, the business people and

the tourist associations in my riding to make sure that everybody

realizes all of the wonderful things that Okanagan South has to offer.

quite often forget about the culture portion of the Ministry of

Tourism, Recreation and Culture. In Okanagan South we value the

multicultural nature of our constituency. The people who live in the

Okanagan are very special — right, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. REID : Right on!

MR. CHALMERS :

People of all ages from around the world have chosen to make Okanagan

South their home. Each one contributes in their own way to make it a

very special place to live. The largest cultural groups of course are

British, French, German, Dutch, Italian, Scandinavian, Japanese,

Russian and Portuguese. The members of these ethnic groups, and many

others as well, have all chosen to become Canadians and to make their

homes in Okanagan South, and I think they've chosen wisely.

would also like to make special mention of our native Indian people.

They have a rich cultural heritage and a history which adds a valuable

contribution to our community. We look forward to working closely with

them on matters of mutual interest.

So I'd like, Madam

Speaker, at this point to comment that, unlike the opposition, we are

proud to be British Columbians, and that we are optimistic about this

province and its people, and the opportunities that exist and will

continue to emerge in the future.

Interjections.

[ Page 324 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Would the first member for Victoria state his point of order.

MR. G. HANSON :

My point of order, Madam Speaker: the previous speaker impugned the

patriotism and love for British Columbia that members on this side of

the House have, and I would ask him to withdraw that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

Remarks that are unparliamentary relate only to specific members. I

don't believe that's what he meant. But if you'd care to apologize,

hon. member, you're more than welcome to.

MR. CHALMERS : If it came across that way, I'd be happy to....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member.

The Chair now recognizes the second member for Victoria.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE :

Madam Speaker, I commend the second member for Okanagan South (Mr.

Chalmers) for very quickly making an apology to this side of the House.

I think that speaks well for that member.

Interjection.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE : Me? Thin-skinned?

doesn't come naturally to me to give slight rebukes to the government,

but before I get into my discussion of mainly municipal issues, I do

have to take some exception to the Minister of Social Services and

Housing's (Hon. Mr. Richmond'

s) comments this morning, accusing the

opposition of being alarmists. We hear that comment many times from the

government when this side of the House decides, in its wisdom, to

emphasize a particular issue or speak up for average British Columbians

who are being hurt in this kind of budget — average British Columbians

who are struggling to earn a living in this province. Yesterday we were

speaking up for senior citizens in terms of the implications of this

budget; but this morning the minister was saying that we were spreading

alarm by speaking up and highlighting the impact of the budget on

senior citizens. It's unfortunate that that minister wanted to use such

words as " alarmist," because what he's trying to say to this side of

the House and, I guess, to the people of British Columbia is that the

opposition doesn't have a right to speak up for ordinary or average

British Columbians, in this case senior citizens.

Mr.

Speaker, we will continue to speak to the issues that we think are

important. Whether or not we are called alarmists, we won't be scared

off by those kinds of accusations. Never.

I want to start

off on the Municipal Affairs portfolio, for which I am the critic,

commending the government for a couple of things that they are moving

ahead on. I'll start with the commendations.

AN HON. MEMBER : Where are your members?

MR. BLENCOE : It's Friday, Mr. Member. There aren't exactly a lot of members on the other side either.

One

of the things that I'm particularly pleased with is that the government

is finally going to move ahead on dealing with the liability problems

that municipalities face. It's been an ongoing discussion and problem,

and I think every member is aware of the concerns that municipalities

have faced, along with other public and private bodies. We understand

legislation will be introduced in this House.

I'm also

pleased to report that the UBCM, through discussion with this side of

the House on a proposal that was made by me on behalf of my party, is

seriously looking at and I hope will be going ahead with an

insurance-pooling system for municipalities doing their own

self-insurance scheme. We made a proposal perhaps a year and a half ago

to the UBCM on such a concept, and after exhaustive study they will be

going ahead, in my understanding, with that proposal. I think it's a

good idea. It will challenge the private sector a little bit. Sometimes

those insurance companies are very good at statistics, numbers and

everything else, and I'm not convinced that they were having the

problems that they said they were having. So the UBCM and all our

municipalities collectively in the province will be getting together to

take care of their own insurance problems.

I think it is

exciting and innovative. It would also allow them to create a pool of

financial resources for themselves that they could utilize for other

endeavours on their own behalf. I think that's exciting, and we are

certainly going to be very supportive of legislation that enhances that

and legislation, of course, that deals with the liability problems

that, for instance, locally elected officials have at the civic level.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see that the government has decided — we don't know the details yet —

to bring in a fiscal safety net for those communities threatened by the

shutdown or devaluation of their primary industry. If this House

remembers, I certainly have spoken to that problem a number of times

here. Indeed, I made a proposal to the former Minister of Municipal

Affairs about an emergency program of some sort for those communities

facing such horrendous devaluation of properties, the assessments being

dramatically decreased and, of course, in one-industry towns, having a

dramatic impact on the financial capabilities of those communities. I

am pleased to see that the government is going to move ahead on a

program that will help in such circumstances. We will be interested, of

course, to see who is going to pay for such a program, and indeed we'll

be interested to see the details of that proposal. But I am pleased

that the government has decided to address that issue. Many, many small

communities in our province are having severe financial problems, and I

think it is important that the senior level of government be aware of

those problems and be prepared to address them. I wait for the

legislation, or whatever form the policy takes, and if it is

progressive and innovative we will of course support it on this side of

the House.

[12:30]

Mr. Speaker,

there is discussion by the government and certainly by this side of the

House on the whole concept of decentralization for local government. It

is a term that perhaps is used a lot these days and perhaps somewhat

abused. I am not quite sure that all government members really

recognize the full implications of decentralization.

[ Page 325 ]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE : I am prepared to explore all sorts of new ideas, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE : I won't respond.

Decentralization

is a very important topic, extremely important, and I am pleased to see

that the Premier of this province, if hopefully we can hold him at his

word, has changed dramatically. We recall his propensity at one time

for centralization, wanting to take over a number of the traditional

roles of local government. Perhaps he has finally recognized that there

are long-standing traditions within civic government that protect the

autonomy of local government. Indeed, we would like to see an

exhaustive discussion and study by both sides of the House of how we

can see local government take over some of the responsibilities

currently held by the province. In estimates I will go into more detail

on some of the ideas that I have for decentralization, Mr. Speaker; I

won't do that today. But the thing that I will comment upon is that

there is apprehension in local governments about decentralization

Social Credit-style, or discussion of decentralization Social

Credit-style.

We have had some unfortunate examples where services were carried out by the provincial government — I refer to the sheriff services, for example —

which could be called decentralization, but really were dumped onto

local governments; at great expense, I might add. We had that debate in

this House about sheriff services being decentralized and local

governments taking over the responsibility, without the funds, if you

will, for local governments to take up those services.

The

point I'm trying to make is that decentralization of services to local

government must involve a detailed analysis of the financial framework

between municipal and local government. You can't tinker with it. You

can't band-aid it. You can't just say, well, a few things here done by

this ministry we'll just give over to the local governments. What I

suggest is that we have a profound look at the legislative and

constitutional framework surrounding the relationships between local

and civic governments. We really have to take a look at the financial

constraints that local government has faced for years, and what we can

do to enhance their ability to pay for more of the services that we may

wish to give to them. That will take a lot of effort. It will

necessitate our ability to get to the fundamental grass roots of the

financial problems facing local governments.

For instance,

I think we're going to have to start to talk about how local government

can have a greater share in progressive taxes. Can local government,

for instance — I've talked about it in this House before — have a

greater share in the provincial income tax for services that they carry

out currently? Or we may wish to say that the services currently being

done by the provincial government will be done by the local government.

But

if we don't take a fundamental look at the fiscal framework, there will

be apprehension by local government that under the current discussion

of decentralization, services that purportedly could be carried out by

local government.... Local government would be very scared that

they will take over these services without the ability to pay for them.

That's happened in the past. In my discussions with many local

officials after the meeting with the Premier and the Minister of

Municipal Affairs at the premiers' conference — I forget the full title —

on the theme of decentralization, the one thing that came back to me

was the deep apprehension that they were going to be given services

without the ability to pay for them.

In my view, unless we

ensure fiscal security for local government in these discussions and a

fundamental look at how local government is paid for, I don't think

we'll really ever get proper decentralization. We support

decentralization. For example, when we were in government we created

community resource boards — an excellent way of delivering social and

health services. I think they've nearly all gone now under this

government, if they haven't all gone. I know that the former minister

from Little Mountain cancelled the one in James Bay. That's the kind of

thing we want to talk about in terms of decentralization: how can local

communities actually have a greater control over such things as health

and social services, regional economic development; not just to mouth

platitudes that local government can be involved in regional economic

development, but how can they have a greater say or control over the

local resources? How can we, for example, expand the municipalities

being involved in tree-farming, for example? Some of that has been done

on Vancouver Island.

So I guess what I am saying, without

going into any more detail, is that there are exciting opportunities

within the confines of decentralization, Mr. Speaker, but there are

many pitfalls, and there are many things that we are going to have to

work out if we are going to carry it out successfully. I have to say

that from this side of the House we are willing to participate with the

government in those discussions. But again I reiterate that we really

are going to have to take a fundamental look at the fiscal framework,

at the financial constraints the local governments currently face and

may face if we decentralize without the ability to pay for those

services.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move on very quickly to talk about a disappointment

that I had with the budget: no mention of the municipal infrastructure program

that we have talked about in this House many times, that the former mayor of

Vancouver, now a member of this House for the New Democratic Party, talked about;

the municipal infrastructure program that has been endorsed by all provinces

as a way to rebuild our municipalities and create thousands of jobs. My understanding,

if I recall correctly, is that both the Premier and the Minister of Municipal

Affairs said they now endorse the municipal infrastructure program as a good

way to rebuild our municipalities and their services. Unfortunately there was

no mention in the budget of this program, no mention at all of a commitment

by the provincial government to municipal infrastructure.

Basic

services and utilities of local government have been neglected for a

number of years, and I won't go into the reasons. I mentioned many of

them before — the formulas being changed, for example, on the sewer and

storm program, where we used to have a cost-sharing program of 75

percent from the provincial government and 25 percent from the local

government. That formula was changed, and consequently many

municipalities just could not afford to upgrade their services.

need a new cost-sharing approach for our local communities, so they can

get back on their feet. If we can enter into discussion, perhaps within

the committee that was just struck to deal with municipal affairs,

where both sides of the

[ Page 326 ]

House will be participating. Maybe that's something we can discuss — how we can take a look at introducing an innovative municipal infrastructure rebuilding program.

five-year commitment is needed for local government to bring the

essential services up to acceptable standards. I don't think anybody

disagrees with that. All the studies have been done. I have certainly

brought that evidence before my colleagues in this House over the

years. This program, which we feel is something very much missing in

this budget, would create many jobs. It is estimated that 10,000

person-years of employment in construction activity would be created in

the lower mainland alone, never mind in those northern and central

communities that have been desperate for a number of years to get

exciting, innovative employment strategies on the board.

would ask the government to reassess their position in terms of the

municipal infrastructure program and consider very soon looking at at

least starting to rebuild our towns, cities and villages. The UBCM has

called for it many times, and there have been many discussions. The

time is now to act and to get on with the job. So I would ask the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), who is

unfortunately not here today, to seriously consider that, and perhaps

we can have a discussion at the committee of this House on that topic.

AN HON. MEMBER : A waste of time.

MR. BLENCOE :

A waste of time, Mr. Speaker? A member of the government says that

municipal infrastructure is a waste of time. That's unfortunate. It's

most unfortunate that here is one opportunity — a real partnership with local government —

to be able to create thousands and thousands of jobs in the province of

British Columbia. That is the one major flaw in this budget. It does

not talk about job creation today and jobs for today. Here we have a

program that would put people to work immediately, and that has to be

the number one job of this government and of this House.

Mr.

Speaker, I see the time is drawing nigh to a quarter to one, so with

your indulgence I will move adjournment of this debate until the next

sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Just before we adjourn the House today I would like to welcome a group

of students who are visiting to see the parliamentary process in

action, although there wasn't much action. We apologize for not having

a livelier debate. Usually the second member for Victoria is more

lively, so I'm sure that if you'll return to the House the next time he

speaks we'll make it more lively for you. I'm sorry I don't know which

school you're from, but welcome to the Legislature. I wish all members

to bid them welcome.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adj