[ Page 6619 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Wage equity. Ms. Sanford –– 6619

Ms. Brown

Mr. Lauk

Enumeration of voters. Mr. Howard –– 6619

Mr. Lauk

Speech from the Throne

Mr. Ritchie –– 6621

Mr. Segarty –– 6624

Tabling documents

Ministry of Tourism annual report, March 31, 1981.

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 6627

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce to members of the Legislature Compañera Julia Vargas, head of international relations for the Sandinista Trade Union Central in Nicaragua.

Compañera Vargas has been travelling through B.C. as guest of the Pulp, Paper and Wood Workers of Canada to acquaint citizens of this province with activities in Nicaragua and to seek support for the government of reconstruction. Members might also know that there is a ship leaving Vancouver sometime this week which will be taking the second shipment of 17,000 tonnes of Canadian wheat to assist the Nicaraguan government in their Bread for Nicaragua program.

I'd like the members to make welcome Compañera Julia Vargas.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome an old friend of mine from Rossland, Mr. Harry Lefevre, who is in the gallery today. Harry has a long and distinguished career in supervisory capacities in the mining and smelting industry and with School District 11, as well as a distinguished community career in the city of Rossland on city council, in the Rotary Club and on the Chamber of Commerce.

Oral Questions

WAGE EQUITY

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The Premier recently stated that the fight for equal pay for work of equal value must become a cornerstone of Social Credit policy. What steps has the minister taken to implement this change in government policy?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I watched the television clip and saw the Premier make the statement: "Equal pay for equal work." The Premier was very clear in that particular statement.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I presume that when we have a question we wish to hear the answer.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, it's a good thing the minister has a TV. I'm wondering if the minister has decided to instruct the new deputy minister to undertake the implementation of this policy in the government service.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of matters with respect to opportunities for women which we will take under consideration.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, that sounds almost like a threat. My question is directed to the Provincial Secretary. I wonder whether the Provincial Secretary, as the minister responsible for the public service, is going to implement this policy of equal pay for work of equal value in the public service as it affects the clerical staff.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think, as the member is aware, there are opportunities for advancement in the public service report which the ministry and the government have dealt with with some positive actions and are continuing to do so.

MS. BROWN: I wonder whether the Provincial Secretary understood that I was speaking about the Premier's commitment to the concept of equal pay for work of equal value.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Obviously this matter is one of the policy of the government and will be dealt with on that basis.

MR. LAUK: A supplementary to the Provincial Secretary. In the ordinary course of events, the Premier, the first minister, states government policy. Is the Provincial Secretary now stating that the Premier's commitment to equal pay for work of equal value is not government policy?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I think the member has gone about asking the same question which was asked previously in another manner, and it's just a matter of government policy, as has been indicated. I think the question is out of order.

MR. LAUK: It's clear that future policy is out of order. I asked: "Is it now government policy, as stated by the Premier, that the government will make as its comerstone equal pay for work of equal value?" I don't see how the question could be any more precise.

ENUMERATION OF VOTERS

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary. Inasmuch as the Premier has said that there will be an enumeration of voters in this province sometime, and on the assumption that the Premier was reflecting government policy when he made that statement, I wonder if I could ask the Provincial Secretary if he or the person in the ministry in charge of such matters has received any authorization or instructions from the Premier to commence an enumeration of voters.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, it's very clear. The government has announced the policy, both through the Premier in public statements and myself, that there will be an enumeration conducted before any next general election.

MR. HOWARD: I asked the Provincial Secretary if he, the minister in charge of that department under which that activity takes place, has issued any instructions to the registrar of voters to commence the conduct of such an enumeration. Has he issued any instructions to the registrar in that regard?

HON. MR. WOLFE: In answer to the member's question, I can say that I have issued instructions to prepare for such enumeration to provide a plan for such preparation. It's a rather extensive and much involved procedure, and preparation has begun. I've issued instructions to prepare for enumeration.

[ Page 6620 ]

MR. HOWARD: Would the minister tell the House when he gave such instructions to the registrar?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the precise date, but I could get that for the member if he wishes.

MR. HOWARD: Would the minister be prepared to table whatever communication went from him to the registrar of voters with respect to preparing for an enumeration?

MR. SPEAKER: Any further questions? The member for Skeena has a question?

MR. HOWARD: Well, I posed a question. Perhaps the Provincial Secretary didn't hear it. I asked him if he would be prepared to table in this House the communication between himself and the registrar of voters with respect to making preparations for the enumeration of voters.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I have already indicated to the member that I would be prepared to supply him with the date or approximate time of when those instructions were given. I think that should be satisfactory.

MR. HOWARD: It may be satisfactory to the Provincial Secretary to keep such matters secret from public view, but it's certainly not satisfactory to me.

Could the Provincial Secretary tell the House upon what date that enumeration is to commence?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I've taken the original question on notice. I think that should satisfy the member's request.

MR. HOWARD: No, he did not take it on notice, Mr. Speaker. He's just now dreamed that up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I think we're aware of the rules of question period. We can state a question; it is out of order to restate the question in a similar fashion. It is also not the prerogative of any member to insist upon an answer; that is the prerogative of the minister. But we'll proceed.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'm fully aware that the minister need not answer if he does not desire to answer. I'm also aware that it is an obligation to point out to the general public that he is keeping that information confidential from the House.

I ask the Provincial Secretary if he has made any representations to Treasury Board to get approval for the funds necessary to conduct such an enumeration.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, that is a cabinet activity. But I have discussed the matter, I can tell the member, with Treasury Board, and I can say to him — this is the best way I can explain it — that this procedure will be commenced in the near future.

MR. HOWARD: We would be able to find out when that near future is if he'd only table the documents we ask for. I'm sure of that.

I wonder if the Provincial Secretary would mind communicating with the Premier and advising the Premier that he was wrong in spouting out the comment a while ago that the chief electoral officer has this function of enumeration, and tell him that it is in fact the registrar of voters?

MR. LAUK: I have a question to the same minister on the same subject, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate whether or not this enumeration will be commenced and completed before the call of the next general election?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the member would continue to ask that question. I've indicated very clearly earlier that the government has stated very publicly, through the Premier and myself, that such an enumeration will be held before the next general election.

MR. LAUK: Under current rules the enumeration can be started at the call of an election and must end within eight days. That's why I ask the question of the Provincial Secretary. Can he guarantee that the enumeration that we've referred to will be completed before the call of the next general election?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, question period does have a limitation of time.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to be clear on the member's question. In all sincerity he's asking whether such enumeration will be commenced before the call of an election.

MR. LAUK: Completed.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You must understand that this is a procedure that takes a considerable amount of time.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's already been indicated that such an enumeration procedure would take at least six months.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the members may not wish to hear what I would like to explain to them. The actual taking of the names on a door-to-door basis can be done with a fair degree of speed, but it takes a considerable number of months to actually develop the lists after that point in time. I would like to respond to the member if it's clear that that's what he's asking. The answer would be yes, enumeration would be conducted and completed before any future election is called.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it appears that every member seems to take it upon himself, whether or not he has possession of the floor, to speak out in more than just interruption. I would suggest that it is disorderly. It makes it very

[ Page 6621 ]

difficult to run the House. I would ask for the cooperation of members.

MR. LAUK: My question is to the same minister. The minister has confirmed that it will take up to six months, as was indicated by Mr. Goldberg, registrar of voters. The federal government can enumerate the whole country in a maximum of four weeks. Can the minister explain the different…?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think I explained yesterday that it requires a substantial number of people to do this job, and having done so, to do the collating of lists, etc. The equipment necessary to do so is also a consideration. Built into the present system and capability, it will take a considerable period of time. I'm simply giving the information I have in that regard to conduct the obtaining of the names and then to prepare the lists in the proper manner for their use by the registrars across the province.

MR. LAUK: From the nature of the minister's answer I t think that he is undertaking to personally do this, rather than the federal minister who gets staff to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have a question?

MR. LAUK: Is the Provincial Secretary taking steps to bring British Columbia's enumerating procedures up to date?

If so, what steps are being taken — that is, the procedures — so that we can get down to about four weeks instead of six months?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think the member is aware that it has been clearly indicated in the throne speech that legislation will be brought forward to deal with this question: to improve our capability for providing voters'lists and so on. That's a clear indication which we'll have before us in the near future.

MR. LAUK: It is clear from the Election Act in this province that no amendments are necessary, Mr. Speaker. I don't know why the minister raised the question of legislation. The question is the efficiency of his department in dealing with this matter. Federally they don't need legislation to be efficient and do it in four weeks. Why the difference?

The minister must admit it's because of the outdated machinery in place. Does he not agree with that statement?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If there is a question there, does the minister wish to answer?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, these are interesting questions coming from a group which never in their term of office between 1972 and 1975 did one thing about the voters' list. Nor did they conduct any enumeration in this province, amend the act to improve the voters' list system, or attempt to advertise to the people of this province that they had an obligation to come forward so that their names were on the voters' list. They just attempt to stand here today and befuddle the people of this province into thinking we're trying to cook the books or do something that we're not supposed to do.

Mr. Speaker, this is all very good discussion and questions, but these matters will be dealt with in new legislation to provide for an automatic enumeration system in this province so that in future any government will be required to conduct enumeration between elections, not be left to their own whim as to whether they do or don't. Any government is going to be required, ordered, or instructed by the act to conduct an enumeration. That's what we're talking about, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, may I first welcome you back. I do hope you took sufficient time during your summer break to continue your recuperation after your major surgery. I am sure you will apply your own surgical skills to our debate as the time goes on.

Let me also welcome back our Deputy Speaker and all those who serve this House and its honourable members.

Of course, I also extend a welcome back to the opposition members. I'd like to get this in before they all leave, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the government caucus, you're all welcome back.

We hope that the time which all members have had to be with their constituents has given them new perspectives on heir needs, on their hopes and aspirations. We look forward o a lively and, above all, a constructive debate.

My own constituents, I know, have much to say to me, The great constituency of Central Fraser Valley, Mr. Speaker, which you know well, is mainly an agricultural community with a strong small business sector. Our people have many concerns, but they retain a pride in and, above all, a perspective on the quality of life and the fundamental values of family and community. Many are new Canadians and perhaps the majority are but a few generations removed from other lands.

We all experience moments of deep pride throughout our lives. One of my greatest moments of pride was when I first returned, as a new Canadian, to visit the land of my birth, as a new Canadian, to speak proudly of the Canadian sense of adventure — to travel, to learn, to work hard at a job, to take the risks in building a business, all in the spirit of freedom which we Canadians hold so precious.

Like untold thousands of emigrants throughout our great and, with their faith and hard work, Canada has fulfilled our dreams. Let us all keep that perspective as we strive to provide the leadership to keep fulfilling those dreams and the dreams of new generations.

One of those dreams has been a made-in-Canada constitution which would enshrine for all these principles of freedom. All British Columbians, I believe, and particularly all those who are Canadians by choice, join with me today in an expression of thanks to our Premier for his phenomenal efforts in drawing together his fellow Premiers to the accord which will now lead to the patriation of our constitution. Such a moment in history comes only once.

Thanks too is due to our Premier for his valuable leadership role in the recent meeting in Victoria of all Premiers which produced a unanimous agreement on economic-restoration priorities for Canada. That accord has already led to energy agreements which will be a sound base for our future growth and security. That challenge, I hope, will be met.

[ Page 6622 ]

I must say, however, I view with the gravest concern the savage blow to the Canadian initiative which is now apparent from the newest federal budget. Farmers, homeowners, small businessmen and — directly or indirectly — all Canadians are being brutalized by a high-interest policy deliberately pursued by Ottawa. Instead of encouraging the productivity of our people, massive government debt and high interest rates are pushing many of them under.

It's true that economic problems are being felt throughout North America; but that is not a satisfactory answer for having done nothing to protect the homes and the livelihoods of all Canadians. Inaction breeds reaction, as in this case when crowds of ordinary Canadians marched on Parliament Hill to say: "Please do something to help us."

The foresight and initiative of this government have given great numbers of British Columbians a real chance to survive the economic storms that are now blowing around us. Great projects such as northeast coal, B.C. Place, the stadium and light rapid transit are providing and will provide thousands of jobs for our people, but the high-quality benefits of these projects and others go far beyond the job sites.

I know there are doubters, Mr. Speaker, and I ask of them only a simple courtesy. I ask them to go and talk to the working men and women and talk to their families on the job. These initiatives for the people of British Columbia have followed the path of optimism led by our Premier, who has the ability to identify those great untapped opportunities that will build a diverse base for economic development and remove our dependence upon a narrow base of public revenue. While forestry will remain our number one industry, we recognize how sensitive that industry is to international market conditions. So we must renew our efforts to provide the balance and mixed growth which will assure continued prosperity.

One of the best reasons for supporting British Columbia's exciting initiatives is the contribution that we make to all Canadians through strengthening the national economy. As our Premier has often said, economically strong provinces are an integral part of a strong Canada. Economic growth also brings problems. The provision of affordable housing and rental accommodation is an immediate concern, but we can be encouraged by the initiatives planned to correct the housing problems. I'm excited by the special emphasis that will be placed in the area of rent-to-own. How many times have you heard someone say: "I cannot afford to buy; I must rent"? How many times have you heard it said paying rent does nothing towards building equity in a home? For the first time in the history of our province, and possibly Canada, a government with this imaginative approach will remove that concern of never owning a home or building equity in a home, because with this initiative, the first-home buyer will have an option to own without the total loss of dollars paid out in rent.

Mr. Speaker, less government is better government. With continued prudent fiscal management, the privatization of select government activities and a strong commitment to balance our budget year after year will ensure a high standard of essential social programs at the least cost and with minimal government involvement.

Our economic structure is like your bank account. If you continue to withdraw more than you deposit, you're heading for some financial hardship. Such hardship in British Columbia can be avoided if British Columbians strive to keep our production at least equal to our demands. I'm encouraged by the proposed move to expand the mandate of the Ministry of Labour to the Ministry of Labour and Employment. This ministry has a responsibility to all citizens of the province, whether they be unionized or non-union, whether skilled or unskilled, whether male or female. The challenge is to coordinate all job training programs so that all citizens have an equal opportunity to enrich their lives through gainful employment.

Also, as we continue to see reduced enrolment in our schools, and at the same time see job opportunities continuing to expand, the participation of women in many new economic roles is both welcome and needed. So it is very encouraging indeed that our government is also meeting this challenge with the establishment of equal-opportunity targets within government, and full cooperation with labour and business to promote fuller participation of women at all levels in the private sector.

Science and Communications is focusing worldwide attention on our drive to develop first-class research and a new, environmentally sound alternative to gasoline. The world's first methane conference clearly identified our government's leadership on issues that count in the day-to-day lives of our people, and with the superb efforts of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), our energy goals for British Columbians will be reached.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, the most important energy of all, the energy we all live on, comes from food. I am encouraged by the recognition in the throne speech of the vital role which our Ministry of Agriculture and Food plays in our government's development policies. One does not have to look far to see the suffering when food is in a critical short supply. British Columbia has the ability to produce a wide range of foodstuffs — poultry, pork, beef, vegetables, fruit, grain, and so on — because we have in various parts of our province the ideal combinations of essentials for food production. I speak of soils combined with the proper heat and water.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, if you wish I can take a moment at this time and tell you about Panco.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. RITCHIE: Would you like to hear about how you took the freedom away from our growers out there?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member for Central Fraser Valley please come to order? Hon. members, the rules provide that we do not interrupt the member who is making his speech. If the member who is making his speech will continue to address the Chair, it will help the situation greatly. Please proceed.

MR. RITCHIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I go back, into those days in 1973, 1974 and 1975, when I personally experienced how they took away the freedom of our growers out there, I can't help but lose sight of the fact that I am not really following the rules, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for that.

We also have a large and growing market which can be best and most profitably catered to if the skills of the producer, the processor and marketer can be consistently updated and are constantly improved upon through government cooperation in the development of new techniques.

[ Page 6623 ]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note the changes planned by our Attorney-General to help put an end to the slaughter on our highways, by imposing much stiffer penalties on the drinking driver.

Great strides have been made in the past year in people programs, in transportation, in environmental protection, in education and in job training. Our ministers and their staff in those areas deserve our congratulations. In my constituency the new Fraser Valley College campus, increased hospital facilities for acute and extended care and projects such as our Kinghaven Alcohol Rehabilitation Program are but a few examples. It is with a great deal of pride that I, on behalf of over 60,000 constituents from that great constituency of Central Fraser Valley, stand in my place to move the adoption of the throne speech. Mr. Speaker, this is an easy task. It is an easy task because I know the policies of this government are strongly endorsed by the Central Fraser Valley constituency, a community made up predominantly of German and Dutch people — people who have demonstrated over the years their willingness to welcome others to the community irrespective of their nationality. Mr. Speaker, as I stand here today I would say that I am living proof of that.

They are people who for many years now have endorsed the policies of a Social Credit government, and with this healthy mix of ideals have built a very strong community originally from basically an agricultural economy. Today agriculture still rules predominantly as our economic base, but we are fast becoming more diversified as younger generations come along and take advantage of the opportunities created by this government's vigorous and dynamic policies. We are a people, Mr. Speaker, who believe in the least government involvement in our lives. We believe that when possible, government should only create the proper climate for the willing workers or businessmen, and only be involved when it becomes an essential public service. We respect our seniors and will work to protect the needy, but not the greedy, who would cheat them. We believe very strongly in the old work rules — you are entitled to take out no more than you put in. We believe that an economy built on this philosophy is better able to create the wealth that government requires to provide the essentials.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to return to the area of labour, because it is my opinion that our government could do a great deal more to strengthen the position of the working man and woman. I spoke earlier about the fact that we're a nation of immigrants who have come to this land for the opportunity to share, through our labour, in the wealth which can be produced in a free enterprise system. It is time that we made that sharing a very real part of our way of life for working men and women throughout our society.

Our industrialized democracy is still far from being an industrial democracy in which labour is elevated above the standards of a commodity that is bought and sold for a price. I believe that the blind adherence, on both sides of the bargaining table, to the ideas of the thirties has too often held back our society and poisoned and divided many communities needlessly. Labour must recognize the crucial role which profits and productivity play in its well-being, while management must learn to promote and respect the creative potential of its employees, to more fully recognize their very humanity. The belief that labour's gain is always management's loss, or that management's gain is always labour's loss, is a cruel and demeaning hoax which blinds society to the fantastic potential which we all share.

We need not copy Japan and West Germany — our culture is our own — but we cannot afford to fail to learn the lesson underlying their prosperity. Cooperation yields everyone more than confrontation does. Men and women, especially in traditional, unchallenging jobs, want desperately to gain a sense that they matter and are not mere digits, but have ideas o contribute and a say in their destiny. The federal budget has drained away any real opportunity for the average working person to build a sound equity. Therefore, while it was not in the throne speech, I will be recommending to our government a program already proven in the field which greatly enhances productivity, employer-employee relations and security for retirement. Mr. Speaker, we hear our Prime Minister talk about Canadianization. What better way is there to Canadianize our industries than to assist those employees who make our economy tick to become shareholders in their companies.

If it is possible for someone who is off in Toronto or New York to acquire major shareholdings in Canadian industry because of his financial muscle, why shouldn't it be possible for our provincial government, with the cooperation of the federal government, to set these mechanics in place through tax incentives to assist our Canadian workers to own a piece of their companies? Government may put in place all the programs they wish but, believe me, no program is more dynamic and productive than employees benefiting from heir own productivity. There may be some small cost to government initially, but, believe me, those costs come back manyfold because of the dramatic effect employee profit sharing has on the profits of the company and the income of the employee.

Much concern is expressed about the ability of our pension funds to keep up to the demand. What better pension fund is there than retiring with an interest in your company which you have had an opportunity to build while working? Our country would benefit in the world markets if we would move in this direction, because the cost of production drops as the enthusiasm of the employee increases.

Mr. Speaker, this portion of my speech should not cause unionized employees to fear the loss of their bargaining position. An employee-participation program does not make a union obsolete. On the contrary, an employee-participation program fits in extremely well with a union. It would, no doubt, make much of our confrontation between union and management obsolete, but that should be our goal.

I expect that I may hear a few chuckles from some quarters when I state the following: employee-participation programs could be effective in our Crown corporations. Yes, the reduction of losses or subsidies to those corporations means more money in the hands of the taxpayer. So why not share the improved position with the employees? We have already adopted the reward system for government employees who find ways to save the taxpayers' dollars. Extending this principle of employee profit-sharing, or sharing in profit, a reduction of loss through our Crown corporations could enhance both our finances and, more important, Mr. Speaker, the pride in work and achievement of our employees. I intend to exert my energies in promoting employee participation in industry with my government, because I know what pride of ownership can mean to anyone.

In 1968, Mr. Speaker, there was a small company in the Fraser Valley which was on the brink of disaster — bankruptcy. It was purchased by two people who believed in the golden rule: treat others as you would have others treat you.

[ Page 6624 ]

They took over six employees who were grossly underpaid and promised them an opportunity through sharing the profits. Today, I believe, the staff numbers in excess of 30. This company grew to become a major supplier in British Columbia and far eastern markets. Today — 13 years later — the original principal owners have retired, and using the employee profit-sharing and employee equity participation program, sold the company to the employees, who continue to set records. Last year the share of profits ranged from $5,000 and up for each employee — and that's on top of a competitive salary. It is estimated that an employee serving this company from an early age through retirement would retire with an investment of approximately $250,000. That, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, is what you'd call a sound, modern, imaginative type of pension plan.

Mr. Speaker, I don't care where a person has worked or anything else. In my opinion, pension plans of today are obsolete. This, in my opinion, is the way that you can bring these things right up to the modern day stage. This is no fairy tale; this is real. I was the originator with a partner, Mr. Smith, and the company is Ritchie-Smith. It is one of the most dynamic companies involved in the British Columbia feed industry. This was done without government assistance in the marketplace where others were showing losses as great as our gains. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because we cared about our employees and they cared about us.

Just recently I was asked on a radio hotline: "When will the government nationalize the British Columbia Telephone Company?" I said: "Never." Don't get me wrong. I sympathize with the desires of British Columbia Telephone employees, but I believe I have a better way. I say: "Don't socialize the company; capitalize the workers." My friends, even hotels can prosper under this system.

So in recognition of this progress in leadership, I'm therefore proud to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), the following motion: "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session."

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, it's with considerable pride that I stand here today representing the constituency of Kootenay. I feel honoured, Mr. Speaker, to be able to take my place in debate of the throne speech, which the member for Central Fraser Valley just so ably moved. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor outlined the program for the coming year. It addresses itself to alleviating many of the problems that beset the people of British Columbia — many problems, Mr. Speaker, that are not of our making. Action, or the lack of action, on the part of the federal government has a detrimental effect on the citizens of the province of British Columbia. Those problems, Mr. Speaker, require our most serious attention.

I was indeed pleased when our Premier announced, on behalf of the government of British Columbia, his support for the entrenchment of women's rights in the new constitution of Canada. It is a matter of record, unfortunately, when you talk about the plight of women in our society today, that women face such problems as low pay and unequal status in the workplace and society. Women, numerically the majority, form the largest single minority in the nation. Every day they're out there campaigning for pension reform, equal pay, day care for their children and human rights legislation. Our Premier's support for the entrenchment of their rights is a decisive step forward to helping women achieve their goals.

I was pleased to hear His Honour announce in the throne speech the appointment of a deputy minister responsible for women's opportunities under the new Ministry of Labour and Employment. Until now women have always been outside the power structure of government. When, in 1970, the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women was tabled, there was only one woman in the House of Commons. Today there are 14 in the 282-member House of Commons, but there are only two women in the 33-member federal cabinet.

Women are also outside the power structure of the federal public service, the largest employer of women in the country. Although women comprise 34.6 percent of the federal public service, only 3.7 percent are at the senior executive level. In provincial legislatures across Canada the story is even sadder. In all ten provincial legislatures there are only 37 elected women out of a total of 683 members. Only ten of 192 ministerial posts in provincial parliaments across the country are occupied by women.

Women who work during their lives or who never marry usually receive such low wages that their pensions, if any, are too small to save them, when they retire, from need. Only 27 percent of female salaried employees are covered by private pension plans, and most of those employees are women employed in government service or Crown corporations. Both private and public plans' pension benefits are based on the percentage of average earnings. As women's salaries are lower than men's, their benefits are obviously smaller. Plans such as CPP base their benefits on the average earnings over the number of years a worker could have been employed. This does not exclude child-rearing years.

Technological change and microchip technology will replace many jobs traditionally held by women, yet women are still being counselled to train as secretaries. The Institute for Research on Public Policy predicts that up to one million Canadian women will be unemployed by 1990 if they haven't received training in computer technology and other fields. Today women represent over 90 percent of tellers, telephone operators and clerk-typists. Automation is threatening to reduce employment in these occupations by between 30 and 40 percent.

[Mr, Davidson in the chair.]

Although there are an increasing number of women going into medical and law school, there is a depressing lack of entries into non-traditional jobs. Two out of three entries to the workforce by 1990 will be women. Government campaigns to direct women into non-traditional, blue-collar type jobs have intensified over the past few years. There are currently more than 600 women, of the 20,000 women taking industrial training programs, heading for industrial-type jobs or non-traditional jobs. The role of government and educational institutions in adult training programs is critical if we are to address this problem. Education institutions, for example, should establish training programs in engineering and science to encourage women to go into those programs.

When negotiating contracts the trade union movement must ensure that pension plans, health benefits and life insurance plans equally cover both male and female employees. They must work to ensure that adequate facilities are provided, such as change-rooms, washrooms, showers and

[ Page 6625 ]

so on, for working women. A typical example of this situation can be found in Elkford, where Fording Coal now finds it advantageous to hire a wife as well as a husband to work in their open-pit mine. This is less costly for the company, which currently provides a second mortgage of about $20,000 for a family planning to purchase a home and work at their mine in Elkford. It also results in less cost for community services such as schools, hospitals and recreational facilities.

While I have just identified some of the problems facing women in general today, women in the age group from 50 to 65 have some unique problems. Older women in our society are the poorest of the poor. Women who marry and stay at home all of their lives often have no pension benefits, because their husband's pension plan does not include widow's or survivor's benefits. Financial stability may be affected by the sudden change in marital status or by health problems of such magnitude that a steady income is no longer available. Obviously this can dramatically change the individual's lifestyle.

For example, a widow left with a home and some savings could find that after medical, funeral and administration expenses she is left in a very difficult financial situation. And her income is fixed until she is eligible for federal old-age benefits. In her group, even though job training is available, employment opportunities are limited. She is faced with the problem of trying to live on a spouse's pension which probably does not meet the cost of inflation. She is not eligible for old-age security and other financial benefits which are available to those 65 years of age and older. The assets of these women, although marginal, negate the availability of assistance from social agencies such as Pharmacare, OAS, and GIS. If these women have physical disabilities or chronic medical conditions, the cost of appliances, physical aid and other medically related equipment is expensive and soon depletes the financial resources. When living in such places as the interior of British Columbia, out-of-area referrals for medical treatment by specialists is costly. And because of their few assets and minimal savings, they cannot qualify for subsidies for air fares and bus fares, etc. The stress of attempting to stretch their funds until they are eligible for federal or provincial old-age security aggravates their physical and psychological condition.

If such cases could be reviewed by social agencies, with the possibility of providing partial subsidy or interim financial assistance, these women could be spared the humiliation of becoming totally destitute and being forced to apply for social assistance, I know that all of the government resources will be made available to the new ministry of labour and employment, and that the minister responsible will be able to harness those resources, in particular the resources of the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of Education. The new information centre announced in His Honour's throne speech will help alleviate some of the problems facing women in our society today.

One of the most vital areas of endeavour to come under the responsibility of the new ministry of labour and manpower is providing increased opportunities for young people to attend training programs in industry through apprenticeship training programs. Some steps have already been taken to help young people achieve their potential in the British Columbia workforce. In January 1980 there were 13,800 indentured apprentices undergoing training in the province of British Columbia. In October of this year the figure had increased to 18,543. These are particularly in the skilled trades of heavy-duty mechanics, millwrights, welders, electricians, plumbers, carpenters and automobile mechanics. The Minister of Labour should be congratulated for the success of his program, although the emphasis continues to be placed on large-scale operations. I would like to illustrate....

Interjection.

MR. SEGARTY: Obviously they are not interested in women's rights and employment opportunities.

Let me illustrate to you for a moment an incident which took place this year in an interior sawmill certified by the International Woodworkers of America. As you are aware, I spent many years working as a mechanic in the forest industry prior to coming to this assembly in 1979. During that time, Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the IWA, and served as a plant committee chairman and safety committee chairman. As some of you may be aware, trade unions many years ago fought for and won a seniority clause in their collective agreements to protect the membership of the trade union movement from layoffs and other situations. The union fought hard for that right and won it — and rightly so. This also provides an opportunity for union members to progress through the ranks to a more senior position within the company under the seniority system — again, a very commendable situation.

In this particular situation an employee had just completed his electrician's apprenticeship training program. That company spent forty thousand dollars training this apprentice to meet his qualifications. The company then posted a millwright's apprenticeship program. The electrician who had just completed his five years of apprenticeship training program now applied to become, at the company's expense, the millwright apprentice. Two other employees with less seniority also submitted applications. The opportunity was awarded to the electrician who had just completed his apprenticeship training. Mr. Speaker, would you invest another forty thousand dollars after training somebody to be an electrician? Would you turn around and invest another forty thousand dollars training somebody to be a millwright? I doubt it.

There is a great failure in the system of apprenticeship training programs in that particular area. We must not place all our emphasis on developing apprenticeship training programs with large companies. There's a great untapped resource, a great untapped opportunity in the British Columbia small business sector — your neighborhood plumber, your welder, your carpenter, your electrician and your garage; the list goes on and on. There's a vast resource, of gifted young British Columbians eagerly seeking opportunity to develop their skills in the trades. So one might say: "What's the problem? Why, with so much opportunity, are these young people still waiting to get into the trades?"

One of the reasons is simply that the small business community can't afford a training scheme. You know and I know, Mr. Speaker, that such a training scheme would cost in the neighbourhood of forty thousand dollars per apprentice trained. One solution would be a government-sponsored subsidy program, that would offset the cost of training the individual apprentice, tailored specifically for the small business people of this province.

[ Page 6626 ]

The advantages of such a program are plainly obvious. Not only would it provide opportunity for our young people to get into the trades; it would do so without prejudicing the hard-won rights of those senior workers in union shops. In addition, it would ensure a ready availability of skilled Canadian workers to meet the growing demands of British Columbia's expanding industrial climate. The new Ministry of Labour should develop a key mandate aimed at strengthening the role of apprenticeship training programs in the small business community of this province.

We in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, have enjoyed tremendous opportunities in employment over the past few years, and I know that all British Columbians recognize this didn't come about by chance. It didn't come about because we inherited a full treasury and a healthy economy as the NDP did back in 1975, when they took office from the old Social Credit government. It has taken us six years of hard work to get this province back on its feet again. You don't get a triple A credit rating, the highest credit rating available in North America, by turning off investments, running huge deficits, encouraging large debts and generally discouraging the provincial economy.

Take a look, Mr. Speaker, at this government's achievements since 1975, and you will plainly see that its policies have worked. British Columbia is in good financial shape thanks to wise fiscal management and imaginative government policy.

And then, Mr. Speaker, look at the throne speech again, and you will see that it responds in the same decisive manner, taking into account in its responsible measures the needs of the people of my constituency as well as of the province as a whole. Since 1975 this government has been working hard in trying to diversify the economy and halt the dependence on a single-resource industry. We're indeed fortunate, Mr. Speaker, to have a government with the courage, the foresight, the leadership and dedication to meet the challenges that we're about to face in the decade of the eighties. We've been particularly fortunate, Mr. Speaker, in the east Kootenay region of British Columbia because of the government's attitude toward the mining industry in this province and the government philosophy toward that industry in the past few years. We have succeeded in diversifying our economy and removing our dependence on a single-resource industry.

Currently, Mr. Speaker, there are three mines operating in southeastern British Columbia: Byron Creek owns and operates a mine east of Sparwood, employing 150 people; Fording Coal has a mine operating in Elkford, employing approximately 900 people; and the British Columbia Coal company has a mine operating in Sparwood, employing approximately 1,000 people.

There are currently two mines under construction, Mr. Speaker. The British Columbia Coal company has a new mine under construction in Elkford with export contracts to Pohang Iron and Steel Works of Korea. The construction of this plant will cost approximately $250 million and will employ approximately 400 people in the construction project. When the construction project is completed two years from now, it will provide 350 full-time jobs for British Columbians. Crows Nest Resources are in the final stage of their construction of a new mine between Sparwood and Elkford, costing again approximately $250 million to complete. It's currently employing 900 people in the construction project alone. When that construction project is completed, it too will provide 350 full-time jobs for British Columbia workers and their families. Esso resources, Mr. Speaker, will be going through a major expansion later this year. When that expansion is completed, it, too, will employ approximately 300 people.

All of this positive economic development, Mr. Speaker, combined with a $47 million Roberts Bank port expansion in Vancouver, will be of enormous benefit to the people of my riding, the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada. It will provide long-term employment opportunities for British Columbia workers, security for their families and enhance market opportunities for the sale of British Columbia coal. By 1990 we expect to be exporting from southeastern British Columbia alone approximately 28 million tonnes of coal per year.

There is a problem. Potash, uranium and coal can no longer be expected to subsidize the export of grain from our prairie provinces. Unless the federal government resolves this issue in the very near future, coal shipments from eastern British Columbia will have to be placed on a quota system. This will have a very serious effect on the development of the region's coal reserves, resulting in mass layoffs and wide unemployment. Action must be taken now, Mr. Speaker, to have that Crow rate resolved. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the elimination of the Crow rate system and replacing it with a user-pay system plan designed to meet the needs of the producers as well as the railway companies is a situation that is long overdue and must be addressed.

Mr. Speaker, there is no sense in putting a band-aid on what is a very serious problem. In 1979 coal contributed $868 million to the British Columbian and Canadian economy. This year coal will contribute in excess of $1 billion to the British Columbian and Canadian economy. The situation must be addressed if we're to get our coal moving. An agreement recently signed by the Premier of British Columbia and Prime Minister Trudeau is important for all of us, because it provides the basis for future cooperation between the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada. The agreement calls for the provincial government to pay the federal government withheld taxes and interest collected by B.C. Hydro on natural gas sales and by the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation on the sale of natural gas liquids. The decision to pay these taxes will in no way prejudice this province in the future court action relating to taxation on provincial-owned Crown corporations.

Over the next five years the petroleum industry will generate $12.1 billion as a result of this agreement. Of this amount the government of British Columbia will receive $4.6 billion in the form of land payments, oil royalties, corporate income tax and British Columbia Petroleum Corporation revenues. The government of Canada will receive $3.2 billion, of which $600 million will be recycled in incentive programs to Canadian-owned companies to boost exploration and development of British Columbia petroleum resources. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is to be complimented on reaching this agreement with the federal government.

I believe that the direct result of this agreement will lead to an energy-secure British Columbia and Canada. While energy security and revenue-sharing are important components of the agreement, the most important single component is, I believe, that it was done in the Canadian way, through discussion, compromise and consultation.

We all remember what happened to the mining industry when that party was in power in 1975. We all remember what

[ Page 6627 ]

happened to the gas industry and the oil industry when that party was in power in 1975. The economic health of this province went into serious decline and the economy followed suit. The New Democratic Party took the ridiculous position that the natural resources of British Columbia should be left in the ground. It took the ridiculous position that the resources of British Columbia should be handed over to the government of Canada to be managed by Pierre Trudeau and Ed Broadbent. The Leader of the Opposition even went on record in support of natural resource ownership by the government of Canada. He said: "British Columbia is prepared to surrender its ownership of natural resources if the government of Canada is prepared to resolve to assume control of the country's natural resources, revenue-related ownership, processing, production and distribution." Fortunately for us all, he was thrown out of office before he had an opportunity to give away British Columbia's resource heritage.

The NDP have always been against active mineral resource development in the province of British Columbia. I would like to know and the people of my riding would like to know exactly where you stand on natural resource development in British Columbia, exactly where you stand on your position with the Crowsnest freight rates.

We all know that there are 10,000 known mineral occurrences in the province of British Columbia, with many more waiting to be discovered. You will find oil and natural gas by looking for them, and not by adopting a policy of non-development.

I find it incredible that the New Democratic Party would give away British Columbia's resource heritage, trusting Pierre Trudeau and Ed Broadbent to look after the interests of British Columbia and the west. The New Democratic Party would do away with the commitment, initiative and active involvement by the private sector in developing British Columbia's resource heritage. If recent events in the energy section are any indication, that would be a terrible mistake. Yet despite this, they seem willing to sell this province down the river in order to achieve their political objectives.

The one path that we shall never choose is the path to surrender to a philosophy we cannot agree with. Our programs must be aimed at expanding British Columbia's industrial and productive capacity at a rate that shows the vigour and vitality of a free economy. This is not a time to abandon the drive, the optimism and imaginative, creative energy that has characterized this province for the past 30 years, except for a short period of time. This is not a time for timidity or doubt; it's a time for boldness and energy. It's a time for stouthearted men and women to turn dreams into reality and to continue to make this province a great place to live.

We've all heard those members of the opposition say: "The free enterprise system is the heartless system." He probably doesn't remember. Do those members of the opposition fail to recognize the great programs that have been provided by the system of free enterprise — the social benefits we enjoy in the area of health care, human resources, education programs, programs for handicapped, revenue-sharing to assist municipalities in providing services for their communities and infant development programs? This beautiful building we sit in here with all its marble, all of the great things we enjoy and the ferries that go up and down the mainland and back and forth from the Island to the mainland were not provided from the profits of government but were provided from the hard work of free-enterprisers who are willing to pay their taxes.

We enjoy the benefits we enjoy because we have a good government and because we have a good Premier at the helm of our government and because we have created investors' confidence in this province and because we have thousands of hard-working British Columbians who are willing to get out there and get their hands dirty — to take up a pick and shovel and do a hard day's work.

They expect rewards but will always return what is needed to be returned so that we, as government, may provide more programs for those people in Canada and British Columbia who are less fortunate than we are. We must show our people that we can provide more social programs under an enterprising system and that socialism doesn't have a comer on the market of caring for people. In fact, Mr. Speaker, free people working together showing initiative can provide more benefits on a continuing basis than any heavy-handed socialist government.

I would like those members of the New Democratic Party — especially those members who tell the employer community in British Columbia to go to hell, and who continue to say that they will bring this country to its knees — to return for a while to the country of their origin. Perhaps they would come back to this country far more appreciative of the things we have to offer. Indeed, it would do us all good to visit other parts of the world from time to time. Perhaps we would come back to this country far more appreciative of what it has to offer and of the opportunities that are available to us here in Canada under an enterprising system.

Mr. Lea moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Jordan tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Tourism for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 3:28 p.m.