[ Page 6653 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Reading and Receiving Petitions

Clerk Assistant –– 6653

Speech from the Throne

On the amendment

Mr. Strachan –– 6653

Mr. Nicholson –– 6654

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6659

Mr. Levi –– 6659

Mr. Richmond –– 6662

Mr. Passarell –– 6664

Mr. Brummet –– 6667

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1981

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Reading and Receiving Petitions

CLERK-ASSISTANT: In the matter of several documents presented as a petition to the House on November 25, 1981, by the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), said documents are irregular in the following respects: namely, the form thereof does not conform with appendix A to the standing orders, and further, does not conform with the requirements of standing orders 73(4) and 73(5).

All of which is respectfully submitted,

Ian M. Horne, Clerk of the House.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, we had some fun yesterday with the amendment. For the benefit of all the members I would like to restate the amendment before it's defeated:

"That this House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to recognize that the economic policies of the government have resulted in economic stagnation, and further fails to provide proposals for the strengthening of the economy of the province so as to provide full employment opportunities for all our people."

I guess the first thing one has to ask is: who is writing this? It's an extremely convoluted sentence in the first place; and, of course, it's totally incorrect in the second place.

However, on reading the amendment I feel that a few points of clarification are needed. For example, when you talk about "all our people," do you mean just NDP MLAs, or do you mean members of the provincial NDP, or who? Maybe by "all our people" you mean the Downtown Eastside Residents Association. Is that who you mean? You've got to be careful of those folks; they'll put the bite on you. You talk about unemployment "for all our people." When they talk about employment for all our people, I have to ask of the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition if our government has brought in a mineral royalty scheme that has driven the industry out of the province. No. Has our government reached and achieved such a dismal economic record that the province has a declining population? No. As a matter of fact, our record of job creation is enviable. The inconsistency is the NDP, and the inconsistency in their debate is incredible.

Their speechwriters, I think, must be schizophrenic, Mr. Speaker. The opening speaker, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), blasts us in the first place for having too many job creating projects like northeast coal, then 30 minutes later proposes an amendment that suggests our government is not creating jobs — all the time knowing full well that northeast coal was an NDP election promise in 1975. You know, this is like Mr. MacEachan's budget — now you see it, now you don't. Guess under which shell we're covering our argument.

Members opposite have a difficult time, Mr. Speaker, reconciling the northeast coal initiative. When they were government they had a $1 billion program to develop north-east coal — and this was an NDP negotiation reached without the knowledge of the participating coal companies. Now, in spite of the fact that they wanted to develop northeast coal, they are critical of our negotiations. Northeast coal will be the most significant development project in British Columbia.

Prince George contractors and construction forces have done extremely well under the development so far, and in this period of a declining lumber market, northeast coal is a tremendous lift to our economy. Speaking from my perspective as a Prince George member. one example of the initial benefit to Prince George from this development is that the CNR have indicated that they will increase their Prince George permanent employment force from 600 men to 900 men with the advent of northeast coal. The British Columbia Railroad will increase their Prince George workforce by 50 men, and this is just one segment of the infrastructure needed as the development comes on line.

Mr. Speaker, as a member for the central interior I'm pleased to note the initiatives concerning increased highway improvement, In my riding improved highways are a resource. They are a resource in terms of the tourist industry, they're a resource in terms of improved lifestyle and a resource in terms of general economic development.

Mr. Speaker, I remember a former Minister of Highways who took an opposite view and thought that U.S. tourists should be banned from our highways. However, we've come a long way since then. We have an excellent highway system. We have a $2 billion tourist industry with much of the revenue coming from rubber-tired vehicle traffic. In my riding alone, the beautiful Robson Valley, motel operators tell me that their tour bus business is up over 50 percent from 1980 to 1981, with a sizeable increase already being booked for 1982.

The throne speech mentioned resource development highway initiatives, and I'll use my time once again today to point out to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) that the northeast coal project will cause some pressures on roads and bridges leading to Prince George. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and I are looking forward to the highways development that will occur as the northeast coal project proceeds.

Mr. Speaker, it is generally recognized that we live in the finest province in Canada. We really lack for nothing: economic development, the finest in health care and social programs.... This is evidenced by the amount of Canadians from other provinces who migrate to British Columbia. An average of 1,000 per week come to seek opportunity and a new home with a promise and a future.

His Honour's throne speech articulated policy on a range of government initiatives. You have had two and a half days now to peruse the throne speech and offer alternative policy and suggestions. Hon. members opposite, are you up to the ask? Have you policy to present in detail, or are you going to have to go back to your convention next year and explain again that you're ineffective members? We know your policy on provincial resources: give it away. We know your policy on the constitution: give B.C. away. We know your policy on highways: send the tourists home. We know your policy on mining: stop it, leave it in the ground. We know you're against free collective bargaining. Perhaps you could add to be list of NDP policy statements.

MR. SPEAKER: The member will continue to address the Chair.

[ Page 6654 ]

MR. STRACHAN: Perhaps you might add civil disobedience to your policy statements. Perhaps, if you don't like debate — the parliamentary process — you could further advocate locking the doors of the Legislature.

You've insisted that we don't have proposals. Tell me, is locking the doors of the Legislature the NDP proposal? If it is, then the smallest problem we have is the economy. For thousands of years men and women have fought and died for the right of free speech. Our party happens to believe that our parliamentary system is still the finest form of free speech. Democracy is a fragile institution, Mr. Speaker, and throughout the world democracy has many enemies. Let us hope that in British Columbia we will never see the day where free speech is denied and we find they are locking the doors of the Legislature.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to be here in the Legislature, I suppose, but one would hope that we were here for more than just a little ceremonious ritual to bring forward an empty and hollow document and then to be trundled back off to our constituencies.

We are in the most serious economic times that I can remember, having been born in 1936, and not recalling with any precision the economic times of the thirties. But certainly these are the most serious economic times that I have ever experienced, and that includes that turndown in the economy in the late 1950s, in which I found myself in unemployment insurance lines and applying for jobs at minimum wage and anything that would help to keep some bread on the table of our family and to contribute. So I can't help but come to this Legislature with a little bit more understanding of how all of our constituents must be feeling to see so much self-adulation, so much self-congratulation. Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that in these very serious and troubled times we come here and come out with such hollow documents and a housing policy which is said to perhaps cost as much as $6 million.

Do you know how much money we spent in the last year of the New Democratic administration just on senior citizens' housing alone sponsored by non-profit societies such as the Kinsmen, the Rotary, and all of those fine societies that were set up in order to bring housing at affordable rents to senior citizens? Just for senior citizens, $10 million was allocated and spent during that year on that one program alone. With that we levered money from the federal government. There were other programs as well. At that time there was section 40 and 43 of the National Housing Act, by which we brought on an equal number of housing units for senior citizens, and we also put out proposal calls. We brought on affordable rental housing for families, for people who might have been on social assistance, and for people who were working — and most of them were working — but without enough income to afford rents in the very high amounts.

I guess I come from a little bit different background than some of you, or some of you have darn short memories about your backgrounds. I happen to have grown up in North Burnaby, as some of you have. I happen to have grown up in the Capital Hill–Vancouver Heights area. Some of you seem to have forgotten your roots and what it's like to have that uncertainty in tough times. You happen to be the ones who succeeded. Well, don't give yourselves all the credit. There was a little bit of luck if you have succeeded. There was also some bad luck for some people who may have even done more to try to contribute to society but have come up a little bit more empty-handed.

In my riding I look at the statistics put out by the IWA on unemployment in the forest industry. I don't believe those statistics; they have got to be worse. They've got to have missed some of the unemployment that is abounding like an epidemic in this province.

I remember hearing the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) talk about her new program, which, I suppose, is going to force mothers to nurse their children until they are five or six years old.

MS. BROWN: Older than that.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, there's no limit, I suppose.

She said that unemployment was 4.5 percent in Vancouver. I think people in this Legislature should go and look and ask how Statistics Canada arrives at those figures: with random samplings by telephone. You should really question the reliability of those figures in the first instance.

But I know this: in the riding of Nelson-Creston the town of Salmo is virtually shut down. Louisiana-Pacific is the sawmill in that town. It wasn't always called Louisiana-Pacific, It was once called Rotter's Mill; but old Frank Rotter sold the mill to an American concern before the NDP took office as government in 1972. That American firm recently, under this Social Credit administration, sold that mill again to Louisiana-Pacific. Louisiana-Pacific has no commitment to its employees. It shut that mill down. What is more, they play such hard ball that they even fired top management people who have worked that mill and done their best, people who are damn good managers, I must say, and good Canadians. This foreign company has fired these people.

I objected to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) at the time of that takeover. Regrettably, I have been proven right in my fears which I expressed at that time. You want to know the way to do things. I say the way to do things is to look at these foreign takeovers and say, "No more foreign control," and to heck with FIRA. We don't have to foist things on to FIRA. We have control through our stumpage rates, through our Forest Act. We can stop transfers of companies out of Canadian ownership or from American ownership to another American ownership. We can force transfer of American ownership of some of these small mills into a Canadian ownership, and we could have another B.C. Cellulose Company, another Crown corporation. We could manage these companies for the benefit of our people, to provide employment for our people, and not for profits when it's convenient for foreign landholders to go and shut down an entire community.

HON. MR. GARDOM: How?

MR. NICOLSON: How? You simply refuse to transfer the timber rights, which you can do under the legislation you've brought into this House, Mr. House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's follow the rules of debate.

MR. NICOLSON: We have other companies under Canadian ownership struggling to keep going and to keep their employees going, but in spite of those efforts, Slocan Pacific has had to lay off half of its employees in my riding. We've had the woods people in B.C. Timber pretty well laid off entirely. We've had a total shutdown of the plywood plant in

[ Page 6655 ]

Nelson; now it has been started up again, but it's expected to continue for only a month or a month and a half, then another shutdown, There's no date for call-back for the employees of Louisiana-Pacific. B.C. Timber, under BCRIC, is carrying on at maybe half-speed, except in the pulpmill, which is much better but not in my riding.

We have very, very serious economic times, and what could we be doing? Is there any mention in this throne speech debate — not about a phony, accelerated reforestation program.... On analyzing it and looking at the number of trees planted in the last few years, it ends up that they didn't plant any more trees in the Nelson forest district; in fact, they planted fewer than in 1975 when things were simply done out of the forestry budget.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a way, and that is not to knock British Columbian and Canadian enterprisers.

Oh, I see the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is here, if he's still the minister.

I think of the people in my constituency who tried to create employment, to create a new agricultural industry through a company called Swan Valley Foods. It was supported by the provincial government of the day. I compare that, type of support with the type now being given for northeast coal — which is definitely holding down prices for southeast coal. That's the information given to me by directors of BCRIC; that is their considered opinion. But where some Canadian people are willing to create new, diversified employment so that in the riding of Nelson-Creston we would have more to depend upon than simply the forest industry — which is always going to be cyclical — this government, in spite of the fact that there were business people in there, never gave that a chance.

It also upsets me when I go into a Safeway and I see the plastic laminate pouch now being sold. That technology was developed through people in Creston and other people at the University of British Columbia, including Dr. William Powrie, who this government uses for other purposes. I see that this product is now on the market, but it comes from eastern companies. You see it also in the United States. It is one of the lost opportunities, because this government was bent on destruction of anything from the previous government that they could possibly destroy.

Where they couldn't destroy things, they tried to hide things. Look at the current housing initiatives that have been announced. They're going to bring Riverview on stream this year. The Riverview lands had been assigned to a development company for all negotiations with the municipality and for planning, design and fulfilment, and to bring housing on stream in 1976 and 1977. Do you know who we had in charge of that? Do you think that wouldn't have happened if we had continued in government? Do you think that the Riverview lands would not have come on stream on time, had we continued in government? Who was running that show in the Riverview lands? I see they're silent. I'm asking you who was running the show, who had been hired by the government of British Columbia of the day, to bring the Riverview lands on stream for 1976 and 1977. We had hired Alvin Narod, the same person that this government now has in charge of B.C. Place. So it would have come on stream. But this is the initiative of this government — to bring on the Riverview lands now, in 1981.

We had Burke Mountain. Moving ahead, we had submissions from about seven different competing design teams. We had narrowed this down to three different teams from whom we were seeking further, more detailed designs in their proposals. We had negotiations going on with Port Moody over what I think was called the North Slope in Port Moody, and that's one of the things that the government is now talking about today.

Just think about what would have happened to the affordability of housing had these projects not been delayed. Just think of the situation that we might be in today and how the mood of the people might be today if they were not in a psychological state which is absolutely interwoven with the economic condition of recession. People are not going out and buying consumer goods, and retailers are feeling the pinch this year. They're not buying skis. They're not buying cars. What they are buying, I suppose, is Canada savings bonds at 19.5.

In this area we have seen people forced to overextend themselves — buy housing that was way overpriced — and now they are having to face the refinancing of these mortgages, and it is entirely due to the fact that this government said we'll just leave hands off housing and we will let the private sector do everything. Well they didn't do everything. They went in and.... Even today they might continue to cream some of the luxury market to build the types of units with three and four bathrooms and attached swimming pools and saunas built in and one thing and another. But they certainly aren't building the kind of housing that every B.C. citizen needs at prices that they can afford.

Mr. Speaker, I am very disturbed, too.... Well, first of all, I'd like to just make one observation about this speech. Where do some of our economic problems come from? Well, let's admit that some of them come from the United States. Why do they come from the United States? You know that world leaders are speaking out, and people around the world are speaking out, against the arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. People in the United States are speaking out. People in Europe are speaking out. And one might just think that government might have the courage to express something, even-handedly, to both of these superpowers in order to try to encourage discussions for peace, if for no other reason than if we can't see that the threat of nuclear war can lead to the entire elimination of mankind and the planet earth, then maybe we could at least do this, realizing that the source of much of the inflation, the source of the economic ills of the so-called free world — and certainly, I suppose, the Soviet bloc — comes from this mad arms race in which these two superpowers insist on trying to build ever-increasing amounts of overkill and superiority. I think that a little voice from the Legislature of the province of British Columbia could be added to the growing world opinion which would seek to preserve the peace that was so dearly fought for during the forties and during earlier times, and seek to try to preserve that peace, rather than lead to an escalation on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I also have to question the inaction of the Premier of this province. Lest my remarks that I have just made be misconstrued, I'm really speaking about our taking a little bit wider view of things than simply looking inside this province. All we do in the throne speech in terms of the economy is say that the economy is bad in the United States, and we can't do much,, about it. Well, I want to tell you that as far as how the economy of the United States affects British Columbia, things could get a lot worse if we don't start doing something about it. One of the first things that should be done is that the Premier should meet with Governor Spellman and

[ Page 6656 ]

Governor Atiyeh. He should have been doing this long ago, and he should have done it instead of taking a vacation when he came back from the constitution talks. He should have done it before the constitution talks.

There is a very dangerous threat to our forest industry which arises as the result of lobbying by some small operators in Washington state and Oregon. They have a different system of bidding for stumpage down there. Some people went down there and bid up their price for the right to cut timber in the national forests. They were anticipating a longer run before the turndown in the U.S. economy and the U.S. housing starts. They bid at very unrealistic prices and the major integrated companies refused to compete, and they were successful in getting the rights to cut timber. But what happened? Housing starts dropped; the price of lumber dropped. They had bid so much per cunit for that timber down in the northwest that they could not afford to sell it, and they were stuck. So what did they do? They looked for a whipping boy, and that whipping boy is Canada. That whipping boy really turns out to be British Columbia. They lobbied and they got the voice of their governor, particularly in Oregon. They talked to Governor Victor Atiyeh of the state of Oregon, and he wrote to his senator, the Hon. Robert Packwood, and he said that the wood products industry in the United States faces a potentially disastrous economic situation due in part to the importation of Canadian lumber. The Canadian government subsidizes the wood products industry through artificially low stumpage prices, thus giving Canadian lumber an unbeatable price advantage in many U.S. markets. Now the sawmill strike in British Columbia is settled, and Canadian lumber is re-entering the U.S. market.

In the first place, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government does not set stumpage; the provincial government sets stumpage. In the second place, speculators on the U.S. scene were caught overbidding for the right to cut timber. I think that those are the honest facts. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the United States exports raw sawlogs even in these distressed times when their sawmills are shut down, and I saw evidence of that when I visited Coos Bay, Oregon, this fall. I would propose that the Premier would have a conference with the governors of both the state of Washington and the state of Oregon and maybe other northwestern states in order to clear the air, and maybe adopt a common strategy toward exporting raw materials at the expense of jobs on both sides of this friendly border. I don't think that we're being served if we export raw sawlogs; I don't think that the Americans are being served if we export raw sawlogs; I don't think that the Canadian economy is being served when the Americans are exporting raw sawlogs either. I think that this little north-south dialogue in this area in which we live.... If they were natural boundaries and not political boundaries, we would probably find ourselves aligned here in the northwest. We have so much in common. We are bounded by the Rocky Mountains, we have the Pacific Coast, and there is certainly a great deal of similarity in the people north and south of this border.

So I feel that we have not been served. Here are some of the positive suggestions. We should look very seriously at the sale of any sawmill which is taking place and ensure that jobs will be preserved. An example even of a Canadian sawmill being sold to another Canadian firm is Hadikin Bros. being sold to Atco. From what I understand, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) had that application on his desk for four months, and after four months of careful consideration he just sent back a simple letter allowing the deal to go through with no conditions. Hadikin Bros. was shut down totally. A group of people was put out of work.

About two miles up the road from Hadikin Bros. we see the Kalesnikoff sawmill. Both mills were built within about a year of each other. The Kalesnikoff mill is the one mill in my constituency that I can say has full employment. It has full employment and it is run with a tremendous amount of rapport between the ownership and management, which is one, and the employees. They're all striving for the highest productivity, knowing that they're in a very competitive market, and there is full employment there.

I think that the minister's failure to look at conditions, to look at how individuals would be affected by that sale of Hadikin Bros. to Atco without any conditions, was absolutely derelict in duty and obligation to the people. So this is one of the things that we can do.

As I say, I think that the highest priority in British Columbia should be the highest-level meeting between the first minister of this province and the governors of those states that are concerned about the importation of Canadian lumber and the effect on their economies. Instead of being at loggerheads with each other, we should be looking at ways of cooperating with each other and improving both of our economic conditions through cooperation rather than confrontation. I see no evidence of that. I see no mention of that in this debate, and that does not encourage me in terms of the things that we have to do.

I might say once again that we would not have created BCRIC and just left the economy of all of the areas served by Can-Cel, Plateau Mills and Kootenay Forest Products to the whim of an inexperienced board of directors, which, instead of expanding jobs in the existing industrial structure that they had, and instead of building the additional pulp facilities — which even now they are still talking about doing at Castlegar went ahead and bought the already thriving Kaiser Coal.

I think that all that one can say is we definitely would have done things differently. We definitely would have had additional pulp capacity at Castlegar by this time. We would have taken the last economic upturn in pulp. I believe that pulp is now taking a little bit of a downturn, but we would have caught that last swing in the economy. That addition to the Castlegar mill would have been very viable. It would have meant that these small mills that I've talked about — Slocan Forest Products, Hadikin Bros., Kalesnikoff — would have had a market for their pulp logs. It would have meant that instead of logs, which I showed you during the session last year, being decked to rot out in the bush — and the jobs to rot with those logs — those logs would have been utilized, instead of just returning to the biomass of the earth, having served no useful purpose,

That is what the New Democratic Party would have done. If we're given the chance, this is the direction that we would follow, rather than say: "Let's just toss everything up in the wind and let it fall where it may." It's no longer the way it works in this world. It doesn't work in Japan. I don't know what the philosophy of the Japanese government is — right, left, centre — but I do know that they have a planned economy. I do know that there is government intervention and government involvement and tripartite involvement.

I know that in West Germany they have had the most stable currency, the most stable employment figures, and just about every other indicator that you can have, amidst an absolutely threatened and unstable area in terms of peace, sitting right in the middle of the confrontation between super-

[ Page 6657 ]

powers. In spite of that they have had a good economy, a solid dollar, good interest rates, good employment, and they've had government involvement in terms of a planned economy; but this government has said: "Let's just let everything go. By being here, we're going to create the climate." Well, that just doesn't work in 1981; it didn't work in 1971, and it certainly won't work if that's the way we're going to face 1990.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and I were discussing who might take their turn in this debate. We tossed a coin, and I'm now standing here.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to welcome you back to the House — looking in very good shape — and wish you the very best of good health.

On a personal basis, I want to note the mention of Waldo Skillings, who passed away very recently. There are a number of members in this House who were here when Waldo was here and will remember Waldo with a great deal of affection. They had seen him around the streets of Victoria since those days. I can well remember some of those wild debates that Waldo took place in. It's interesting to go back over some of the newspaper clippings of those days. As a matter of fact, I might say that at one point in the debate in 1971 Waldo predicted the entry of the present Premier into this Legislature. That's on record, if you want to examine some of the archives. On a personal note, I want to extend to his wife, Helen, and to his family, on behalf of other members here, our sincere regrets at Waldo's passing.

Also just a brief comment, on a personal basis, on the recent constitutional meetings and the effort put forward by the British Columbia delegation. Both the political side and the staff were absolutely tremendous. I think other members of this side of the House have an undying appreciation for the effort that was made, in particular by our Premier Bill Bennett. I say this not as an MLA but on a personal basis, as a Canadian and as a British Columbian. I think we should not forget the effort he made to cause the meeting to take place which brought this matter to a conclusion. But for his personal effort to visit every province in this country, the meeting, which was an extremely important one, would not have taken place. On behalf of all Canadians, I think we owe him a debt.

We have before us an amendment to the throne speech. I've read it a dozen times, and I just can't believe that this could be put together in the fashion it is. It's hard to imagine the wording and how anyone could conceive this amendment. There might have been other opportunities as to how to word an amendment, but this one states that the throne speech fails to provide proposals for strengthening the economy of the province so as to provide full employment opportunities for all of our people. My goodness, the throne speech is absolutely loaded with opportunities and plans for the future for gainful employment in this province. I looked at that time and time again. As I say, I can't believe the wording in that amendment. Was it written by two comedians — Laurel and Hardy? I read it again, and the team of Lea and Gabelmann have written this amendment. It must have been done in good humour. On that basis, I accept the nature of the amendment. It's either that or they were reading the wrong speech. Is there another version that I haven't seen? Perhaps there is. You can send it across. Please do that. It says it fails to provide proposals for strengthening the economy of the province.

Just take page 3, job-creating investments: a new jet-engine overhaul plant, expansion of coal-mining in the southeast of the province, a new methanol plant at Kitimat. Do you mean to say those don't create job opportunities? Page 3: number of people employed in this province up 28 percent since 1974; 40,000 new jobs in the past year; 1,257,000 people gainfully employed right now in the province of British Columbia.

Page 4 — this has been belittled by a member opposite — "plans for an economic development conference this spring." You talk about making plans for the future for full employment in this province. That's a very good initiative put out by this government: an economic development conference in the spring.

Housing programs. Mr. Speaker, I won't go over all the details of the housing programs but, for heaven's sake, there's nothing that creates more employment than housing. If there is any individual initiative that creates employment, it is new housing.

Page 6: northeast coal. Six thousand jobs will be created in the development of the area for northeast coal, and five thousand of those will be permanent jobs. Is that to be called an initiative that fails to provide proposals to strengthen the economy of the province? That would be absolutely ridiculous. This throne speech deals with the practical realities of today. It's a good throne speech which deals with factual matters — the issues of today.

I'd just like to comment on two or three points in the throne speech itself, which have to do with items that might interest members of the Legislature. The first one of these major areas which are referred to in the speech is advancement opportunities within the public service. As members may be aware, my ministry issued a news release in February of this year which concerned an advancement opportunities report which was commissioned by the Public Service Commission and prepared by the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development.

The report deals with career advancement for women within the public service. At that time, I mentioned that it was the intention of this government to eliminate bias and attitudinal obstacles which may have blocked career development in the past. In a continuing process of review and modification of recruitment and training programs, the Public Service Commission has taken a number of operational steps to implement recommendations of that report.

For instance, a wide variety of new training programs have been introduced during the past year, increasing and improving training opportunities. Recognizing that for many years the women's role in the public service has been at the secretary and clerical level, my ministry's staff development branch has concentrated training efforts for secretarial and clerical workers. By the end of this year, eight courses will have been completed, broadening the career horizons of these workers through administrative courses by providing them with the training to apply for administrative and supervisory positions. Next year the number of these training courses will increase to 20.

At the senior secretary level, again, courses to broaden career horizons — courses that teach supervisory skills, organizational behaviour and attitudes in the workplace — are the key. At the supervisory and senior staff level, courses dealing with attitude, bias and skill development are underway.

The growth of these programs in the past year is incredible. It is an increase of almost 100 percent. The public

[ Page 6658 ]

service principle of hiring and promoting on merit and the growing opportunities for career development and training will go a long way to removing the old stereotypes of women in the public service.

Other steps have been taken by the Public Service Commission under my ministry. For instance, an inventory of qualified candidates for management positions within the public service is being established where feasible. Today, both men and women sit on selection panels for all levels of employees. That's a new initiative, Mr. Speaker. The commission is directly involved with Interchange Canada, which allows management assignments for varying periods in other jurisdictions. Also, career counselling is offered by the commission and plans are underway to develop comprehensive career information packages for public service positions.

Mr. Speaker, equal opportunities do not limit themselves to one group. During this International Year of Disabled Persons, the Public Service Commission has followed through with the Premier's commitment that it is the responsibility of all ministries to support the personal placement program to make 1981 a meaningful occasion with lasting results.

This means that efforts to ensure the workforce is open for disabled British Columbians are ongoing; it is not merely a token effort because attention has been focused on them for this one year. Between 1975 and 1977, annual placements of disabled British Columbians in the public service averaged 73 each year. That figure continues to grow and, as of November 16, 1981, 305 placements have been made so far this year. The referrals and success rate within the personal placement program continue to escalate and will continue long after the Year of Disabled Persons has ended.

Now a further item in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to draw your attention to is the item of pensions. Currently there are two major components in the pension system in Canada. One is the private component, including private pension plans, retirement savings plans, and other individual savings arrangements. The other is the public pension component, including old-age security benefits, the Canada Pension Plan and top-up programs such as the B.C. guaranteed available income for need program, or GAIN. Together, private and public pension plans play an important role in the retirement security of British Columbians today and in the future.

The last five years have seen increasing debate over the adequacy of the pension system in Canada. I think it is pretty clear that the pension system has been thoroughly studied, and it is time to translate these findings into responsible and effective reform of the pension system. There's been a great deal of consensus as to the problem.

Firstly, there is general agreement that in light of today's highly mobile employees there is a need for more pension portability. Secondly, pensions need to be better protected against inflation. Thirdly, there is a need to ensure better protection for women under the pension system. Fourthly, there is agreement that the Canada Pension Plan costs are going to continue to multiply. I emphasize costs, Mr. Speaker. The plan is not adequately funded, and the rates of contribution required under the plan to pay for current benefits will increase in future years. Ultimately the cost of today's benefits will be close to 9 percent of covered salaries. The cost of existing benefits is on a collision course with the ability and the willingness of working men and women to pay those costs.

Mr. Speaker, this does not mean improvements cannot be made. For instance, consideration must be given to bringing the covered earnings under the Canada Pension Plan up to the level of the average industrial wage in Canada. The current plan provides for automatic annual increases in covered earnings of 12.5 percent.

Because of inflation, these increases have scarcely exceeded the rate of increase in average wages. Little progress has been made towards the goal of increasing Canada Pension Plan covered earnings to the level of average industrial wages. Lastly, there is another area that is being debated and discussed; that is the adoption of a provision under which a person is permitted to drop out for benefit competition purposes the years spent rearing children under the age of 7. Such a change would be of tremendous value to women who are combining a career with the vital function of raising a family.

On these points I am referring now to the certain inadequacies in the Canada Pension Plan and the cost problems that it is facing in the future related to its present benefit level.

One final thing that I would like to mention is the notion of pension standards regulations, ensuring that pension systems, private and public, are viable and effective in the future. Today we are one of three provinces not regulating private pension plans, although many B.C. plans are subject to regulation by another jurisdiction. With this concern for pension reform in mind, I will be asking the House and all of the people of British Columbia to consider a provincial report on pensions. This report will deal with issues and concerns and suggest actions that can determine the best course for British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I would ask all those in the House and all British Columbians interested in pensions to consider this report when it is tabled and provide their input. I would appreciate the comments of the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) at that time, after he has studied the report. After all, retirement, which may interest him, is something we look forward to, and I would prefer British Columbians to look ahead to dreams of a secure retirement rather than financial nightmares.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible for sports and recreation in our province I have occasionally been asked why we spend so much time, effort and money on athletics and recreation. I think the best answer comes from the Supreme Court judge, Earl Warren, who said: "I always turn to the sports page first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page is nothing but man's failure." A bit simplistic perhaps, but the meaning is very clear. Youngsters of this province deserve the opportunity to participate, to achieve, not just in winning medals but in working hard and being proud of their individual achievements.

This summer I had the opportunity to see our young men and women compete at the Canada Games at Thunder Bay. Each of them represented their home town and province. I'd like to say how proud I was of their performance, both on and off the field. Some 350 young athletes from British Columbia took part.

In order to give every British Columbian the opportunity to participate, B.C. has established some unique programs. Our winter and summer games involve some 200,000 British Columbians each year. Our athletic assistance program is the best in Canada — the very best — and the result is the growing number of British Columbians competing at national and international levels.

[ Page 6659 ]

As His Honour pointed out in the throne speech, the Road to the Olympics program is underway. The aim here is to bring national teams to train in British Columbia. Through their training and exhibition matches with British Columbia's athletes, as well as coaching and training clinics, British Columbians have the opportunity to see and work firsthand with world-class athletes.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, on relevancy in debate, we have before us a motion to amend the motion thanking His Honour for the gracious speech which he doth bequeath upon us. But the minister is talking about women's grass hockey, and I fail to see the relevance of that to the motion, which says that the speech fails to recognize that the economic policies of the government have resulted in economic stagnation, and further, fails to provide proposals for strengthening the economy of the province so as to provide full employment opportunities for all our people. Perhaps the minister can relate this to his argument, which I would assume would be that we're not in economic stagnation and so on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Hon. members, notwithstanding the amendment before us, traditionally, as all members will agree, the throne speech and amendments thereto have always allowed a relatively wider scope of debate. Nonetheless, the point that the member has made is a good one, and I would ask the minister in his remarks to relate in some degree to....

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would agree with you wholeheartedly that during the throne debate, about the only thing you cannot do is criticize the judiciary or Her Majesty, and just about anything else goes. But in a motion, when there's an amendment, I think that the rules of relevancy apply, and I think that has been the practice in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member makes a good point. The minister continues on the amendment.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the member's remarks and suggestions. In dealing with these young people who are busy in sports and recreation activities in our province — and the province is involved with them — we're of course referring to the future leaders of this province who take part in the advancement of our economy. People who are now taking part in soccer, women's field hockey, rowing and so on are obviously going to be future leaders of this province. I'm sure the member agrees with that. I won't attempt to abuse the rules of this House in dealing with the amendment, but, of course, in dealing with the amendment it is most difficult to not reflect on what the throne speech has in terms of advancing the economy and therefore to deal with the throne speech itself.

If I may just continue very briefly with the Olympics program, we are currently negotiating to set up training centres, which will of course create some employment, for track and field, middle-distance running, discus, javelin and the hammer throw. In soccer, the national team will train here, and along with the province's top soccer players, will tour B.C. carrying on exhibition matches as well as training and coaching clinics. Underway for 1982 and 1983 are plans for a friendship soccer tournament bringing national and top touring teams from other countries to compete in exhibition games with our national team.

So, Mr. Speaker, British Columbians are going to have tremendous opportunities and tremendous employment is going to be generated in the future by way of their learning and participating with these high-calibre athletes as our country prepares for the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984 and, of course, beyond that the Calgary Olympics in 1988. This is what this province is doing currently in what is known as the Road to the Olympics Program to generate interest and allow for these international athletes to in fact train right here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, as I draw my remarks in this debate to a conclusion, I want to remind the members of the commentary on the throne speech having to do with the new B.C. Festival of the Arts which is to take place in Kamloops in June of next year, a very exciting event that will for the first time ever bring together finalists in the field of dance, musicians, actors and artists. A committee is now well established and underway, and exciting events are taking place in what will become something of a new achievement in British Columbia, focusing at one place and one time all of these artists for a B.C. festival.

It was also pointed out in His Honour's speech that the electoral process is perhaps the most important part of our democratic system of government. In this session legislation will be introduced that will improve the accuracy and the timeliness of our voters' list. The right to vote is something that everyone in this House takes very seriously. I will be introducing in the House legislation providing for a complete province wide enumeration before every future provincial election; as well, polling day registration will be added, providing the maximum opportunity for any eligible British Columbian to cast his ballot.

Mr. Speaker, I am therefore very pleased with the direction in which my ministry's branches are headed and add my support through this to the remarks related to those in the Speech from the Throne. Once again, I find that personally it's very difficult to support the amendment before us; I'm just incredulous of the wording directed at the lack of ability to strengthen the economy in the throne speech. As I said, this throne speech deals with today's practical realities and directly addresses the fundamental issues. Therefore I support the throne speech. I don't want to be negative, but I think I'm going to vote against the amendment.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, that was the most fascinating economic analysis that I've heard from the middle of a hockey field or from the inside of a stadium. Well, I guess we must appreciate "old ballot box"; he's doing pretty good and he's made an effort.

I'd like to welcome the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who has just returned from one of the finest popularity contests held in this province in the last few days. I understand that all the farmers are unanimously behind him if he'll resign.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I don't think so, Norm.

MR. LEVI: Oh, yes. And you'll be next too, Mr. Minister of Finance. We can't go through a third year of budgets with you saying, "We've got the biggest budget in the world, " and six weeks later saying: "We made a mistake; we can't count." We can't have that.

[ Page 6660 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got the wrong minister.

MR. LEVI: No, no, I've got the right minister — the one with the urea formaldehyde sticking out of his ears.

Mr. Speaker, it's been traditional in this House during the throne speech for a number of ministers to get up and take the opportunity to expound on some of the policies of their ministries and not just basically refer to the speech itself. It's always an option to do that — and that's what the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) did. Although he was not within the terms of the amendment, he told us what he was doing in his ministry. We would hope that we would hear from the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) about what he is going to do. This is the fellow who keeps falling over his tongue about exactly what the plan is in terms of housing. We haven't heard him participate in this debate.

We also haven't heard from the Premier in terms of the economic questions. Yesterday, though, we did hear from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). You know, it's always a pleasure to read some of the fantastic rhetoric that that man can roll off his tongue when he's making one of his high-fliers in this House, as he's wont to do every year, usually using the same script, invariably with his mouth in top gear and his mind in neutral and away he goes. One of the things that he didn't touch on, which I want to touch on in my speech, deals with small business. Now I just want to quote to you, Mr. Speaker, what he actually said yesterday afternoon. He said:

It's been said for some time that all this government is interested in are the mega-projects. Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we're very interested in the small business community, but I want to tell you that the small businessman cannot function and cannot grow in a stagnant or declining economy. Because of a growing economy and because of the faith that people have in the future, we've created a vacuum in which the small businessman can grow and expand.... Oh, yes, some of them will go bankrupt, but not as many as there were when you were government.

Presumably he was pointing across the way.

Now I just want to deal specifically with that issue of bankruptcies — the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) was in here before and he has now left. The figures of the bankruptcies in the province or in the country that come up are a good guide as to exactly what is happening with the economy with regard to the small businessman. We don't often get very large companies going bankrupt, but we do get a large number of small companies. I want to point out that the important thing about examining the bankruptcy question is simply not to look at the figures that come out every month from the Consumer and Corporate Affairs ministry which say that bankruptcies in the province of British Columbia up to September 1981 were some 410 businesses. What you have to examine is what part of all the small-business problems are bankruptcies. It's generally accepted that bankruptcies represent about 20 percent of the businesses that fail in the province and in the country.

Last year Mr. Jack Biddle, chairman and a chief executive officer of the bankruptcy trustees for Clarkson Co. Ltd., said: "Bankruptcy figures do not include the many companies that become insolvent, liquidate and disappear rather than declare bankruptcy, nor do they include those businesses whose assets are sufficient only to pay secure creditors."

To put it in perspective in this province, we are in the same economic position as other provinces in respect to interest rates. There's no doubt that we have yet to get an accurate registering of the damage that the high interest rate has done. We know, for instance, the problems that people have in the renewal of mortgages. We have some idea of what takes place when a businessman has to go and get capital, just basic cash flow, and has been paying in the last three or four months, although the rate is veering now, as high as 23 percent. It's certainly accepted that as the bank rate goes up the small businessmen go out of business. That's a very serious problem.

What the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) did not do yesterday was simply address the problem that small business people have, without talking about the climate in which they operate. That is the key thing. We know that it's the small businessman who makes the greatest contribution in terms of jobs. I just want to go to the figures of September 1981 in which we're talking about 400 businesses which have failed. During the same period this year there were 268 receiverships, but these figures are not included in the bankruptcy figures. Receivership is as difficult a process as bankruptcy, usually creating the demise of the company.

There we have a situation in which there is almost a 60 percent increase in figures. The key thing that you have to look at in terms of bankruptcies and business failures.... We're talking now about bankruptcy figures and receivership figures. We have the chattel mortgage problem in which people are being acted upon by chattel mortgages which they've used in their businesses to secure cash and then are unable to meet their obligation, consequently losing their businesses. Those people simply close up. We know that is happening in the province in places like Alberni, Duncan and Honeymoon Bay. There are a number of places where they are directly affected by the downturn in the economy, particularly where there is a forest-based economy.

When we look at the enormity of the cost to business people we have to look at some of the figures over the past few years. I want to talk for a moment about what actually happens in the space of a year when you have 400 businesses close down. Let's use the 1980 figure. In 1980 there were some $64 million worth of liabilities in this province. Bear in mind that that figure represents just 20 percent of failed businesses in this province. Yesterday the minister talked about the climate. From 1976 to October of this year, the total amount of liabilities through loss of businesses is some $320 million in this province. That's just on the figures as we know them from the reports. These are liabilities. One has to understand what's in those liabilities, because there is a chain reaction. Very often the creditors, who should in fact have been paid had those companies been operating, are in the same position and not invariably have to go out of business. There is this terrible chain reaction.

That's the situation that does exist, and that's the kind of question that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development has to address in terms of maintaining the businesses that are presently operating. He can't tell us, as he did yesterday "Well, there's fifty thousand times as many businesses being formed, my friend...." You know, this is the kind of hyperbolic statement he makes which really has nothing to do with what is actually happening in the economy in respect to the formation of businesses. I'm talking about small business. We hear very much about the attempts at development of very large businesses. We are looking, waiting and trying to understand exactly what's going on with the northeast coal. We know at the moment that nothing is firm, nothing is fixed in terms of scheduling, and nothing is fixed

[ Page 6661 ]

in terms of the date of the first delivery of coal. What we have in the throne speech in relation to the economy is the repetition of what we had last year. But we are no further ahead in terms of that kind of major development in what is secure.

I'm concentrating my remarks on small businesses, the continuing development of the small-business sector. We know that it's more than 60 percent of the small businesses that produce the major part of the new jobs that are found. That's something to concentrate on in terms of a continuing development. Unfortunately, we didn't have the minister tell us yesterday that that is the kind of thing he addresses himself to; and he does not. It's only recently that we've had a reintroduction of the LILA program, the small loans to companies, right in the midst of this very serious crisis.

It's always worthwhile for the government, in talking about the economy, to examine that question, to examine the plus side, which is the development and the very serious effects that the interest rates and to some extent the new tax provisions have in respect to the business. That's the kind of thing that the minister could talk about. He could explain exactly what the government is prepared to do with respect to that very serious problem of business failures. Business failures really are an accurate register of how the economy is going, particularly in terms of the fiscal policy of the federal government. We know that a major part of the economic decisions that affect this province are not made here. They weren't made here 10 or 15 years ago, and they're still not made here. But that doesn't mean to say that the government should not make plans and put them into operation for offsetting this kind of problem, which we know is inevitable.

You don't have to be a seer to know that if interest rates go up you're going to have serious problems with small business. One of the most serious areas in small business is in the construction industry, and yet we have waited more than two years for the government to tell us what kind of housing policy they have, in which they can stimulate the construction business — most of them are small-business people — to give them some hope that there is going to be work, and that they can keep their businesses going.

We had an attempt by the government — a first tentative attempt — in January 1980 to use what is clearly a socialist instrument, mortgage subsidies, to create some 5,400 units from that $200 million mortgage program. There is no question that that was a successful effort in generating employment. It allowed small businesses and those in the construction industry and those that get the spinoff, to maintain themselves. But then they stopped, and now we have what must be considered, Mr. Speaker, a very garbled statement by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), as to what exactly their plan is in the business of developing housing.

My colleague the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who was Housing minister under the NDP government, said that there is probably going to be in the area of $5 million. That's the kind of infusion that they're talking about in terms of a housing program, when almost two years ago they talked about and did put up $200 million in mortgage money, agreed to subsidize the interest rate from 9 3/4 percent to 13 percent, and to lever for some $10 million, $200 million into the market. But we don't have that kind of proposal. We have no details from the minister, and we have no hope for the small businesses out there that there is going to be some government pump-priming.

Finally, the government has realized that there is a role for government in doing something about the housing market. They are in no way going to be able to build all the houses, obviously, nor take away that function from the private sector, but there has to be some leadership in terms of the insertion of money. Because we are dealing with literally hundreds of small businesses which employ anywhere from 4 to 20 people. They are the ones that make up the bulk of the creation of new jobs in this province, and that's what we're talking about in this amendment when we talk about the failure to make provisions for employment. We are not interested, at this point in time, in these grandiose schemes, these megaprojects which have yet to come to fruition. We're talking about an immediate economic problem that has to be faced and met. It obviously has to do with the housing market, the provision of a form of mortgage subsidization. But most importantly, it will recreate employment, particularly in the forest industry. In terms of home consumption, somebody has to prime the pump; that's what this amendment is all about. That's what's been missed over there. I can stretch my imagination a long way, but what playing fields and hockey sticks have to do with the generation of the economy, I can't understand at all. The former speaker wanted to address frivolously the question of the amendment in terms of its failure to provide job opportunities, but that's what it's about. Last time when they had the mortgage subsidization program they did it in exactly the same way it would have been done through the savings and trust banking instrument — they went to the credit unions and asked them to put out the money to the people. Sure, great criticism could be levelled at who got those particular opportunities. That was wrong, but the idea itself was basically very sound. It creates employment and revenue and it does something to prime the pump.

That is what we're trying to get from the government. All we've got from them is that all of their problems are the fault of Ottawa and that they themselves have no solution. They're just going to lay back; they're going to cry, blame it all on Ottawa, and somehow wait for things to change. There's no great difficulty in supporting the amendment on that score. After all, they took steps two years ago that were practical, but now they seem to be afraid to take those steps again. If we are to believe the Minister of Housing that all they're going to do in terms of a new housing program is to put in $6 million, then we're going to be in very serious trouble, That is not, in itself, any kind of program dealing with the creation of jobs, Obviously that's not an adequate amount of money. We should have the minister tell us what revenue gains resulted from that program that was put in in 1980. Obviously there were revenue gains because of personal income tax, corporate income tax, sales tax and the general purchasing of goods that came through as a result of people having salaries. That's basically what job generation is about — which is not here.

I have addressed myself primarily to the small business sector, not to the megaprojects, which, incidentally, are supported in a major way with taxpayers' dollars. One can well ask the question: why all the support for megaprojects with taxpayers' dollars, yet no reasonable approach to support small businesses? That's the key question. It's a question of where you place your priorities. The government has already had a warning about the megaprojects. If they haven't learned anything from the Manitoba situation of three weeks ago, then they've got their head in the sand.

Basically we are moving into the darker days of the economic cycle. It's becoming much more desperate. The

[ Page 6662 ]

whole question is people who are operating businesses and trying to keep their heads above water; they are looking towards the government to do give some help. The point is that that is the key question that has to be addressed in terms of the failure of the government to do something about the generation of jobs. That is the key thing in the whole throne speech: small business was missing from the whole concern. We're bringing it back to the reality of what is missing from the generation of programs by the government for small business. Let's bear in mind, as I said before, that they are the people that create the jobs, they are the people who need to be supported.

All around this province it's tragic to know that because we are so dependent on the housing market in the United States we are suffering a drastic turndown in the forest industry. The other day a representative of the IWA told me almost 20,000 people are out of work in that industry; half of their people are not working. If we can't find the markets outside for the export of lumber, then we're going to have to address what is a very serious problem inside and to create that kind of employment. It's always been very mystifying to me that the government is not prepared to address that problem. They have an opportunity to do it, based on an experience that they had some two years ago. It's practical and it's worthwhile and it's something that can be done now.

The important thing is that the purpose of the amendment is to point out a serious shortcoming — something that we could not get the minister to address.

I would urge members on the other side to consider this, to discuss their own situation in terms of where they come from: just what is the situation with small business people? How many are failing and how many jobs are being lost as a result of that? What they propose to the government, if they're saying anything at all.... That's the key question right now. We can't expect to see an upturn where there will be improvement well into the spring of next year, basically because of what takes place in our economy after the post Christmas period and what the general experience is.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the members participate in this debate and tell us their experiences and their solutions, because the reason for the amendment is that there are no solutions for that serious problem of job generation — generating jobs for now. I'm not talking about megaprojects which won't come on stream until 1983, 1984 or 1985; I'm talking about facing an immediate task now, and, what they are prepared to do about it.

MR. RICHMOND: I'm speaking against this amendment and in full support of the Speech from the Throne. I would like to expand on some of the items contained in the speech, every one of which affects our economy.

First of all, while the throne speech makes reference to the constitution and its impact on Canadians and our way of life, it does not mention the fact that the Premier of this province, through his tremendous efforts in keeping together a very loose-knit alliance of eight Premiers, emerged as a truly great Canadian. I feel certain that Premier Bill Bennett and the other seven of the so-called gang of eight will go down in history as the saviours of this country.

To contrast the efforts of some to discredit his performance, I would like to read a couple of excerpts from letters from the other Premiers to Premier Bennett.

First of all, from the Hon. Peter Lougheed, the Premier of Alberta:

"As one who sat at the table, I congratulate your skilful diplomacy and unselfish dedication to the difficult task of pulling together the diverse views of our country. It has been a critical and controversial year significant in the history of Canada — a year in which you as chairman of the Premiers can be proud."

I quote part of a letter from the Hon. William G. Davis, Premier of Ontario:

"There is simply no question that the facts of the meeting itself, the open-mindedness which existed prior to the meeting being held, the free exchange of ideas and options which contributed materially to the ultimate successful outcome, could not have happened without the particular role which you played as chairman of the 1981 Premiers' Conference."

MR. HALL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I realize that you have suggested that the throne speech is traditionally one in which a wide-ranging debate can take place, and I think examination of the various rulings over the years would indicate that is true. However, as my colleague, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) said, once an amendment is moved and seconded, then debate must be limited to the terms of the amendment. I appreciate that employment is mentioned in the amendment and the member for Kamloops is talking about the future employment prospects of the Premier. Therefore, if he wants to suggest that these are in effect testimonials to the future employment potential of the Premier, then let's accept it on that basis and look at the employment potential of other participants there like Sterling Lyon or other Premiers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think we should at least allow the member speaking a little opportunity to formulate his discussion.

MR. RICHMOND: I expect no particular favours from the Chair, but I would remind the member that the constitutional accord has a great bearing on the economy of this country and this province, and we think it affects the employment possibilities of many, many more people than the Premier of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Kinsella?

MR. RICHMOND: Yes, probably him, too. I will just conclude this short quotation from Mr. Davis:

"May I say to you that the people of British Columbia are particularly fortunate to have been represented during these historic discussions by someone with your sense of commitment and dedication. All Canadians owe you a very great debt indeed."

As someone with a media background myself, I sincerely hope that these very significant statements will not go unreported.

Through the Premier's efforts we are guaranteed ownership of our natural resources — an ownership that no one in the future can take away from us, as very nearly happened. I just want it on the record that I am one Canadian and British Columbian who is thankful that we have such men of vision and determination as our leaders.

There is no question that the whole of this country is going through a very tough economic time and it will probably get tougher during the coming winter months, But I

[ Page 6663 ]

would like to point out that of all the provinces in Canada, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia is by far in the best shape and will suffer the least from this slowdown.

B.C.'s strong economic base didn't just happen by accident. It happened because of government initiative, vision and sound planning in fields such as mining, in particular the mining of our coal resources in both the southeast and northeast sectors of this province. I shudder to think what kind of winter we would have if we still had in place the mining and development policies of the socialist government of the early 70s. It would indeed be a bleak winter.

MR. KING: Quit picking on us.

MR. RICHMOND: Wait, Bill, I'm just getting warmed up.

I am very pleased that this government has seen fit to initiate housing policies to stimulate some activity, especially in the area of rental accommodation. It's unfortunate that some of these measures were necessitated by the federal budget of a couple of weeks ago, which totally destroyed any incentive for Canadians to invest in this type of housing in Canada. It's hard to understand, Mr. Speaker, how programs such as the capital cost allowance program and the MURB program ceased to be incentives and became loopholes overnight. Constituencies such as mine were very seriously affected by this decision. Kamloops, as you all know, is a very fast-growing community with a tremendous need for rental accommodation. In fact, the vacancy rate in our community is practically zero. Many projects that were on the drawing board, totalling hundreds of rental units, were cancelled the day after the federal budget was announced. Hopefully, the initiatives set forth in the throne speech will restore most, if not all, of these projects. This, coupled with the new rent-to-own program, should end the shortage of rental accommodation.

It's difficult to understand the thinking behind these moves in the federal budget, Mr. Speaker. By closing a couple of so-called loopholes, the people they're hurting the most are the people they're trying to appeal to with this type of legislation. By gaining a few paltry dollars in income tax through the elimination of a couple of these shelters, they will be costing the taxpayers of Canada hundreds of millions of dollars in lost work by tradesmen, in increased rents due to the zero vacancy rates in apartments, in the lack of sale of building materials of all types, and in all the spin-off trades that are involved.in building this type of accommodation. It was a budget that I could have understood, Mr. Speaker, if it had been written by the NDP, because they don't know any better. But the Liberals should know better than to draft a budget such as the one they did.

I'm also pleased to see the inclusion of highway improvement in the Speech from the Throne. Specific mention is made of the new and exciting Coquihalla Highway, which will be of great benefit to the entire province and in particular to the people of my constituency. It will reduce the travelling time and therefore the expense of travel from the interior to the coast considerably and will guarantee the people of the interior of this province another permanent supply route as the pressure increases constantly on the existing routes.

Mention is also made of converting existing two-lane highways to four-lane routes where appropriate, and this applies specifically to two highways in my constituency and will provide employment. The Trans-Canada Highway west of the city of Kamloops and the North Thompson highway, which is number five north of the city to Heffley Creek, have been of concern to the people in and around Kamloops for quite some time. I know they will be as pleased as I am to see this program included in the Speech from the Throne.

I would like to take just a moment, Mr. Speaker, if I might, to report on the progress being made by one other very important highway project in my constituency, and that is the construction of the Halston Street bridge. Considerable progress has been made in the past few months regarding plans for this bridge, with the actual survey work now being completed. This will enable the highway engineers to identify the actual land required for the bridge and approaches, especially on the east side of the river, which in turn will enable the department to sit down and negotiate the purchase of that land from the individual locatees and the Kamloops Indian band itself. I feel reasonably certain that a suitable agreement will be reached with the Kamloops Indian band and we will see the construction of the Halston bridge commence reasonably soon, as it is urgently needed by our very fast-growing community.

As everyone is concerned with the increasing number of accidents on our highways, I'm sure that everyone will be pleased to see the priority being given to dealing with the bad drivers. It is the view of many of my constituents — and I have received several petitions on this matter — that the 55 miles per hour or, if you prefer, 90 kilometres per hour, is doing nothing to decrease the number of serious accidents on our highway system. In fact, it is the feeling of most of these people that these restricted speeds are causing many of our accidents. It is likewise my view that the public would be better served if we were to put the speed limits on our highways back where they belong, and that is to 60 miles per hour where appropriate — or, if you prefer, 100 kilometres per hour — as most of our highways were designed for these speeds. I urge the minister to seriously consider this proposition.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has mentioned the Festival of the Arts. I am pleased to report another first for this government and for the constituency of Kamloops. The first ever Festival of the Arts will be held in the city of Kamloops in June 1982. It is not only a first for British Columbia but also a first for all of Canada. It will involve hundreds of amateurs from the fields of music, acting, the dance, and artists from the four comers of our province in a tremendous spirit of competition.

The people of Kamloops are very excited about hosting this first Festival of the Arts, and are showing their pleasure by turning out in large numbers to volunteer their help, as they did in the Winter Games of 1979. I feel certain that Kamloops will set as high a standard for the arts festival as they did for the Winter Games, a standard that will be difficult and challenging for other communities to match, but a standard that will make all of our aspiring musicians, actors, dancers and artists strive for perfection.

It's difficult for me to understand the talk of the opposition in these last few days over the issue of electoral reform. If they will read page 14 of the throne speech they will find what it says. I won't quote it, because the Provincial Secretary has already done so, but it assures the people of British Columbia of the importance that we place on our electoral process. I can only assume that they are continuing to pursue this line of attack to cover the fact that they do not have a policy of their own, or anything concrete or constructive — that I've heard

[ Page 6664 ]

so far — to contribute to the throne speech debate, and they keep flogging this dead horse.

I would like to briefly mention an item that is all too easily passed over, and that is tourism. Through the efforts of this government — a government that invites people to visit us — the tourist industry has grown to an industry that generates over $2 billion, creating tremendous employment opportunities for many, especially for the young people of our province. I think, that the minister and this government are to be commended for their outstanding efforts in encouraging people to visit British Columbia.

In closing, let me just make a few points. The opposition has called this a speech for millionaires. I would like to ask them: does a rent-to-own program sound like a policy for millionaires? Does incorporating employment into the Labour ministry sound like a policy for millionaires? Does "amendments to the Securities Act to protect the small investor" sound like a policy for millionaires? Does leadership on women's job opportunities sound like a policy for millionaires? What about amendments to the Family Relations Act? Does that sound like it's for millionaires? Does a report on pensions for both the public and private sectors sound like a policy for millionaires? Last but far from least, does a major expansion of funding for day-care centres sound like a policy for millionaires?

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the working people of this province are thankful that they have a responsible government, a government that is looking after their better interests, a government that is concerned about how much personal income tax they pay. The working people of this province are coming to realize that the worst enemy they could possibly have is a socialist government, an irresponsible government that makes statements such as: "We will buy any sawmill that shuts down, and we will put the people back to work." The working people of this province are not that gullible. They can easily see through these empty statements designed solely to win the favour of the labour bosses. I might add that the only people in this province I ever hear advocating that others resort to anarchy and break the law are members of the NDP and labour bosses.

MR. COCKE: Name one time. Give us one time.

MR. RICHMOND: I could give you several.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. RICHMOND: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that they read the quotation from their own member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Let's hear it. What does it say?

MR. RICHMOND: We have the exact wording, but I don't have it in front of me — I will paraphrase. He advocated that people lock the doors of the Legislature of this province. If that isn't anarchy, I'd like to know what is.

The people of this province, Mr. Speaker, are thankful for a government that recognizes that there is a time for restraint, and that possibly this is the time. It is not the time for irresponsible spending that would plunge this province hopelessly into debt, as has happened once before. They have good memories, Mr. Speaker, and they're not interested in the pie-in-the-sky promises that would make their personal tax burden unbearable.

MR. PASSARELL: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome you back to the House, and I hope that you're in good health and robust spirits.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that I thought the previous speaker's statement about the NDP breaking the law was a little bit too hard to handle. We'll just let it lie at that, because I think it was done more in jest than trying to do....

Speaking of statements, at the outset I would like to read something from the Speech from the Throne that I hope members from the government might be able to clarify. This amendment that I'm speaking in support of states in the last sentence: "...fails to provide proposals for strengthening the economy of the province, so as to provide full employment opportunities for all the people."

Under the section "Highway Improvement" on page 11 — and I'm quoting: "...and the paving of road shoulders on rural gravel-road surfaces." Now, Mr. Speaker, that does provide opportunities for employment, but I think it would make more sense to go out and pave the gravel roads before you start going around and paving the road shoulders. I don't know, Mr. Speaker, that might be something out of Major Douglas' a plus b theory concerning paving gravel-road shoulders before you pave the gravel roads, and I think it might have been a mistake in the lawyers' writing of the throne speech. I would certainly hope the minister could clarify that.

This morning, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to touch on a number of issues pertaining to the economy of this province as well as to the economy of the Atlin constituency. In the north many communities are based on resources, and particularly many residents of the communities live in company towns. Now the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) — and I wish he was here so I could direct these questions more or less through you, Mr. Speaker, to him — was talking about a grandiose housing scheme of approximately $6 million, and also he has stated that it might be impossible to implement the program due to the economy of the province. Now we're talking about $6 million, which is a very token fee when you look into the budget of approximately $6.6 billion. And when we see money that's being allocated for monuments such as B.C. Place and Pier B-C — hundreds of millions of dollars — $6 million for housing is a very token fee. I would certainly hope the jobs that would be associated with spending $100 million or $200 million for housing which would benefit many people in this province would weigh more so than building monuments in Vancouver.

Another issue I would like to address is the Crown land aspect of the program. I wondered why the minister made no mention of what Crown land for the rent-to-buy program will be available in the Atlin constituency. There was no mention of that. I would certainly hope that in the near future the minister could relate exactly what land will be available.

On the question of timber, to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), it doesn't take much to travel through this province and look at the amount of wood that's lying on the ground, rotting, that forest companies that have come in

[ Page 6665 ]

to clearcut have left to rot on the ground. By taking this wood that forest companies find is not profitable at this time when they're going in for larger logs, and by turning around and using this wood, instead of letting it rot.... In many parts of the north, as the minister might not be aware.... Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Forests, I hope that he might travel into the north and see exactly how much wood is lying on the ground in tree-farm licence No. 1, just rotting, that could be used for the benefit of this economy and this province.

Another issue in the economy of the province in relation to this amendment is Silver Grizzly Timber. Two weeks ago the Northern Times magazine, out of Terrace, did an exposé on the sawlogs that Silver Grizzly are using through helicopter logging and taking to Japan. This issue clearly shows the jobs being lost to British Columbia through the export of sawlogs to Japan by Silver Grizzly. I would certainly hope that if the minister hasn't seen the article he would certainly look at it. It is causing a detrimental effect upon the economy of the northwest section of this province.

One issue I'd like to talk about through the amendment in relationship to the throne speech is native affairs. The relationship of the constitution and the native affairs issue, particularly section 34, is pertinent to this amendment, when we're looking at the native people of this province. We have seen....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Perhaps the debate that the member is now embarking on might best be carried out under the debate on the main motion itself. The amendment to the motion does proscribe the scope of debate quite considerably. If the member could relate his remarks to economic policies or economic stagnation as they touch native rights....

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you for your advice; that's exactly what I was going to do.

What we've seen with native people is the highest rate of unemployment, the highest rate of suicide, and the highest unemployment rate of any socioeconomic group in this province. We see that section 34 of the constitution will in fact increase the unemployment of these people, by not giving aboriginal right and title to the native people, without their consent. In the last few weeks we have seen that the first minister of this province has been very confused about the issue and its relationship to the native people of this province and to this amendment concerning the economy. I don't want to state at this time — I'll do it during the throne speech — exactly his position on section 34, which has been very confused. Just taking the statement out of the throne speech itself, on page 2, "the elevation to first-class status...." I would like to know how the Alberta compromise, which is being pushed by the first minister of this province, elevates the native people of this province to first-class status, when you deny aboriginal title and consent in section 34.

We all remember a statement by the Attorney-General on July 23, 1979, stating that his government did not believe in aboriginal title. It was relinquished, in his words, "when British Columbia formed into the confederation." Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gosnell, who is the president of the Nishga tribal council, sent a telegram two days ago to the Minister of Justice, Jean Chretien. I will not read the entire telegram because it would be better used during the Speech from the Throne, but the president of the Nishga tribal council relates this to the Speech from the Throne and to the amendment just by the words: "We demand that the word 'existing' be deleted from section 34 as proposed by Premier Lougheed. Premier Lougheed's proposals would only serve to entrench the right of the Premiers to continue to deny the existence of our aboriginal title."

The aboriginal title, Mr. Speaker, is very important to the economy of the native people in this province. We're talking about vast resources in this province that are in aboriginal title, and the development of these resources, not at the expense of the native people, as we have seen with the Amax issue.

Page 2 of the throne speech mentions the "rights and freedoms to which Canadians have been entitled throughout our history by way of tradition and custom." Mr. Speaker, how can the government deny native people aboriginal title to their land, to the resources that are underneath it, by custom and tradition? Why has the first minister of this province denied aboriginal rights and title?

An issue on the environment that was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne was offshore resources, which is another aspect involved with aboriginal title, as well as with environmental protection in this province. We cannot develop offshore resources at the expense of marine life and to the detriment of the people of the coast. A suggestion is that before any further permits or leases be granted to the multinational oil and gas companies, a full provincial-federal public inquiry be held to ensure that we do not repeat the North Sea experience of spills or oil rigs breaking up in rough seas, and that before any development of offshore resources of our province takes place, a contingency safety plan for environmental protection be enshrined in law.

Another issue mentioned in the Speech from the Throne was geothermal resources. Who will be developing geothermal resources in this province? Will it be B.C. Hydro, with their track record of financial disregard to the detriment of the taxpayers of this province? Or will it be, as happened in many other provinces. multinationals who gobble up leases, let them sit for years, and then years down the road hold them up to the public of this province for ransom?

A third issue concerning geothermal development is that we must enshrine status protecting aboriginal rights. Since major deposits of geothermal developments in this province are particularly.... One of the major ones is about two or three miles south of New Aiyansh in the Nass Valley — right on the Nishga aboriginal title. We must be assured that any development of geothermal developments is done with the consent of the native people and in conjunction with their beliefs and suggestions.

The third issue I'd like to discuss is waste management. We certainly need something to develop and define some of the proposals under waste management — to bring them into the twentieth century. We find many regulations being very archaic and there are certain stipulations that deny many residents of this province their free voice in appealing decisions of waste management. I would certainly hope that the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) will be able to develop a definite improved program that will allow residents of this province, through a freedom of information act, to see all data that the decisions are based on.

Another issue I'd like to discuss under environment is the world heritage sites. I'm certainly pleased to see that the United Nations has taken upon itselves to protect a certain heritage site in this province. But one of our most important

[ Page 6666 ]

heritage sites are our rivers. Rivers are a natural heritage and presently we are embarking upon consent to dam the last three wild rivers in this province: the Stikine, Iskut and Liard. Just yesterday the headline of the Vancouver Sun stated that the vice-president of B.C. Hydro stated in the public hearings for Site C that it was a better program for B.C. Hydro to build too many dams at the expense of taxpayers' dollars and then worry later about the consequences down the road for the economy of this province. We also had the president of B.C. Hydro in San Francisco a few weeks ago talking to a group of businessmen. His statements were that after the damming of the Stikine, Iskut and Liard, probably in the twenty-first century, British Columbia would be moving into nuclear development. I would certainly hope that the government and this Legislature might be able to bring Mr. Robert Bonner into line for making statements...

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: They won't? I'm sure they will.

...about bringing nuclear power to this province. Right now, Mr. Speaker, we're exporting very cheap power to the United States at the expense of the public of this province, who are paying for it through their tax dollars.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right. Yesterday the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), Mr. Speaker, was going wild in his seat.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Could you control him? He's going wild, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development please observe the rules of debate. Please continue.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Concerning Hydro development, as was stated in the Vancouver Sun article yesterday, we've seen that B.C. Hydro's philosophy is to build too many dams at the expense of the people of this province. Right now B.C. Hydro has a debt of around $7 billion, much more than the provincial budget. We've seen further plans to develop northern rivers for power — the last wild rivers in this province — at the expense of about $15 billion to $25 billion. One particular dam, the Laird dam will be the third-largest dam in the world. Where will this power be going? The third-largest dam in the world is compounded upon the Stikine-Iskut and upon the Mica, the Revelstoke and Site C.

HON. MR. McGEER: Are you against damming?

MR. PASSARELL: I'm against the damming of the Stikine-Iskut and the Liard. I would certainly hope, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Universities, that he would go up into the area and talk to people of his support for damming the Stikine-Iskut and Liard:

In particular, with this amendment, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the economy of British Columbia........ One of the issues of the economy of British Columbia to the native people who live on the Stikine and the Iskut is salmon fisheries. I would certainly hope, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Universities, that he would understand the economy associated with salmon fisheries by native people and the effect that the Stikine and Iskut dam complex will cause upon their livelihood and their economic base.

HON. MR. McGEER: Are you against damming the Liard, too?

MR. PASSARELL: We know what the Minister of Universities believes about nuclear power. I believe we can find a consensus in this province that we don't need nuclear power, and, as well, that we don't need to build dams just to build dams, as the vice-president of Hydro stated yesterday.

Another issue is that there was no mention in the speech from the throne of sea-farming, a very important issue to many northern residents, particularly in the Stewart area, who have tried to develop the economy in their particular area through sea-farming. There was no mention whatsoever of that in the speech from the throne.

To change the issue to health care, last year in the throne speech we had a promise of rural health care. This year, during the throne speech, no mention of it was made. I wonder why that didn't happen. It affects people who live in the north, not just in my constituency but also in that of my friend the hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). The economy of northern residents is affected by that. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, why this government was so quiet this year regarding rural health care, and why there was no mention of it.

Another point under this amendment to do with the economy and its effect upon northern residents is that there was no mention of the legal use of midwives. We find that in many rural areas of this province not everyone has access to a hospital or a first-aid station or the use of community care. There was no mention of improving expenditures for public health work in the province, particularly for public health nurses. Why are northern health centres, particularly in Terrace, finding it very difficult to find funds for much-needed support services, to fill the many jobs that are still needed for northern health care?

An issue that this government neglected to talk about was northern tax allowances, which the federal government, through its latest punitive budget, attempted to steal from northern workers. In 1979 and 1980 many northern workers were included by the federal government in the northern tax allowances. This year, through their latest punitive budget, this government has allowed its cronies in Ottawa to simply remove the regulation protecting northern tax allowances for northern workers. There was no mention whatsoever, in this House or by the Minister of Finance, of protection of northern workers from this punitive Ottawa budget.

In conclusion, we've seen one of the longest throne speeches in the province. We've seen an amendment presented by the New Democratic Party concerning full employment opportunities in this province. We've seen speeches made by the government members that have been based on many of the themes and thoughts against unions. We've also seen no mention whatsoever in the Speech from the Throne on protecting teachers' collective bargaining in this province. We've seen a Speech from the Throne that has denied aboriginal title and many issues that I've touched on today. Finally, we've seen the continuation of this government to allocate

[ Page 6667 ]

millions and millions of dollars for monuments in Vancouver without any public inquiry, public thought or public decision being made by residents throughout this province concerning the use of their tax dollars on monuments in Vancouver.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak against the amendment that is now before the House.

MR. LEA: Why?

MR. BRUMMET: Well, the amendment implies condemnation of the government for lack of economic development. It also condemns the government for failing to provide employment opportunities. When we think and read about and know what has been going on in this province over the last few years, I don't think any possible amendment that this opposition could have come up with could have been more wrong on all counts. Certainly we have had economic development in the province. We have had employment opportunities created, This province is moving ahead and has been moving ahead for the last few years.

Let me give just a few instances. Last year British Columbia, with 11 percent of Canada's population, had 25 percent of all the new housing starts in Canada. Despite all of the flack that the opposition is throwing at the housing program and so on in this province, I think you'll find that our housing starts will go up again this year and that the housing program will work. It has proven itself over a period of time. We have been attracting investment into the province. We have been showing good government initiative. Things are happening in this province.

For instance, we created 22 percent of the new jobs created in Canada last year, with only 11 percent of the population. Capital investment increased 28.5 percent. There is talk that in the throne speech no mention is made of any economic development or employment opportunities. I'd like to refer to the project in high technology that has just been announced and is proceeding in Richmond, the CP Air and BCDC joint venture on creating a plant for turbine engine repair. Those people are investing some $54 million in bringing this about. I have to assume that people like CP Air and other astute businessmen who have been in business for many years have looked at the opportunities ahead before they decide to put $54 million into this province.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said that we talk about climate, and he didn't think that that had anything to do with job creation. Well, it's the climate in a province — the assurances of future development and opportunities — that brings in investors that makes these people come to British Columbia, put their money here and bring projects here that will create the jobs. So we do create jobs.

That member for Prince Rupert also pointed out that we are shipping our natural gas to Japan for them to generate electricity, and here we are damming our rivers. Well, if that member did a little bit more homework, I think he would realize that flowing water is a renewable resource in this province and can be put to good use. It can generate electricity a lot cheaper than natural gas can. We need revenue brought into the province as well. I wonder if that member for Prince Rupert knows that his colleague from Skeena (Mr. Howard) has come out against liquefied natural gas plants; he thinks they are dangerous. The fact that they are used in other parts of the world and the technology is in place doesn't impress him. The other reason he gave was that we do not have enough natural gas to export. It's the old socialist philosophy of leave it in the ground. It's not going to do an awful lot of good in the ground 50 years from now when nobody else in this world has gas, and new technology and hydrogen and all these other things have been developed; then it can stay in the ground and it will never do this province any good.

The criticism has been made that the throne speech offers no services to people. If you just look at the throne speech, there's mention in there of public transit. Somehow or other, it seems to me that public transit is to move people more efficiently, more economically and more expediently. That seems to me to be for people. Not only that, the transit project is bringing technology to British Columbia and it's bringing jobs to British Columbia. It will create construction jobs as well as permanent jobs in the future. If that isn't for people, then I don't know what is. We have the advanced rapid transit; we have the commuter rail project. All of these things are to serve people in this province.

The throne speech refers to highway improvements and additions. The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), who just spoke, takes one, perhaps, typographical error out of the throne speech and makes a big deal out of that — that they are going to pave the shoulders on gravel roads. I'm sure that there is no intent. As a matter of fact, I would be objecting if they start paving shoulders before they pave roads, But that was the issue that he took. He can't see that the roads and the improvements on the roads create jobs in this province, create transportation routes which in turn serve the people of this province. On other occasions he stood here and demanded more funding on transportation systems, on highways. How well we can remember during the Highways estimates earlier this year when member after member stood up asking for more money, for more highways, for better roads in their constituencies. Was that not for people, or was that for themselves? I contend that the roads that we build, the improvements, the transportation systems, are for the people of this province. They give them better access, they give them better mobility and they create jobs.

The throne speech makes reference to more hospitals and better services — for instance, the Children's Hospital and services for seniors. Yes, we do not have enough services for seniors, and we do not have enough services for seniors in my own constituency. I am trying to get those other services, but I am not naive enough to think that we can provide all of these services without providing some way to pay for the operation of those services, and not from the taxpayer's pocket. What we need to do is create industry. We need to create means to generate revenue, and if we can't do that it's a false illusion created over and over again by this opposition: just build it and don't worry about it. Well, if you can't operate it and two years down the road you have to close the doors on something because you're broke, as they well found out in their term in office.... If you can't operate the thing in the future, it is a rather foolish investment to build it. So what this government is doing is trying to move sensibly, practically, pragmatically forward providing as many services as they possibly can on a responsible financial basis. We have to carry on with that.

I could go on, Mr. Speaker, with the things that are mentioned in the throne speech: the cultural developments, the sports, the recreational facilities, the programs that are being developed and so on. The member for Atlin made a list of the things that weren't listed in the throne speech. Mr.

[ Page 6668 ]

Speaker, if this government listed in the throne speech all of the good things it has done in this province and all of the good things it had planned, it would take five days to read it. They talk about no job opportunities, and no creation of jobs. What about the encouragement of high technology, which is bringing in the jobs? I've referred to that. What about the coal mining expansion in the southeast? Do you think that would be happening under socialism? Do you think they'd be attracting money into the province? Do you think the methanol plant at Kitimat would be happening with the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) against LNG.

MR. HOWARD: It absolutely would.

MR. BRUMMET: With what? You're against any further gas companies. You'd run the oil and gas companies out of the province if you could. How could you have a methanol plant? When you get a chance to speak, Mr. Member for Skeena, perhaps you'd stand up and deny that you're against the LNG projects in this province.

We're talking about the upgrading and modernization of our forest plants. A lot of that is happening, and it's still going on despite the setback in the forest industry. The northeast coal project: I hardly need to refer to all the jobs that are being created there and will be created, and the revenue that will be created from that to create services for the people of this province as we go through the years. Most of the money there is being provided by private-sector investment.

Mr. Brummet moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 p.m.