[ Page 3247 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Protection of St. Mungo site. Hon. A. Fraser replies –– 3247

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Mr. Hanson

Reforestation program. Mr. Skelly –– 3248

Speech from the Throne

On the amendment

Mr. Parks –– 3249

Mr. Gabelmann –– 3250

Mr. Pelton –– 3254

Mr. Passarell –– 3257

Mr. Davis –– 3260

Mr. Lockstead –– 3263

Mr. R. Fraser –– 3267

Mr. Barnes –– 3270

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1984

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we have in the members' gallery today Mr. Reinhard Marks, newly appointed consul-general of the Federal Republic of Germany in Vancouver, and Mrs. Marks. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them here today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Also in the galleries this afternoon we have Mr. Clarke Ashley, who is the Minister of Justice for the Yukon, and Mr. George Privett, his special assistant. I am sure that all members would like to pay a special welcome to them.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce Mr. George Hobson from Courtenay. Mr. Hobson is a community-minded citizen who has served as the mayor of Courtenay; he has been chosen as citizen of the year for Courtenay and also served as the chairman of the games committee to put on the Summer Games in Courtenay two or three years ago.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery with us this afternoon is Mr. Dick Sendall. Dick is a member of the B.C. Chicken Marketing Board. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. PELTON: In the members' gallery this afternoon I notice a long-standing and personal friend of mine, my wife Louise, who is visiting us along with the wife — Yvonne — of the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds). I would most appreciate it if everyone would welcome them here.

Oral Questions

PROTECTION OF ST. MUNGO SITE

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a more detailed reply to the question of the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) yesterday about the St. Mungo heritage site, connected with the proposed Annacis Island bridge.

The St. Mungo fish cannery site was purchased by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways as part of the site was needed for a right-of-way for the bridge construction. A total of 1.5 acres was purchased, and 0.51 acres are needed for a highway right-of-way, leaving 1.07 acres which we turned over to the heritage conservation branch of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary. During the last two years, the part of the site needed for a highway right-of-way — and I think the member should take special note of this — has been excavated by the heritage conservation branch, with costs paid by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Expenditures on the archaeological excavation by Highways are $570,000 over the last two years. The archaeological excavation on the right-of-way has been completed, and Highways obtained a go-ahead to start construction. Work will start immediately. The part of the site which is not needed for a highway right-of-way has been fenced to protect it.

All the concerns the member had have been looked after over the last two years, and I don't know where you ve been.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Victoria inquired of two ministers yesterday. He attempted to have one minister influence another minister, but we are not going to influence each other. He has given his reply on the position of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and now I'd like to give my reply on behalf of the Provincial Secretary and the Ministry of Government Services.

The cost associated with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, as you have just learned a few moments ago, was $570,000. The total project cost was $700,000. There was a contribution by the Provincial Secretary and the Ministry of Government Services of an additional $130,000.

The member asked for details associated with this particular project. I want to say that a contract for the project was awarded to Provenance Research Inc. In the summer of 1982. The project had two major dimensions — scientific archaeological excavations and public education. On the data recovery program the objective was to retrieve a maximum amount of data from the portion of site to be impacted by construction. The excavation phase began October 1, 1982 and ended April 30, 1983. The analysis phase ran concurrently with excavation and extends to March 31, 1984. The excavation and analysis program at its height employed 25 people.

The objective of the public interpretation program was to increase public interest and awareness of British Columbia's heritage resources. The program highlights included an on-site interpretation centre, school tours, classroom preparation, teacher workshops, hands-on activity at site, tours for the general public, special group tours and participation by the Archaeological Society of B.C. The program began February 4, 1983, and was scheduled to end April 30, 1983. Public response was very high, and the program was extended to August 30, 1983. A total of 18,275 people visited the site, of which 13,817 were public and 4,458 were school children. This phase of the program employed five people for seven months.

The Ministry of Transportation and Highways has recently awarded construction contracts for the Annacis Island crossing. The west end of the St. Mungo archaeological site is being cleared, as it is needed as a area of materials storage. It is important to note that it is the area that was investigated by the above-described archaeological project. Portions of the area to be cleared were already heavily disturbed. The remaining portion of the archaeological site is provincial Crown land. Officials of the ministry have indicated that the remaining portion of the site could be transferred to the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services for future protection or for an ongoing public interpretation program, if so desired. Arthur S. Charlton, provincial archaeologist, says: "The heritage conservation branch considered the archaeological work conducted to date to be adequate and a reasonable mitigation and compensation for the loss of resource on the Annacis Island project."

MR. HOWARD: I think that we have just seen an example of an abuse of the question period in replies. I think Your Honour has, on a number of occasions, indicated that if there are to be detailed statistical references made in reply, it would be more appropriate to do that by way of a ministerial statement. That is the objection that I make, not to the reply but to its length, convolution and statistics.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Point of order.

[ Page 3248 ]

MR. SPEAKER: If, hon. members, we are to interrupt question period with points of order, that time will be taken from question period. It has been the practice in the past that if there are points of order to be addressed arising from question period, they should properly be addressed at the conclusion of question period so we do not any more interfere with the question period process.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Highways. Only a small percentage of this site was investigated. Your ministry needlessly destroyed a portion of that site yesterday in bulldozing. The amount of money spent was equivalent to one of Doug Heal's little glossy television ads. Eighteen thousand students went through there, which shows the interest. That site could have been capped and preserved for all time for future work, but you had your people go in and destroy it.

Will the minister stop the bulldozer that is rolling on that site right now and cap the rest of the site for preservation?

HON. A. FRASER: It doesn't seem the member's got it straight yet. I have no intention of stopping anything. What we're doing now is all agreed to by the heritage branch.

[2:15]

REFORESTATION PROGRAM

MR. SKELLY: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. A Pacific Forest Research Centre study has predicted a loss of 60,000 jobs over the long term as a result of cutbacks in B.C. reforestation programs. Will the minister advise on what points he has been unable to reach agreement with Ottawa on a new reforestation program which would add some $90 million additional dollars to the reforestation expenditures in B.C. in 1984-85?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to respond. I just want to be reassured that I won't be accused of abusing question period by doing so. Do I have that assurance?

MR. SKELLY: Depends on the response.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely wrong when he talks about cutbacks in reforestation. Since 1976 reforestation in British Columbia has been doubled. Last year, the year for which the member has our last annual report, we planted 105 million seedlings in British Columbia. For the year just ending, our level would be 115 million to 120 million. I can't be certain of the number because all the statistics are not yet in. We are now sowing our nursery seedlings to produce 140 million seedlings next year. That is some cutback.

No, I cannot tell the member in what specific areas we have not yet reached agreement with the federal government, but I can assure him that negotiations have not failed. They're ongoing, and they will be carried on until a satisfactory resolution is reached.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister says there are no cutbacks. A five-year forest and range resource program report submitted to cabinet on September 30, 1983 says:

"In general, the growth built into and approved under the initial five-year programs has not occurred. Indeed, one year after publication of the second five-year program, the implementation schedule was set back for two years. One year later, the forecast and resource base for 1983-84 were reduced substantially. Growth in subsequent program years was put off indefinitely."

That, in this report to cabinet, Mr. Speaker, sounds to me like a cutback, no matter what the minister is saying.

In fact, would the minister not agree with the statement that the increase in tree planting was achieved at the expense of intensive silviculture spacing and fertilization and reflects the minister's priority for basic silviculture? The major implications of restraining the five-year program to a no-growth schedule are that the productivity of the provincial forest land base will be more reduced, and predicted wood supply shortages will occur earlier and will be more severe. Does the minister agree with the statement submitted to cabinet by the ministry?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, there is no simple answer to the member's question. However, the member seems to equate slowing down the rate of growth with a cutback, and he also seems to equate planting with silviculture. Reforestation is a part of the total siliviculture exercise that we undertake in British Columbia.

I am absolutely amazed that that member, who is seeking the leadership of that party and is the forestry critic, knows even less about forestry now than the previous critic did after several years, and the former critic is also a leadership candidate. Sad be the day that either of those members becomes the leader of that party, which, I'm afraid, is on the way out.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, this violates....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, if that member would be so kind as to take his seat, I would like to answer his question. My answer will be no more lengthy than the member's question.

As I have pointed out, we have increased the level of planting twofold in the eight years that I've been the Minister of Forests and have had the pleasure of serving with this government, and we have not cut back on our forest management work. We have had to trade off growth in the more optional intensive silvicultural work to maintain the growth that we have had in planting in the basic silviculture programs which we've had. I think we've done a tremendous job in spite of the very serious economic problems that we've had in this province. The restraint in government, which has had to be shared by all cabinet members in all their portfolios, has been a difficult problem to contend with, but we in the Ministry of Forests have maintained our basic silviculture, which is replanting, and we've had to do that at the expense of the growth rate in our more optional intensive silvicultural work.

MR. SKELLY: A 90 percent reduction.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member read from a report. A few weeks ago I tabled the 1982-83 Ministry of Forests annual report. If the member would look at page 10 of that report, it spells out what our accomplishments were in forest management work compared to what our goals had

[ Page 3249 ]

been. Through our normal spending programs, together with the employment-bridging assistance program which we undertook during that fiscal year, we met or exceeded most of our silvicultural goals. We did not quite achieve some of them but we met or exceeded most of them. For example, for that year our goal in surveys of backlog planning needs was to survey 256,300 hectares; in fact, we surveyed 266,823 hectares — in excess of our goal. In site preparation our goal was to prepare 52,000 hectares for planting; in fact, our preparation accommodated 62,661 hectares. If these are cutbacks, I'm quite amazed, quite frankly. I think that member should do a bit more research on the portfolio for which he is critic. I'm sure he would find out that we are accomplishing an awful lot in forestry in British Columbia today.

MR. SKELLY: Would the minister then confirm that in this document, which has not been made public but which has gone to cabinet — "A report to cabinet, September 30, 1983" — it states:

"However, a 9 percent increase in planting goals over the period covered by the fourth five-year program, compared to those built into the second program, was achieved at the expense of intensive silvicultural activity such as spacing, which underwent a 90 percent reduction in goals over the same period. Major implications of these restraint measures include a possible need for allowable annual cut reductions to meet with lower productivity of the forest land base, inability to fund the transportation infrastructure required to support the currently approved AAC, dismantling of insect and disease control programs, and the virtual elimination of range and recreation enhancement programs."

This is from your own cabinet document of September 30. You should do a little more research, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I did not detect a question in that last little speech that the member made. If there are abuses of question period, perhaps they should be drawn to the attention of the member for Alberni.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before proceeding I will recognize the first member for Victoria, who has informed the Chair that he has a matter to raise under standing order 35.

1 would remind all hon. members that it is incumbent upon the members themselves to make sure to some degree that our question period functions in the manner in which it is intended. Quoting from reports at any length is in fact an abuse of question period by both the questioner and the responder. Lengthy questions in excess of one and one-half minutes also tend to evoke lengthy answers. If question period is to be observed and function properly, I would commend the regular rules that we have been following to all members so that this chamber may be served in the most effective and efficient manner.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could take under advisement what you have ruled in the past. Lengthy answers, even though they were not taken as notice but were as presented today, have always been given leave from this side of the House, which allows government members to present those answers after question period. I wish the members on the government side would remember that fact.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. In taking that into consideration, I think you should leave a little bit of discretion to the ministers as to how they want to respond to the questions and when they want to respond to the questions.

MRS. WALLACE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat concerned that a precedent has been set here today that I have not seen occur before. Normally when a question is asked in oral question period, the minister either replies then or takes the question as notice. Today at the beginning of question period we saw two ministers rise to answer questions that they had already replied to — not questions that they had taken on notice. I think that is a breach of our normal procedure and certainly would set a very dangerous precedent if that were to occur. I would ask the Speaker to review that point.

MR. SPEAKER: If that were the case, hon. member, that would then fall into the purview of a ministerial statement, as opposed to....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will undertake a review and advise the House accordingly.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to standing order 35 to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely that one of the few remaining Indian village sites in the Vancouver area, dated at 4,000 years ago and occupied continuously from that date, is at this moment being bulldozed by the Ministry of Highways to store building materials. I urge Mr. Speaker to act immediately on this matter, as there is still a chance to save some of this non-renewable resource if the bulldozing is stopped immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will undertake to review the matter submitted by the member without prejudice to the urgency factor and report to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, continuing with my comments in opposition to the amendment put before this House and in particular continuing with my comments with respect to labour relations, I think it's fair to conclude that most of us, or at least any of us who have any exposure to labour relations in this province, appreciate the necessity that the laws and the philosophy we wish to bring to this very important area are constantly being re-evaluated and are constantly being considered as something that is fluid and something that is reactive.

Interjection.

[ Page 3250 ]

MR. PARKS: The hon. member for Skeena inquired whether or not I had my boots on, and I can assure the hon. member that I am wearing both my shoes and intend to continue to wear them.

I think the importance of the necessity for ongoing review of the labour laws of this province is very well reintroduced and reinforced by the results of a recent opinion poll that has just been released. I believe that, because the conclusion appears that the people of this province do not work as hard as they could or that they work only as hard as they need to. That, Mr. Speaker, is a very sad conclusion to have reached.

If, in fact, the people are working only as hard as they perceive they need to, then the obvious result is that productivity is going to be, at the very best, low and not likely to increase.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We have heard from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor how important this government sees an expanding economic development. Whether this province will in fact take advantage of the infrastructure that this government has put in place and develop our economy will depend upon this province's competitive position.

The public opinion poll also concluded that the residents of this province acknowledge that their trade unions have not shown leadership, and they expect that this government will fulfil the role, act decisively and give leadership in this most important area. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that the remarks of His Honour clearly indicate that this government is going to continue its role in reviewing labour relations law in this province. I believe that what we are about to receive in this current session will, in fact, be benchmark legislation. I don't think it's accurate to suggest that we necessarily require that very dreaded phrase "right-to-work laws." I don't believe that is necessary; I think it's fair to say that there has been a tremendous amount of consultation between government, management and labour. I think it's going to prove to be very fruitful for a well-reasoned and amicable approach to some of the problems that in the past few years have marked labour-management relations.

[2:30]

As I said before our lunch recess, the economic times themselves are predicating the necessity for changes to our labour laws. I trust that with the good intentions of this government and the good intentions as enunciated by various labour groups, we will be able to work together and bring about a set of reworked, revamped, modern and reactive labour legislation. Hopefully, it will be for the betterment of this province.

The Lieutenant-Governor commented in his speech on the very worthwhile infrastructure that the government is putting into place with respect to housing. I note that the vast majority of those serviced lots come within the so-called northeast sector of the lower mainland, of which Coquitlam, of course, is an integral part. In fact, over 1,000 housing sites have been serviced by this government and are now being put before the private sector for individual development as the market demands.

In addition to the Riverview Heights project I'm referring to, we have Westwood Plateau also coming on stream. Then as the decade unfolds we also have the Burke Mountain properties. The key point for that unfolding, as I'm sure my colleague the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) understands, is the necessity for proper commuter corridors. I would ask the minister in charge of rapid transit — ALRT — to keep in mind that with the immense number of housing units and the immense number of projected residents going to this area, it surely is reason in itself for an extension of the ALRT from New Westminster into the Coquitlam town centre. The town centre concept, as worked between the GVRD and our provincial government, I think, has a very sound basis and really is the type of decentralization that we require in the municipal spheres.

Before I conclude, I should note one of the more important aspects of my community. In 1909 some 39 families travelled from eastern Canada and settled along the Fraser River. They came to work in the sawmills down there. They brought with them their French-Canadian culture; in doing that they brought about the existence of a nice little spot called Maillardville. We are celebrating the seventy-fifth anniversary of Maillardville, and if any of the government members or if any of my fellow colleagues in the House are able to partake of the myriad events this year, you all will be very bienvenue.

MR. REID: Merci beaucoup!

MR. PARKS: In closing, I note the desire that was expressed by His Honour with respect to....

MR. BLENCOE: What kind of French is that?

MR. REID: Très bien!

MR. PARKS: Comme ci, comme ça — more ci than ça.

Clearly the past session that I witnessed indicates to me the worthwhileness of some legislative reform. It seems to me that some of the factors being considered — the potential introduction of television, the reduction in the length of speeches and a myriad of other recommendations based upon the rules and procedures of other Houses — certainly should be given a sincere look in a bipartisan context. I welcome that review, and I trust that it will also result in a more dignified and gentlemanly way of conduct in this House.

I close by saying that I agree with His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor saying that we have seen the troubles; we have recognized the troubles and we have put forward solutions. I would suggest this province now is in the threshhold position of being able to take the progressive steps forward, and I welcome the opportunity of serving in this House.

MR. GABELMANN: I hadn't intended to make any comment, in speaking this afternoon, on the item in the throne speech dealing with legislative reform. But having heard the words just spoken by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, and witnessing the abysmal performance in this House during question period today....

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, some members say "by the opposition"; another member says "by both sides." I'm going to suggest that it was by this House in general. The behaviour that we exhibit in this place is an embarrassment to me, and it should be an embarrassment to every member in this Legislature. What has happened to this Legislature in the

[ Page 3251 ]

last few years has been a deliberate attempt to make it irrelevant, a deliberate attempt to deny its rightful role in our society. The fundamental element in our democratic system is a parliament. There has been a calculated and deliberate decision on the part of, if not the entire government, then at least some members of that government to demean what happens in here so as to make it less important, so that parliament doesn't get in the way of government in its desire to govern without reference, except every four years, to what the people in this province might have to say.

For the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam to get up in this House and brag, as he does by inference, of his partisan behaviour in the Speaker's chair last fall is absolutely disgraceful and, I think, reflects badly on all of his colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I worry about what the Lieutenant-Governor was talking about when he talked about legislative reform being needed in this House. Is it to further deny the rights of the opposition? Is it, as the member suggested, to further limit our ability to speak in this House, as he just finished saying a few minutes ago? Are those the directions that the Lieutenant-Governor is threatening in this speech? What other elements of closure are we to expect?

Mr. Speaker, there isn't a member in this House who doesn't know, deep in his or her heart, if not in their minds, that there needs to be massive legislative reform in this chamber. But the only way it's going to happen in a durable and constructive way is if everybody is involved in the process to achieve those changes, to ensure that those changes have the full and unanimous support of every member in this House. Yet we hear suggestions being put forward by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam that some ideas have already been put forward, and he mentioned a few. Where have they been put forward? I've not heard them, as a member of this Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: He just put them forward.

MR. GABELMANN: He said that they had been put forward — "suggestions that were being considered" were his words. Where are they being considered? I allow, and I expect, that the government will make governmental policy decisions in the secrecy of the cabinet room. That's proper and appropriate. They should come here to this House and be responsible for what they do. That's the appropriate procedure. But when we deal with legislative reform, that's the responsibility of 57 members, not 19 in the cabinet room. When we do consider these changes — if in fact we do — I trust that the changes will be considered by all members. I trust that there will be an agreement to reach consensus on all of those changes before they are implemented. And I trust that they will have as their primary objective a way in which all members can contribute more effectively to the governing of this province. Mr. Speaker, I will leave it at that for the moment.

In making a few comments this afternoon on the throne speech, I must say I have to open by referring to an advertisement that was in the mid-section of the Vancouver Province this morning. It is an advertisement obviously donated by various groups who are concerned about poverty in this province. It's headlined: "Here's How the Hungry Eat." They talk about the food bank in Vancouver. This is in 1984, in prosperous British Columbia. It is an appeal to those people who are well-heeled enough to be able to provide some food so the food bank can continue in existence. In the ad they say: "If the food bank can't help people who are hungry here in the midst of plenty, who will?" The answer should be, and should have been over these years, that we in this province will help collectively; not some individuals whose consciences have been tweaked, but we as a society — all 2.8 million of us — will feed those people through our collective agency, the government. This government has not only abandoned its responsibilities to prepare for the future in every area of resource development in this province; it has also abandoned its responsibility to act as the collective agency for all British Columbians in making sure people don't starve here. But here they are, actually and literally starving in British Columbia in 1984, and we have to have a two-page ad in the Vancouver Province, and undoubtedly one in the Vancouver Sun today, appealing to those people of conscience, and those people with some extra bucks in their pockets, to contribute so that others can have maybe just two meals a day. If there are people who can afford to do that, then maybe they're not paying enough toward the collective needs of this province. Maybe the government should be taking its responsibility more seriously and making sure that all of those people who can afford to make those donations do so, and that they do so through the tax system, and that the benefits go through the government and are distributed properly to those people who are poor and hungry and without adequate clothing or shelter here in what could be the prosperous society of British Columbia.

When you look at the fact that there are now well over 200,000 British Columbians, including dependents, dependent upon welfare, many of whom are children, and when you look at those welfare rates, none of which come anywhere near the levels of income required to meet the poverty level, not to speak about exceeding it, wouldn't any self-respecting elected person in this province who recognizes that he is here to govern on behalf of all of the people make sure that those levels are adequate — make sure that people don't have to go begging, and make sure that we don't have to go back to the days of beggars on the streets and alms for the poor in its modern equivalent, full-page newspaper ads? I didn't see any reference to that in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker.

I could very easily become bogged down in my comments this afternoon and talk entirely about social services, health and education, and what I consider to be a travesty which is occurring in this province at the present time, but I'm not going to do that now. I want to talk about something that I — and the public — have always thought Social Credit was good at, and that's making sure that the resources and the economic side of this province are well looked after, and that those resources and that basic economy of ours will be developed in such a way that not only this generation but future generations as well will be well served.

[2:45]

There are three basic industries in my constituency, and for the most part they are similar to many constituencies in British Columbia. They are forestry, fishing and tourism. When I listen to the throne speech and read it, and see what there is about forestry, fisheries and tourism that will benefit North Island and the rest of the coast of British Columbia, and many other parts of this province, I am struck by the fact that there are no references. Yesterday we had Governor Spellman of the state of Washington speak to us very briefly in this Legislature, and for half of his speech he talked about

[ Page 3252 ]

fisheries and how essential it is that the agreement be negotiated between the States and Canada and that the resource be enhanced — to paraphrase him, before the Chinook, or what we would call the spring, is wiped out, and he said in 20 years. The governor of the state of Washington can come to British Columbia and spend half his time talking about the need for enhancement of the fish resource, and the need to make that industry a priority, and the government in the throne speech makes not even a single reference to the fact that we have a crisis in the fisheries on this coast. That tells me that the government fails to understand what makes this province tick. The province does not tick by repeating mistakes made in dozens of other countries around the world with their duty-free zones and their cheap, almost slave, labour and their silicon valleys that every jurisdiction in the western world wants to develop. Our strength is our resource. Our strength should be our trees, our fish and our beauty.

AN HON. MEMBER: And our people.

MR. GABELMANN: There won't be many people left here to enjoy our strength if you're in office for much longer.

I want to briefly talk about those three resources. In that crazy question period we had this afternoon, I listened with interest to the Minister of Forests' (Hon. Mr. Waterland's) attempts to justify the present levels of intensive forest management happening here in British Columbia. He got into a semantic argument with the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) about whether they were cutbacks or not. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not going to deal with the issue of cutbacks, because they are irrelevant.

In British Columbia we have never had an appropriate level of intensive forest management practices. We have never planted enough trees, or fertilized enough, or spaced enough, or commercially thinned enough. We have never practised all of those kinds of intensive forestry management practices that must be practised. We have never dealt properly with the non-satisfactorily restocked lands. We have never had a level of forest management practices in this province to refer to to decide whether or not there are any cutbacks. The fact we should recognize is that there is a cutback from what is the appropriate level. For the first time in my experience — and I believe it's the first time in the existence of tree-farm licences in northern Vancouver Island — there is a 15 percent to 20 percent failure to meet tree-planting schedules. In effect, if I have my figures correct, in one tree-farm licence alone they need another 150,000 trees planted this year beyond the number they have been allowed or are able to plant. That's a 15 percent to 20 percent shortfall in what is required to be planted.

In his answer earlier today, the minister indicated that while there may be some shortfall in the rest of the forest management program — and he admitted that they weren't doing as much there as he would like — he was arguing, in effect, that the tree-planting program is going on as it should. If it was, why is the stock of NSR land increasing? Why is the Nimpkish Valley tree-farm licence unable to get enough trees to plant to meet what they're cutting? Why is the annual allowable cut predicted to diminish in this province over the next few decades? Because the forest base is diminishing. Because the trees that will be harvestable not just 70 or 80 years from now but even 20 years from now will not meet current levels of cut, so we will be reducing the annual allowable cut. When you reduce the annual allowable cut, you reduce the number of people working in the woods industry. The only way to redress that....

We can't catch up. You never catch up in this business, and we can never catch up for the rape of the woods that occurred in this province in the earlier part of this century when there was no silviculture. The only way we can begin to try to deal with it is to put everything we can into it now, increase the growth rate of those trees already planted, make sure we are keeping up with what's cut down and begin the process of filling up the empty lands. But we're not doing that. We're not fertilizing, spacing or thinning; we're not practising any sound management practices in the totality. Sure, it happens in places. Sure, some efforts are going on. Sure, it's better than it was in the 1940s when the loggers went in and took the trees out, and that was that. But there isn't much old growth left, and there isn't enough second growth onstream. Even if we did all of the things that I'm talking about, which could theoretically take an almost unlimited amount of money, we're not going to get onstream. We're not going to be able to keep the industry operating at the level at which it needs to operate, can operate and will operate for generations if we look after it.

So in the face of that — acknowledging as we do on this side of the House that there aren't unlimited dollars for these purposes — the federal government comes along and says: "If you'll give us 50 cents to match our 50 cents, we'll help you meet some of these shortfalls." So we can have, for 50 cent dollars, some replenishment of the silvicultural fund. I'm given to understand by what I consider to be good sources that the failure to reach an agreement to spend what is now, I understand, $60 million — $30 million each, but the figure could be any other number if the two governments would agree.... The failure to reach the agreement to spend that money lies primarily on the side of the province of British Columbia.

I'm not sitting there in the negotiations, so I don't know firsthand. I know enough about negotiations to know that unless you're there you never know what goes on. But I'm given to understand by people who are close to it that there was a deliberate decision on the part of the government of B.C. not to take advantage of those federal funds in forestry, in the same way as they are not taking advantage of shareable money in a whole variety of other programs that the federal government is prepared to put fifty-cent dollars into.

For some reason the government is prepared to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into some megaprojects but not into others. In this province forestry is the megaproject. There is no other megaproject that can or ever will reach the dimensions of the forestry industry in this province. Instead of glamorous ideas of duty-free zones, of Silicon Valleys, of new stadiums and of great big redevelopments in the city, let's put our priorities in this province straight; let's recognize that we want to provide social services in health and education, and if we are going to provide those services in an adequate and a proper way, we have to make sure that the economy of the province is functioning properly. That requires, in this province more than in any other in this country, that the money go into forestry.

For an extra $80 million or $100 million of provincial money we could have a reasonable silviculture program. But no, we decide we're going to spend $126 million on a stadium, we decide we're going to spend untold millions on other developments in the Vancouver area — not that I'm against them, but they have their place on the priority list and

[ Page 3253 ]

they're not first on my list — and we decide we're going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of provincial and federal tax money to develop a coal-mine in the northeast to compete with one in the southeast to sell coal at a price that doesn't even meet the cost of production,

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Tell all those workers who work there that you're against it.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm talking to the workers in my riding who are on unemployment insurance and on welfare. You come, Mr. Minister, with me to Zeballos and to Tahsis and to Gold River and to Port Hardy and to Port McNeill and to Campbell River and to Quadra Island, and you go to those workers there and ask them what they think about the policies of this government in preserving not just the forestry resource but also the fishery.

There's not a mention, not a damn word in this document about the fishery, while at the same time we've got a delegation in Ottawa pleading with the federal government, which has the main jurisdiction, for the survival of the fishery industry in this province — an industry that has been virtually destroyed, not just by overfishing, but more importantly by the provincial jurisdiction having failed to protect the rivers and the streams that produce that fishery. All anybody has to do is come with me and visit the Nimpkish River itself, which probably produced as many fish in the good old days as the whole province produces today, and see how few fish come out of that river. And you wonder why, until you go up the Nimpkish valley and you see the debris and the mud in the gravel where the salmon would be spawning. There has been no serious effort on the part of the provincial government in British Columbia, in my view, in the history of this province, to deal properly with what could be one of the biggest money-makers in this province. That's not just the salmon, which I think have been destroyed by awful logging and road-building practices on the coast. There's the groundfish, and there's the oyster and the rest of the shellfish industry. The dogfish industry. How much attention has been paid to developing a dogfish industry? It's there. It would serve two good purposes: one, there's some money available out of it; and, two, we'd get those predators out of the water. What efforts have been made, what initiatives have been taken by the government in Victoria, knowing that the government in Ottawa isn't interested in it, knowing that the government in Ottawa is far more interested in the east coast fishery because that's where their votes are and that's where there are some seats they can protect, if not to take away the jurisdiction from Ottawa, at least to negotiate the right to do more than just look after some aspect of the shellfish industry — which they now have — even to take over the management of the entire resource so that we can have one local unified resource management program in place.

[3:00]

I've seen no indication whatsoever that they're interested in having that kind of discussion with Ottawa. But let's assume for the moment that they don't want to. Let's assume for the moment that they believe the fishery resource should be federally managed. That's a legitimate position. Don't they then have an obligation to make sure that the views of the people who work in this resource, and who could work in this resource on this coast, are represented in Ottawa by the provincial government? Why wasn't there a representative with the delegation that was in Ottawa last week demanding that Ottawa pay more attention not just to divvying up a meagre resource that exists now, but to working out methods by which we can replenish that resource and develop other aspects of it? It's been an abject failure, symbolized beautifully, I think, by having the throne speech on Monday not even mention the subject, and then Governor Spellman arrives on Tuesday and spends half of his speech talking about it. It's an absolute indictment...the failure of the government to manage those resources in this province that we do best.

What's another one that we could do well at? Tourism. What's the government's approach to tourism? Ads in Los Angeles to make sure that all those visitors in L.A. make the three-hour plane trip or the four-day drive so they can stop off in B.C. this summer. That's fine. Let's do that. Sure, maybe packages can be worked out so that people coming from New York or Montreal can come via Vancouver and spend a few days here. It's an excellent idea. I have no objection to it. But is that the sum total of what we're going to do in this province to attract people here? And when we attract them here, what are we suggesting to the industry that they do? The first thing the government says to the industry is that it should lower its prices to make sure more people come here. For God's sake, as it is now, most of the people in the tourist industry can't keep their balance sheet in the black, and the government is saying they should reduce the cost of accommodation and reduce the cost of restaurant meals, which were jacked up 7 percent last year by this same government that now wants them to reduce the price. Is there any thought that maybe it's the government's responsibility to plan for these things? Isn't there any awareness that you can't base a tourism strategy on ads to draw people from L.A. or an appeal to the restaurant and motel owners to lower their prices?

What about the people who would drive up to the northem end of Vancouver Island if they knew there was a road there? I've still got maps floating around that don't even have the road on them, yet the road has been open for five years. Tourists may want to make the round trip between the Island and Prince Rupert, and on through Prince George and down the canyon back to Vancouver, but if they're camping or have a mobile home, they have to organize their trip so they're not overnight anywhere in north Island, because there is no place to camp and nowhere to park. You could park in the ferry parking lot while you're waiting for the ferry in Port Hardy, but what good does that do the tourist industry in Port Hardy and Port McNeil and Campbell River? This is the same government that won't allow tourism development in the Nimpkish Valley because they say that that Crown land should be controlled by Canadian Forest Products Co. The government encourages people to go to Cape Scott Park but won't maintain the trail that people walk on to go to Cape Scott Park. You have to walk through a mud hole; there's no maintenance.

How do we expect to attract people to this province unless we encourage them to come? Encouragement mostly happens through word of mouth; it doesn't happen because people see a glossy ad, notwithstanding those gorgeous TV ads for skiing in this province. That's not why people come here. They come here because someone else told them it was a good place to come to and they enjoyed themselves. That's not what tourists say when they leave North Island. If you can believe this, there isn't a single provincial government campsite north of Campbell River. The whole northern end of

[ Page 3254 ]

Vancouver Island doesn't have a single government campsite. Last summer I drove right across the province on the Highway 16 route, and there were all kinds of government campsites. Every level of government in North Island — every stripe of politics is represented therein — is appealing to the government that if they won't build their own campsites would they at least allow some Crown land to be available for private campsites. But we can't even get that. That's a tourist strategy?

I want to close by reiterating the basic theme of my comments in this throne speech debate and on the amendment. It sounds good. It makes nice newspaper headlines to talk about all these futuristic ideas: a silicon valley on the Saanich Peninsula, a duty-free port beside the coal at Roberts Bank — a whole variety of other ideas, some of which may well be worthwhile and may in fact be an appropriate development at some stage in the economic development of this province, while at the same time allowing the basic strength of this province — not only its strength now but something that has always been its strength — to be sapped away by neglect. It's tragic that there isn't greater public awareness of the way in which we have farmed our forests in this province. In fact, we haven't farmed them; we've mined them. We mine our trees in the same way those big machines mine the coal in the northeast. It's a ripoff mentality. I don't like the term, but I don't know a better one. It's a mentality that says: "Get what you can out of the resource today and damn the future, because it doesn't matter; we won't be in government 10, 15 or 20 years from now so it doesn't matter." But it does matter. It matters to our kids and their kids, and to many generations after that, if we can survive the Reagans and the Chernenkos.

Mr. Speaker, nowhere in this throne speech, nowhere in policy announcements of cabinet ministers, is there an understanding that — to crib a phrase — we should go back to basics in this province. All the government can understand, when it wants to go back to basics, is that everybody should learn how to count, how to read, how to spell. Sure they should, but we should also go back to basics when we understand what makes this province tick economically, and what makes it tick is its trees, its marine resources and its beauty. That should have been the theme and the focus for the throne speech. That should be the focus for a legislative program this year, not all of these peripheral issues that the government throws out to divert people from the real story, the real tragedy that's occurring here in British Columbia.

MR. PELTON: Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by thanking you for recognizing me, and by congratulating you, sir, upon your election once again to the position of Deputy Speaker of this House, an indication of the esteem in which you are held by all members.

Needless to say, I'm not able to support the amendment which is before us this afternoon. I do take quite a bit of pride in being able to rise in support of the speech of His Honour. It has been criticized in some quarters as "staying the course." In view of the substantial progress which has been made in reducing the fact and the psychology of inflation over the past two years, let me suggest that it would be purely irresponsible to abandon the course. Modification may indeed be necessary from time to time, and it is our duty as members to offer our suggestions and to bring to government the particular concerns of our constituents. The clear message I have received is that our province needs clear and positive leadership which is at the same time responsive to these concerns. This is the direction which our Premier set both in his historic national leadership for restraint, and in the consultation which has been the hallmark of the process in recent months.

Beyond raising concerns, Mr. Speaker, it is our obligation to identify opportunities and to press for their realization. In my own Dewdney constituency, over the years residential taxpayers have been relatively heavily burdened as a result of a very weak industrial tax base. Indeed, many of our breadwinners have found it necessary to seek employment outside of the community, while still desiring to live in our area, which has such a strong appeal to the family-minded.

The concept of free-trade zones is an exciting one. At the same time, I believe it must be developed with some sensitivity. It seems clear to me, for example, that the Dewdney area would be really ideal for the type of spin-off industry — that is, light manufacturing, assembling, distribution, warehousing and so forth — which is, or should be, a major result of such a zone. It is particularly important that boundaries and rules relating to such zones take into account natural population and other geographic patterns, rather than merely being arbitrary lines on a map which might create a sense of discrimination, particularly among those who were just outside such a zone. There might even be some merit in moving nationally towards free trade other than in agricultural commodities.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

Our position in the world economy clearly requires a degree of well-calculated risk-taking which is hardly present in the declining, protected industries of central Canada. In British Columbia we have chosen to deal with long-term problems in a timely way, despite the difficulty inherent in such a course, rather than postponing the inevitable and thereby making those adjustments even more difficult when they are finally faced. Unlike New York–type cities, we are not prepared to drain our people's financial resources to the point of bankruptcy and then run, hat in hand, to the federal government. In this country, in view of the state of their finances, it would be rather superfluous in any event. Instead, we are looking to creative approaches to generate the economic activity which will boost our recovery, while we simultaneously make use of a sharp pencil in sketching out our expenditure needs.

Expo 86, Mr. Speaker, is precisely such a creative endeavour — a world-scale event which will put our province centre-stage as never before. Fifteen to twenty million visitors are anticipated. Frankly, I find that prospect mind-boggling, and I do not consider myself to be a narrow-minded individual. Fifty-six thousand person-years of employment will be generated along with a phenomenal $2.6 billion in income activity — the largest single boost our lower mainland economy has ever known. We must plan now, and we must be ready to maximize our short-term and long-term advantages from this incredible opportunity.

In my own constituency, the community of Maple Ridge had an excellent opportunity to practise community organization and involvement through the 1983 Summer Games, which I must say were handled extremely well and with great imagination by our volunteers. I am very pleased to see that already a number of our leading community-minded citizens

[ Page 3255 ]

have come forward with some very innovative and creative ideas which they have passed on to the organizers of Expo 86.

Another very innovative creation in my constituency has been the formation of a traffic safety committee which has operated for well over a year, involving people throughout the community, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, health professionals, ICBC personnel, RCMP and others. Certainly we are one of the first communities in Canada to take such a strong, coordinated approach to this extremely serious problem. As a result of this work, a report was completed which made a number of very cogent recommendations; these have been passed on to various agencies which can, and hopefully will, take measures to implement them. In this regard it is most encouraging to me that His Honour made special mention of renewed provincial efforts to combat the carnage on our highways.

I believe this year, 1984, must be for British Columbians a special time of reflection. Over the past eight months I have often had an opportunity to speak with my constituents, who are pretty representative of the broad spectrum of opinion in our province. This is very much the message I have heard from them: 1983 was a trying and most difficult year for all, a year of unprecedented conflict and confrontation in our province. We were intimately aware of it in this chamber, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it was reverberating through every section of our society and every region of our province.

[3:15]

The conflict and confrontation was not of the ordinary kind: not a traditional partisan conflict or confrontation of competing interests, but rather a conflict between old values and assumptions on the one hand, and new realities which seemed to capture us by stealth on the other. Reflective of that unique situation was the apparently spontaneous ignition of public interest and concern. Individual by individual, family by family, community by community the new realities were sending out a shock wave whose reverberations are still with us. Assumptions concerning automatic prosperity, those cherished illusions of more than three decades, were shattered like a fragile pane of glass into a thousand shards. With William Butler Yeats, we could well have said: "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold." The central assumption which governments of every stripe had relied upon for social consensus was rent assunder, as the veil of the temple. Those who had been used to picturing themselves as the progressives on the leading edge of social change found themselves scrambling desperately to protect an already irrelevant status quo, while the more conservative forces in the community found themselves in the forefront of change and reformation of values. On balance, and not without considerable, conscientious anguish, the public opted for the future. The fundamental affirmation of our maturity, as a community, gives me great cause for hope. The human spirit moves always towards a new state of harmony following periods of great disruption and trial.

Our people are looking to us to guide and assist in the establishment of harmony, cooperation and a new social consensus which fully recognizes the new realities without abandoning the ideals, values and aspirations of the old. More than symbolic of the public desire for reflective leadership is the universal concern, which I have heard expressed, concerning nuclear disarmament. Nineteen eighty-four must be a year in which we transcend politics as usual if we are to have any hope of coming close to the expectations which our people have for our free democratic institutions. This issue is as much a provincial one as health care; in fact, to my mind, it is perhaps the major single health-care issue in the minds of British Columbians today.

As one who has probably spent more years in our armed services than any other member of this House, I feel a particular personal responsibility to address this question. Let me begin by saying that I do not agree with those whose political cynicism causes them to discard the Prime Minister's peace initiative out of hand. That is not to say that the initiative is necessarily free from some measure of political self-interest. Simply put, the gravity of this issue is such that questions of motivation are absolutely secondary in relation to the overriding need for substantial progress towards bilateral nuclear disarmament, regardless of the process by which it is achieved. Clemenceau said that war was too important to leave to the generals; I believe it is too important to leave to the politicians or the generals acting without regard to the public will. We must assiduously avoid the trap of naivete, just as we are avoiding the opposite trap of cynicism or despair borne out of the general anaesthesia of nuclear realities. Let no one imagine that the Soviet Union will not endeavour to squeeze every last drop of advantage out of our sincerest efforts to propose and advocate peace. Let no one imagine that the fundamental nature of their regime will alter dramaticaliy as a result of their change in world public relations strategy.

We are not far past the fiftieth anniversary of the "great famine," that misnomer which describes the deliberate mass starvation of over eight million Ukrainians, imposed by Stalin as part of his campaign to collectivize agriculture and Russify the Ukraine. It is passing strange to me that our collective memory of such an event bears so little proportion to its magnitude. We are barely a few months past the unspeakably barbarous slaughter of 269 civilian Korean airlines passengers. As we speak, weapons of chemical and biological warfare are being employed against the simple peasant herders of Afghanistan. Some of those who are most vocal in the peace movement are, I am immeasurably sad to say, invincibly ignorant as to the fundamental moral nature of the Soviet regime. They believe that because Russians are people just like ourselves, somehow their government cannot be all that different in its way of thinking from our own. Nothing could be more tragically wrong than to believe that, Mr. Speaker. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is not governed by all the people, but by all those people who have all the guns.

The Mafia in Chicago in the 1930s might serve as a closer analogy, save that their ambitions were limited to the more modest objectives of personal gain. Therefore our efforts to achieve peace must be reflective of an unillusioned understanding of our world situation. I do not mean to suggest that our actions in the West can have no positive influence on shaping new directions for change within the Soviet Union — far from it. Rather, I suggest that we must recognize the self-interest of those in power there to deceive us into seeing them as they would have us see them. From this reflective understanding, I believe that we should move to a new social consensus which draws its inspiration from the universal concern which we feel and which at the same time recognizes the need for unblinkered, highly informed, strategic thinking in planning for peace.

I want to applaud the many community and church groups working long and hard to raise the priority of peace

[ Page 3256 ]

with our political leaders throughout the world. In my community I was pleased recently to attend a meeting of our local medical profession which was addressed by Dr. Dorothy Goresky of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a group who very much believe that nuclear disarmament is a health issue. The example of this group and many others is refreshing in demonstrating the vitality of idealism in our society, notwithstanding the rude shocks and heightened economic concerns of the past year. There are some who might wish to discount the peace movement because of the presence in it, as I have said, of some regrettably naive spokesmen and the inevitability that the Soviets would make every effort to twist its outpouring of genuine human sentiment to their strategic advantage. But to do so, I believe, would be as fundamentally mistaken as it would be for us to pursue a course of unilateral disarmament.

I have spoken of building a new consensus for peace from the elements of the public sense of urgency and the informed awareness of the great difficulties these efforts face. Here, I believe, lies the great middle road we must walk together if our children and our children's children are to live in peace and freedom. Let us not abandon our commitment to NATO or western defence any more than we abandon the quest for a viable, mutually effective and verifiable nuclear arms reduction which, I believe, must never stop short of the ultimate goal of total elimination of nuclear arms from all the arsenals of the world.

As British Columbians are reflecting on the new values of these new times, I believe they expect us as their representatives to do no less ourselves. I know that the members of the opposition are now going through this process inevitably as they consider their future leadership and direction. That is potentially an extremely healthy development, Mr. Speaker, provided they are prepared to do so with an open mind and a hard look at the new realities which the people of British Columbia clearly recognized in giving this government a strengthened mandate to deal with our present and our future. If not, they must consider that by clinging to the outworn, albeit familiar and well-loved, phrases of yesteryear they do so at the peril of forever alienating the young of mind and spirit who demand a vision which not only promises a brighter future but which provides a coherent and legible roadmap of how to get there from here.

The government, for its part, must demonstrate to these same young hearts and minds — of whatever age — that it has the flexibility to accept constructive criticism from whatever quarter and to recognize that we have already passed that part of the sea which is reliably charted on existing maps. I want especially to congratulate the government on its willingness to take a second look at the route to be taken in a number of inherently difficult areas. The relationship between the state and the citizen, as well as that between the various individuals and groups within our community, requires at times forms of mediation which are fair in fact as well as in appearance.

This is the year of reflection, as I have said. Let us hope likewise that it will prove to be a year of conciliation. The Premier has rightly proclaimed the past few months to be a time of healing. Our role as legislators ought to be that of a responsible physician, recognizing that the patient is not yet out of danger. The need for restraint does not evaporate merely because we may grow weary of the struggle from time to time. The fortification of the body politic is a slow but necessary process to a sustained recovery. Let us attempt in our deliberations to keep before us the vision of the greater good, which is our trust. Let us not mistake treatments for the symptoms of distress with care of the underlying disease. No amount of old-fashioned physical medicine by way of more generous spending programs will alter the prognosis one iota. We cannot spend our way to prosperity any more than we can cure by adding more leeches to bleed the patient. Medieval quack nostrums will not create a single permanent new job in our province.

[3:30]

We live by trade — let us have no illusion about that. We are not rich because of our natural resources but because of our knowledge and ability to develop them at a price the world can afford to pay. Switzerland has virtually no natural resources. Japan has no great forests or comparable mineral reserves. All of these things and more can be found in abundance in any number of countries which are abysmally poor by our standards. The natural resource which is the foundation of every real prosperity is a free people given the right and room to grow and build, to follow their dreams and not the sterile dictates of any elitist few, no matter how well-intentioned they may be. That is not to say that government has no role to play. Rather, it is to say that in a good play government is the set designer and not the puppeteer. Government is a leader in providing the infrastructure from which real prosperity can grow. I am amazed, as I reflect on the history of our province, that so many still fail to see this essential point and criticize government transportation initiatives as somehow being at the expense of people programs, rather than recognize them as the absolutely essential underpinning of a modern economy, which alone can hope to finance a genuinely effective level of social needs programs and other programs — health care, education and other humanitarian designs. Our realism must be all-encompassing if we are to meet the people's needs today, and in the future, in a certain and comprehensive way.

An illustration must be our current need to re-examine educational priorities. It is not very satisfactory either to the public or to the student to spend the enormous amounts we do, unless we can be certain of equipping our young people with the real skills they will need in an incredibly rapidly changing and complex working world. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has moved towards re-establishing standards of performance and consideration of greater emphasis on math and science skills in our secondary schools. I want to applaud him for that. It is no service to our young people to herd them forcibly into well-heated, well-lit mediocrity. Our schools must not be allowed to become overpriced day-care centres as a result of institutional inertia. We must constantly challenge the assumption that the quality and relevance of our educational system is as high as it needs be or could become. I am very little impressed with comparative educational studies, because I believe that the standard for which we should aim is the potential of the human mind and not the relative position of those jockeying within the status quo.

We must look, above all, in two directions: first, to providing incentive to continuously increase the quality of teaching, which, despite much rhetoric, is not necessarily in direct proportion to the gross level of provincial grants to local school districts. The question is far more complex than that. I believe that the vast majority of those who enter the teaching profession in this province have every desire, and the capacity, to provide our children with the world's highest standard of education. I do not believe that the system they

[ Page 3257 ]

enter is adequately giving priority to the quality of classroom teaching. Accordingly, I believe that education students and teachers are being given less than the scope and incentive they need to realize their potential as individual educators.

I do not say that money doesn't matter. I do say that what you do with money matters more. Many teachers would like to see alternative approaches tried in our educational system, and so would I. As we reassert the need to measure performance, let us keep in mind the importance of diversity and innovation in educational techniques. Some today look to the private sector for their educational alternatives. Our government very much believes in the validity of that option. At the same time, I recognize that a very great many people are suspicious of what they see as educational separatism, or snobbism, which they perceive in this field. To my mind, the private sector educational option is a valuable one precisely because it offers parents an alternative, and therefore offers teachers an alternative too.

In recognizing this very fact, there should be some consideration of how alternatives can be accommodated within the parameters of the public school system without compromising the essential value of measurable standards of performance, both of students and teachers. I believe that there may well be room in our educational system for entirely new approaches which differ both from the traditional kinds of private schools and from the public system. Many parents, students and teachers would, I believe, be greatly interested in new schools which are oriented to the simple pursuit of educational excellence and affordability. I think, for example, of the possibility of co-op schools, which might be set up with minimum emphasis on capital expenditures by teachers who are currently unemployed or who wish to pursue an innovative course. The adoption of a voucher system, for example, which would relate funding of qualifying schools, private or public, to their enrolment, would facilitate a much broader range of educational options than is currently feasible. I would urge the government to consider in its long-range planning some form of flexible financing alternative to ensure equitable and cost-effective pursuit of a diversity in educational excellence which meets the aspirations, expectations and needs of parents, students and teachers alike. In education, as in clothing, one size does not fit all.

The relationship between education and job-skills training for the future absolutely requires a much more planned approach. I believe that by creating an educational marketplace, in effect, we will meet those planning needs better than through a unitary approach. We still import skilled labour into Canada, and faculty into our universities, while many of our own people are not adequately informed at the necessary time of the likely prospects which attach to the various educational and training options which are available. Let no one suggest that we should turn our universities into trade schools and equate higher education merely with marketable skills. I'm not suggesting that we become educational philistines, merely that we take our heads out of the sand and give our young people a truly informed basis on which to make their educational choices. In our long-range planning as government we must look to close consultation and cooperation with labour, educational and business groups to ensure the adequacy both of future labour market information and necessary skills training facilities, targeting the areas of greatest future need.

Our province has expanded greatly in recent decades, and in my own constituency growth has been noticable and promises to accelerate in the future. This inevitability brings with it particular problems such as the important current concern of my constituents with the provision of readily available and affordable interurban transportation. The matter of commuter rail transport, which I gave prominence to in my maiden speech before this House, has become even more compelling in view of the government's announced intention to divest itself of Pacific Coach Lines. This facility is at the moment the only certain and dependable alternative to the automobile which is available to my constituents for interurban travel. Uncertainty concerning future routes, schedules and fares under a private systern is understandably a primary consideration for the quite substantial number of my constituents who are entirely dependent on the present system for their transportation to and from work. Loss of this service would be a truly regressive step, entirely ignoring the natural growth pattern of the metropolitan lower mainland into this area in the near future. I would strongly urge the government to make these factors an integral part of their transportation development strategy, including the terms of divestiture of Pacific Coach Lines.

I would be more than a little remiss if I did not record in the journals of this House the traumatic dislocation suffered by the inhabitants of the Hatzic Prairie area as a result of the recent flooding of Cascade Creek. I was very pleased that a minister of the Crown was able to be on the spot very quickly to meet with those affected and see the devastation for himself. I am hopeful that the process of adjudicating claims will be conducted expeditiously, and that the criteria for compensation will ensure fair and equitable treatment for all those affected. No less importantly, I believe that planning efforts now underway are vital to minimize the possibility of damage and dislocation on a similar scale in the future.

Mr. Speaker, my first intention had not been to speak today at any such length, since I have always operated on the premise that you learn far more by listening to others than by listening to yourself, and I do not recommend lengthy speeches to my friends opposite, whether or not they may be seeking a higher office. I have been listening very closely to my own constituents for the past months, and I really wanted to share with you my sense of their very real desire for a period of reflective and less confrontational politics in our province. I have been very pleased to note how courteously others have listened to my own remarks in this chamber, and I plan on extending to others the same courtesy and interest which they have so kindly shown me. While we owe each others courtesy as fellow members, far more importantly, I believe, we owe our constituents the duty to listen carefully to one another and to work together, so much as may be possible with our differing perspectives and political philosophies, to contribute our personal abilities in the cause of social reconciliation and the formulation of realistic and achievable plans for the realization of those higher values, goals and aspirations of all British Columbians, and our trust for the future, which collectively are known as the common good.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. PASSARELL: At the outset I'd like to say to my hon. friend from Dewdney that I think that was an excellent speech. He put a lot of work into that. I think one thing in particular showed the amount of work and the fact that you

[ Page 3258 ]

believed in it, and that was when you were talking about nuclear disarmament. I thought that was excellent.

A little comment that some of us in this House might have missed was when you were talking about listening to people in this chamber. I've been here for five years, and in those years.... If we spend a little more time listening to speeches like yours, or some of the more thoughtful speeches in this House, maybe we could work out some of the problems between us. I appreciate what I heard.

No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not running for the leadership of the Social Credit Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: The last member for Atlin did.

[3:45]

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, but I doubt if.... Let bygones be bygones. Those are pretty hard shoes to follow.

Today we're discussing the Speech from the Throne. Basically this document, like all throne speeches, is just generalities and very little concrete policy. When we get into the budget speech next week we'll be able to put a little bit more emphasis on it.

I'd like to break it down into three areas of particular interest to my constituency. The first area I'd like to discuss is the section in the throne speech regarding northwest potential. Representing the riding in the northwest of this province, which is often referred to as the last frontier of the province, I have a couple of concerns, particularly the statements made in regard to the northwest's potential. In the Speech from the Throne, the northwest's potential was left to two sentences in reference to the last frontier in this province. They talk about a study. In the last seven years this government has put out two studies in regard to the northwest. Some statements go back seven years. Nothing has really been done.

Looking at the specifics of these sentences, I just want to make reference to a comment in the Speech from the Throne which says: "My government has indicated it is prepared to respond to the need for infrastructure in this region when the private sector comes forward with specific development proposals." When we talk about infrastructure in the north, I wonder why the government puts the emphasis on input from the private sector. I would rather have the government say "...from the private sector as well as from the residents who live in the area, who have grown up in the area and have devoted their entire lives to the area." They should be able to have some input, instead, when we're talking about the infrastructure in the great north, allowing it to go to the private sector. I would hope that the government.... That may have been a slip of the pen where they said only by the private sector. I would rather have seen it say by the private sector as well as by the residents of the north.

When we talk about the infrastructure in the north, one thing that comes to mind first is transportation. As many members in this House are aware, we have one major road in the far north — Highway 37. When the government talks about private sector involvement in the infrastructure development in the north, we have to look at more than just what the private companies are talking about when they build roads. One of the issues in the area is a road built in the Nass area which is not gazetted, which hundreds of people must use daily for their transportation. The second one is a road in the Telegraph Creek area, which is a gazetted highway going into Dease Lake, which is.... If you ever get a chance, Mr. Speaker, get a four-wheel-drive vehicle and drive between Dease Lake and Telegraph Creek. It's an experience.

The government has responded to private concerns, and another aspect of the throne speech I wanted to discuss was the statement that the government made about the base metal potential. They used the word "coal" in talking about the base metals in the great north. This is a pretty difficult issue to banter around in the House right now, particularly when we're looking at northeast coal and still don't know exactly what is going on in the area. We know that some of the first coal shipments have moved out through Prince Rupert. But the cost.... Maybe it'll work out. Who knows, until we get all the figures on that. But northeast coal is in direct competition with southeast coal in this province, and I really wonder if the government is serious in talking about the future of the north when they talk about coal being one of the base metal products they're looking at. What they're talking about in this area is the Groundhog coal-mine — that's the only major coal deposit up in the area. It's a very isolated rural area, with no roads into it at this time. I would certainly hope that before the government starts a new coal development venture in the northwest, they do the inner structure of the highways where the residents live.

Another point is a major development that the government didn't discuss. It's probably one of the largest mining developments that is going to happen in this province in the next ten years. A company called Falconbridge, in the far northwest comer of the province, with the Yukon to the north and Alaska to the south, is going to be putting in this major operation. A concern I had with what's going on in the extreme northwestern corner of this province, when it comes to the inner structure and roads, is that it wasn't British Columbia or Canada who came in to develop the roads; it was the United States. Last year Governor Sheffield of Alaska stated that he put out a tender on the Haines road, to pave that 30 or 40 miles in that particular isolated corner for the development of Alaska. I'm wondering why we have to have the United States paving our highways.

Another issue I'd like to discuss, which is of particular concern to my constituency, is the section called "Moving People and Products." The throne speech talks about the first-ever crossing of the Nass. I think the government missed something here, because this bridge they're building at Greenville — a bridge I have spoken about for five years — is not the first-ever crossing of the Nass. There have been bridges across the Nass before; there are bridges there today, particularly the bridge that goes into Canyon City. I'm sure the 125 residents of Canyon City are feeling a bit more at ease now, knowing that that bridge they've had and been walking across for years never really existed, because the government, through the throne speech, has said that this is the first bridge that has ever been built across the Nass. I've heard stories about walking on water, but this is not the first crossing of the Nass. The second bridge was put in by private business, a forest company, to cross the Nass north of New Aiyansh, where there's the road that goes into the famous ghost town called Kitsault. That's another crossing of the Nass. So really, when the government said that in the throne speech, I think it was probably developed by somebody in the south who had probably never been up there, and somebody just told him what to say. This is really the third crossing of the Nass, so we have to clarify that aspect.

In regard to the Greenville bridge, I'm 100 percent behind the government on that one. I've talked about the issue

[ Page 3259 ]

for five years. The children who had to attend school from Greenville had to walk across the ice in wintertime, and in summertime and spring, before school adjourns in June, they had to take boats. Sometimes in spring, with the runoff and the ice coming down, the children were unable to attend school or had to stay in New Aiyansh for weeks and couldn't go home. This bridge will be a definite benefit to the residents of Greenville as well as to the entire Nass.

Another issue of concern in the constituency is the section called "Traffic Safety." A concern that I have, as the critic for Transportation and Highways, is that there was no mention of the vehicle inspection branches which will be closed completely on March 9. I would certainly hope that after the questions that have been directed to the minister in this House in the last two weeks, and some of the controversies and situations that have surrounded vehicle inspecting in this province, the government might go back and take a second took before they completely close the vehicle inspection branches on March 9.

The next issue I'd like to discuss in the throne speech is native rights. I quote again from what was stated in the throne speech delivered by His Honour: "My government will continue to take an active role in representing British Columbia interest at these conferences." All of us know that they will be taking an active role, because it is stated earlier in the throne speech that they will be flying further around the world in jets — cabinet ministers and so on. I'm sure they will show up in Ottawa to take an active role. But my concern and the concern of my constituents, particularly the first citizens of this province and country, is whose interests this government is bringing forth in these upcoming meetings and conferences in Ottawa. Is it the government's interests — this government's position on aboriginal rights and title is in the public record — or is it going to be the interest of not only the first citizens of this country but all citizens of this country? Year after year they have said: "Look, enough is enough. Let's get on with negotiating the land claims, the aboriginal title in this province and in this country." It was done in Alaska in 1971. We're going to find a major settlement in the Yukon in the very near future. We've seen other settlements across this country, and when this government states British Columbia's interests at those conferences, it's time that they become factual in representing the entire aspect of aboriginal titles and land claims.

When it comes to decisions, we have to remember the famous supreme court decision on aboriginal title, which did not go against the Nishga people even though the vote did not guarantee.... We must remember that the vote was split fifty-fifty and that the judge who made the final decision did not rule against or in support of land claims. He ruled on a legal technicality and not on a question of right or of not having a right. We must remember the famous Calder decision that came out. It's never been decided in our courts whether the first citizens of this country relinquished their rights. Do they exist? Even though the court case came out, we have not had a decision yet to say that they do or do not exist. Hopefully that famous court decision will lead to an eventual further court decision which will guarantee the rights of the native people in this province.

One of the issues in the throne speech, besides the four or five that I discussed, is on page 8, which states that mining is a major economy in this province, even though many mines in my constituency have been closed down. One of the statements which gives me concern is: "to eliminate regulatory roadblocks." Any of us who have had any concern with or been involved with the Amax issue know the importance of having regulations in place by governments to protect the citizens of this country. Certainly I would hope that by this statement they would not throw away a regulation so that mining companies can come in and do what they want to do. By the same token, if you look at small placer miners in this province, which is one of the backbones of the mining industry, there are some regulations placed upon placer miners that are totally out to lunch. I will give a perfect example: a friend of mine who has been mining in an area since World War II was told last spring that he had to close down his mining operation, even though he really wasn't starting yet. The snow hadn't completely melted off. One of the regulatory agencies came up to his small placer operation and said there was too much mud running into the river. He said: "Of course there's too much mud running into the river — it’s spring runoff. It's something that I have no control of." Because there was too much mud through the spring runoff he was closed down. The regulatory agency quoted some bylaw or licence number and was able to close his mine down for two months.

Forest renewal. The government said a record 105 million trees were planted in B.C. in 1982-83. That's excellent. But it's just a start, because I'm sure all of us who are aware of the forest industry in this province know that we need many more seedlings. If you look at the State of Washington, for every tree that they cut down they replant six. In British Columbia it works out almost the opposite: for every six trees that we cut we replant one. We have to get in line with what the State of Washington is doing: for every tree we cut we should replant six. Hopefully, the 105 million seedlings in 1982-83 could be 200 or 300 million in 1984-85, because that's our future. We can't cut down trees and not replant them.

[4:00]

The last issue that I would like to discuss is human rights. I'd like to quote the Speech from the Throne on page 10.

Please don't bang that pencil against your forehead.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm just trying to stay awake.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, stay awake. That's never kept you from coming in here.

Mr. Speaker, on page 10 on human rights it says: "British Columbia is entering a new era in human rights, where a greater emphasis will be placed on individual responsibility for eliminating discrimination." That's a very strange quote: "...individual responsibility for eliminating discrimination," because that could be taken in many, many ways. Is the individual to go out and make changes if he or she feels that they are being discriminated against? Do they handle it as an individual would handle it? I would certainly hope that this isn't asking for that type of feeling to be presented by the public in this province, because this could lead, heaven forbid, to violence. By saying that an individual who feels that they're being discriminated against handle it by themselves, are we going back to the old frontier ways of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? Government does have a responsibility in human rights. It can't ignore that fact.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we have a 13-page throne speech. It's a document of intent. There is very little in it. It just gives direction. Where we will find the real guts of the

[ Page 3260 ]

government's intent is when the budget is presented next week.

Old Bob saw this and he.... I usually send most of this stuff up to Bob, because he finds a lot of use for it — besides reading it. He tells me he always reads the material that the government or the opposition, or whatever, puts out publicly, and I send it to him. He's found many good uses for the material that's been sent to him. But he has a particular interest in the use that he had for this throne speech, since, as you know, we have very few stores up in the north, and at times some items that you might need for daily living are not available. Since corn does not grow up in the Atlin constituency, and there are no corn cobs, Bob found a unique use for the Speech from the Throne. I'll leave it at that. It's been a slice.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the customary congratulations for your re-election to your eminent office. We all count on your understanding and your good humour to see us through our proceedings here. I think it's good news for the session that you're back in the chair again.

I'm going to range rather widely in my remarks. I found the Speech from the Throne perhaps somewhat less to the point than the Speech from the Throne delivered last year in July. I agree with its general thrust. I am critical of a few points made in the speech, but I very much welcome others.

I agree with one of the lines which appears early in the Speech from the Throne which states that: "My government will emphasize economic recovery in 1984 within the context of continuing restraint." I think that sets the tone of the Speech from the Throne. I think it's also realistic.

The world economy has slowed down. It began to slow down in the mid-1970s. Various nations have experienced depressions and some simply recessions. What we've also seen, particularly in the last few years, is that the Third World countries — call them the disadvantaged countries which were recipients of global welfare statism, if you like, and were running substantially on loans and credit advanced by the more advantaged or highly developed countries — have had serious difficulties. They're now seriously in debt. They are much less able today to pay their own way than they were in the 1970s. That situation will probably persist for some years. They've not been in debt to anything like the present extent for generations. And because it will be very difficult for them — I'm including countries like Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico, as well as a number of African nations — to work their way back to credit worthiness, to get to a condition where they can again borrow in large amounts, world trade will not pick up to the extent that many of us would hope it would in the short run — indeed, in the mid-term. So through much of the remainder of the 1980s, recovery is going to be slow. I'm talking globally.

Recovery in British Columbia and recovery of the Canadian economy, at least to the extent that it's dependent upon exports, will similarly be slower than what might otherwise be the case. So we cannot expect a rapid turnaround, especially in an economy like our own here in British Columbia, which is heavily dependent on international trade and which relies on increased exports — higher prices and a larger volume of exports — to improve the income of our people.

I think the signs are good; they are certainly pointing in the right direction. I don't agree with some of the analysts who have recently been saying that British Columbia, for obvious reasons, will lag behind the rest of the country in the current upswing. They talk as if the megaprojects — the Revelstoke Dam of B.C. Hydro or northeast coal — were among, if not the principal engines of progress, at least the generators of much of the employment in the construction industry; and since they have come to an end, there won't be any more work or activity on a comparable scale.

It may offend some of our local or even governmental sensibilities to know that the work that is just beginning on our two transcontinental railways — the CNR and the CPR — is of an order of magnitude larger than northeast coal. It will last for some six to eight years. There are some $6 billion of expenditures scheduled by the CNR and the CPR over the next half-dozen years. We have the equivalent, beginning now, of a northeast coal project every year for the next six years, courtesy of the CNR and CPR — I should perhaps say courtesy of the final demise of the Crow rate on grain. We have a megaproject or a series of megaprojects to anticipate, and they are now beginning to employ people — many of the same individuals who were working on northeast coal development. Major rail construction will be a big factor in construction employment in this province.

We have several other projects which I believe will in fact advance. One is the Aluminium Company of Canada's development — call it Kemano 2. That's two large smelters and additional power generation in the northwest portion of the province. That is a $3 billion development — not as large as the CNR and CPR investments, but of a similar scale. I believe it should go ahead. I hope it will go ahead. I hope that the provincial government supports it — given, of course, the necessary environmental precautions. Assuming that the environment is protected reasonably and adequately, there is another megaproject underway.

A third one of similar scale, another $3 billion investment, is the liquefied natural gas export proposal. Again, that's a project which, I think, is sooner or later inevitable — the export of British Columbia and Alberta gas overseas, principally to Japan via a port at or close to Prince Rupert. Assuming that project goes ahead, it will mean a revival of activity in exploration and development in the Peace River area. The search for natural gas will make sense again. We have already proven up enough gas for our own provincial requirements and, at least for some years, export to the United States. Selling gas overseas as well as to the United States diversifies our market for natural gas, and will provide an incentive for much more and continuing activity in the northeast corner of the province. So there is a third megaproject. I believe the federal government will support it. I believe that Alberta, assuming it is satisfied as to gas netback prices in Alberta, will support it. British Columbia has already indicated in the Speech from the Throne that the provincial government supports it.

So we have the CNR-CPR megaprojects, we have the Alcan megaproject and we have the LNG overseas export project. There are three projects totalling some $12 billion, all of which may well be in place before 1990. Consequently we have a follow-on from B.C. Hydro's big investment program, from northeast coal and from other investments in the form of some very tangible projects which should get underway shortly. I am not pessimistic, as others are, about a serious slump in major construction activity in this province in the mid-eighties and thereafter.

[ Page 3261 ]

There are some other developments which can go ahead — may go ahead. We may see one or more fertilizer plants built at tidewater, perhaps in the Prince Rupert area — if a major LNG project is built, if a pipeline is built to Prince Rupert and liquefaction takes place there. I think we'll see some more activity in the coalfields, although we have plenty of capacity at the mines now, and we'll shortly have abundant capacity to move the coal to tidewater. I would still like to see the provincial and indeed the federal government supporting the utilization of waste coal in the Kootenays — burning waste coal to produce a much better and more usable form of energy, namely electricity, and for the time being exporting that power. That may not be in the cards for a few years, but I think it too will happen. We may have developments based on coal which will add further employment opportunities, at least in the late 1980s.

There will undoubtedly be more developments in the forest industry, although there's an abundant capacity now in our pulp mills. Mining exploration activity has picked up somewhat, yet metal prices aren't recovering at a rate which would induce much more activity there, at least for the short-term future.

I caution the government that these projects that I've mentioned are primarily projects financed either by the private sector or by federal Crown corporations: substantially the private sector in the case of the LNG project and the Kemano 2 project of Alcan. CNR is of course a federal Crown corporation, but fortunately operating nowadays more or less in the black; and CPR is a private corporation. Those projects, in other words, are not funded by the government of the province of British Columbia, as has been the case with hydro projects and, substantially, northeast coal. We are entering a new era where the megaprojects — the substantial ones — are funded by savings from outside the province, at least largely from the private sector, not by the taxpayer and not on the credit of the province. I think that's a healthy development. I think it may well have been anticipated, but it is certainly a welcome one.

[4:15]

1 don't expect that the government will have to put much more money into railway development, at least for another decade or so — I'm talking about long-distance railways like the BCR — or indeed, port development. I think the port development will be financed either by the federal government or, more likely, by private contracts relating to the port of Vancouver, Roberts Bank, Ridley Island and so on.

Pipelining in this province, and, indeed, Canada-wide, has typically been a private enterprise function. On receiving approval, private groups have financed the construction of pipelines. I hope the province of British Columbia doesn't get into the funding of a pipeline to Vancouver Island which requires substantial provincial government borrowing. I realize that the province will require the federal government to move first; indeed, I cannot imagine a pipeline to Vancouver Island being built unless the federal government gives the nominated utility several hundreds of millions of dollars as an outright gift or grant. I don't think that's likely to happen under a Conservative government in Ottawa; indeed, I don't think it was ever very likely to happen under a Liberal government, because with the large deficits they've been running there, and the lack of electoral prospects on Vancouver Island, they were unlikely, when the chips were down, to make that kind of investment out here. Yes, the federal government has put literally billions of dollars into pipeline extensions into Quebec and prospectively into the Maritimes, but those energy markets might just as well have been supplied by the private sector much more efficiently. I don't really buy the argument that because the federal government spent that kind of money in eastern Canada it necessarily should be investing say a half billion dollars in a pipeline to Vancouver Island.

I believe that if an LNG project goes ahead, a large-diameter line built to Prince Rupert and a liquefaction plant built there or at Port Simpson, the facilities exist to ship liquefied natural gas by barge down the coast to serve communities en route as well as on Vancouver Island, to build up a gas market on the west coast, in the more remote and island communities. Perhaps someday — in the year 2000 or later — it may be economical to build a pipeline to the Island when the markets have been built up. But in the interim the economic thing to do is to serve the modestly developing local market with efficient means of transport, namely barges bringing environmentally safe gas down the coast. I think that's the way to go, and again it doesn't involve the provincial government raising large sums of money, making a very substantial subsidy for a pipeline development in this province. I hope it doesn't get into that.

I'd cut taxes, Mr. Speaker. In this province we happen to have some of the highest taxes on business anywhere in Canada. We have recently cut our taxes on small business. Our corporation income tax on small business is average. But at 16 percent, ours is the highest rate on medium and large businesses — I'm talking about corporation income tax — anywhere in the nation. Our property taxes, as a big generalization, are also higher than those in any other province. I'm talking about property taxes bearing on business. So our corporation income tax, as a big generalization, is the highest in the country. Our property taxes are among the highest.

We still have a capital tax. I'm very much opposed to it. I realize that it no longer applies to small business. I realize that the finger is pointed more and more just at the banks and some financial institutions — those with capitalization of over $1 million. But if we aspire on the west coast to do as they've been able to do in California — attract banking and industry, a set of financial institutions which can serve not only our industry locally but also our export trade — then we'd better get rid of this capital tax. We'd better welcome the banking activity and tax that activity as any other. Don't have a highly discriminatory tax, which, incidentally, impinges very unfavourably on any small business, let alone medium and large businesses, which has to have at any time during the year as much as $1 million tied up in an inventory or in any kind of investment or operation. We should do away with it. It's a tax which the NDP brought in. It's a tax which is aimed at accumulating plant equipment — modernization. It's an unusual tax. It's not used in many other parts of the world. Let's get rid of it. It doesn't generate much income. From where I sit, I think it's the wrong kind of tax, and it ill-befits us here in British Columbia.

I'd watch this prospective tax which might be brought in retroactively on machinery and equipment in the process of being installed and on buildings in the process of being built. I hope it's not going to happen. We don't need that kind of thing in British Columbia. If we're going to have taxes, let's have them out in the open, up front, not retroactive. Let's not bring in taxes which penalize people who took initiatives in

[ Page 3262 ]

previous years, and let's not penalize those have unknowingly attracted a tax which will be imposed after the event. I think that's wrong.

I spoke on the fuel tax for shipping in the last session. I intend to continue to speak about it. It's an unwise tax. It's an unnecessary tax. I think it's even a foolish tax. The tax on oil used for bunkering ships and by our towboat industry, and so on, generated some $20 million of revenue several years ago. In 1981, I believe, it was $20 million; last year it generated less than $6 million; and at the new high rate it's likely to generate something like $2 million. It's now generating one-tenth of what it did. What is happening is that ships, towboat companies, and whatever, will take their fuel on anywhere but in a B.C. port. We've also substantially put an end to what is admittedly a modest activity: fuelling ships.

Here we have on the west coast of Canada the busiest port on the west coast of the Americas, one of the busiest ports in the world, and yet the function of supplying fuel to ships there is drying up. The fuel isn't being brought in from outside. The fuel generated by our oil refineries is disappearing. The people who would normally have been putting the fuel on board have been selling off their equipment. They're disbanding the bunkering function. I think that's very short-sighted. I can't see why the Minister of Finance continues on this course, because it's certainly not industrial development. It's generating unemployment rather than employment, and it is counter-productive as far as revenue to the treasury is concerned. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that's not an indication of attitudes towards, say, the capital tax, some of these other counter-productive taxes, which over the long term drive away more business than they attract. I think we have to watch that in British Columbia.

Restraint. We certainly have to contain government. Government has been growing rapidly the world over. It's been growing in western countries. A report recently put out by the International Monetary Fund indicated that as much as 60 percent of the expenditures in Sweden, Ireland and one or two other countries in western Europe was expenditure by government; the private sector was, ergo, 40 percent. In Canada today the figure is approaching 50 percent. In other words, every second dollar that turns over in Canada is spent by government. The other dollar is spent by you and me, by the private sector. In British Columbia the figure is again in the order of 48 percent. The federal government is responsible for about half of that, but a good part of the latter half — in the order of 20 percent today — is as a result of expenditures by this provincial government, and the percentage is now higher in this province than ever before in our history. I think we have to be concerned about the growth of government, not just generally, not just federally, but also provincially. For that reason I welcome restraint, and I would like to hear that restraint is in fact operative, and that we are able to cap some of our expenditures and to limit others.

The biggest single expense item, of course, is health. Health provisions of various kinds are getting on to being a third of our current budget. It's difficult to know how that rapidly growing budget can be contained, because health care is so important to so many people. When anyone is ill, price is no object, and regardless of expense, service must be provided. So we have the substantial problem, as does every other jurisdiction nowadays — certainly in the western democracies — of trying to contain health-care costs. That's a major challenge.

In periods of relatively high unemployment, of course, the Human Resources budget is inordinately high, and it will continue to be high for some years. That's another very difficult challenge.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Education is perhaps the only area in the so-called "people programs" sector where costs can at least be contained. We have a declining enrolment, at least at the primary and secondary school levels, and for that reason we should be able to stabilize our costs in primary and secondary education.

I've spoken about foreign students at our colleges and universities. I still believe that foreign students — I'm talking about visa students, not landed immigrants; and I'm certainly not talking about Canadians — should pay average costs. If they did we would be in hand by another $20 million or $30 million. I'd like to point out that if in fact another $20 million or $30 million were available to our colleges and universities this year or next, they would eliminate in their budget any problem at least for the next year or two. I would propose that if we're serious at all about helping students from other lands, we should set up our own program — ideally federal, but let's say a federal-provincial program — for scholarships. Let's bring people here who have proven their ability and are genuinely in need of help. Most of the foreign students who come here — and there are perhaps 6,000 in British Columbia today — can afford to pay average costs. Their parents certainly can afford to pay average costs. Surveys carried out by Statistics Canada and otherwise indicate that 90 to 95 percent come from homes where one or both parents were educated at North American universities. So clearly they can afford it, and I personally see no reason why the taxpayer in British Columbia should subsidize them to the extent of perhaps $9,000 or $10,000 a year each to come here. They'll come here anyway; because their universities are limited in scope or they can't get into them, they'll come to North America. If the quality of our education here is good — and I believe it's excellent — they'll still come. So there's a partial answer in the area of higher education relative to our budget problems.

[4:30]

There's reference to reform of the Senate. Mr. Speaker, the Senate's not going to be reformed in your lifetime or mine. It might be altered by the year 2025, but not in the directions which have been indicated by most of the politicians. I believe it would be better to keep the Senate the way it is now than to have a Senate along the lines advocated by this government in 1979 and advocated since. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, this Legislature, this government, advocating the setting up of a senior or other chamber here in Victoria, manned by the mayors from the municipalities? We'd have Mayor Harcourt and all the other mayors sitting there in judgment on the proceedings of this chamber, having a veto over anything that touched on municipal jurisdiction — property, services, you name it. It won't happen. There is no way that members of the House of Commons, any government in Ottawa, is going to agree to setting up a chamber manned by the nominees of the Premiers of the provinces. So that should be forgotten.

What I think should be the policy of the government here is that it should say: Do away with the Senate, but replace it by — call it an institutionalization — the federal-provincial

[ Page 3263 ]

conference. The federal-provincial conference does perform a function. It has been recognized. It has worked. It has done a number of important things in recent times, including amending, finally, our constitution. I think we should institutionalize the federal-provincial conference and have the Premiers and the Prime Minister meet in the red chamber in Ottawa. Call it the House of Confederation or whatever, and give it a small staff. Have that as our Senate. To the extent that the provinces and the federal government can get together to amend the constitution and so on, that would be the mechanism or the process or the sets of tasks given to the upper chamber. So we would have a unique Canadian institution, one which had evolved, one which suited our needs, one which got the federal cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister, and the Premiers together periodically to resolve the differences which they had, at least to compare notes and occasionally agree to make some change or other. That would be a very useful political institution. We'd be sending people there who were elected. Every one of them would be elected. That would be, as I say, an institution which came from the grassroots in this country, an institution which would have an ongoing life and an ongoing relevance.

I'm afraid that if you had an elected Senate, especially by proportional representation, elected by the people of Canada, that Seate would, over time, become another Senate akin to the Senate in the United States; you'd have another House in Ottawa, which, because of its smaller numbers and its longer term of office for each member, would be much more powerful than the House of Commons. The Senate in the United States was formerly an appointed Senate until around the turn of the century, when it became elected. Since then it's become the most powerful House in Washington, D.C. Do we want to create an American-type Senate in Ottawa, which would have more power even than the House of Commons? Can you imagine? It would soon have its own bureaucracy. It would soon be a duplicate of the House of Commons in Ottawa. It would soon have its powers-that-be there. You'd have compromises negotiated periodically between the elected Senate and the House of Commons; legislation would somehow get passed in an amended form.

Worst of all, what you'd have is another power centre in eastern Canada. In addition to the House of Commons and the cabinet, as we know them now, we'd have another body there which would speak presumably for the provinces and for the regions, which had validity, a meaning. But those politicians would spend most of their time in Ottawa. They'd become Ottawa-oriented. Indeed, the majority would come from east of the Manitoba-Ontario boundary; in fact, half or more would come from east of the Ottawa Valley. So they'll be eastern-oriented, eastern in outlook. There'd be an eastern bureaucracy. It's more power for the centre. I can't imagine an elected Senate, if it results in more power in the centre of Canada, being good news for any of us out here. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I'm opposed to anything other than an institutionalization of the federal-provincial conference as a replacement for the Senate.

There are some things the province should do and, in fact, is doing to help prime the pump in this period of slow recovery: add to our hospital capacity. It's doing that really in contrast to what's being done in most other provinces, where they're closing hospitals. We're building new facilities and bringing in a lot more new equipment. We're building a rapid transit system in the lower mainland, which may be ahead of its time, but in future years it will be well used. It's one, I think, which should be extended sooner rather than later to the more rapidly growing municipalities in the lower mainland, namely Surrey and Coquitlam, for a few more tens of millions of dollars — 5 to 10 percent of the cost of the first phase. Surrey certainly can be connected. I believe we should be doing that kind of thing as part of the ongoing process of improving the infrastructure in the lower mainland.

Highways certainly must continue to invest now because, first, it helps keep people employed in the construction industry and, secondly, they're able to get work done at a much lower cost than has been the case heretofore, because the construction firms and others are really very hungry.

Those are my main messages, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to close on one topic of concern to me and I think to many people in my riding, indeed I believe many people in the province, and that's immigration. Whenever I raise this topic here or certainly in other places among people who are generally well-informed in matters of politics they say: "Well, that's a federal matter. You can't really deal with it at the provincial level." That's not true, Mr. Speaker. Under the constitution as it now stands, responsibility for immigration is concurrent. That means parallel — federal and provincial. It's not exclusively federal. I realize that the federal government substantially makes the laws and controls the immigration flow, but provinces can, under the law, have an influence. Provinces certainly foot the bill when it comes to education, health care and many other services for people. Various provinces, not just Quebec — Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan — for some years now have had a contractual agreement with Ottawa about immigration and how to handle immigration. Several of them send their own immigration officers overseas, as well as the federal people, and they scrutinize people who come. They take an interest in who should come, who will fit in and so on.

I think that British Columbia, perhaps more than any other province in Canada, has an interest — must have an interest — in immigration flows. We've only got some 2.8 million people in this province. Around the Pacific Rim there are 1,000 million-plus in China, 500 million-plus in Indonesia and Singapore, there are 700 million or 800 million in India; not to mention eastern Europe and so on. We have — just looking out across the Pacific — some 2,000 million people, the majority of whom, if they had any choice at all, would come here. We've got the minute number here, we've got a magnificent province, we've got great resources, we've got great potential and we will see a lot more people come to these shores. I think that any provincial government that's concerned about the management of property, concerned about the provision of people services, concerned about any people thing, has to take an interest in immigration. How many people can we assimilate? How rapidly can we assimilate them? Where should they reside? Should they be dispersed or should they be allowed to settle — some of them anyway — in ghettos of their own making? I think we have to take the long view — 10, 20, 30 years ahead — and focus on that subject because it's a potential problem area. If we think it through, we can handle it well. We'll have many more British Columbians here; there will be a much greater racial diversity, a greater degree of cultural diversity in this province. That's to be welcomed. But I don't think we'll gain by keeping our head in the sands in that area.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I don't expect to spend as much time on my presentation as did the previous speaker.

[ Page 3264 ]

I may comment very briefly.... The member from North Vancouver–Seymour does speak eloquently and does make thoughtful speeches, but I must tell you, in all fairness, on some of the topics the member speaks about.... The member knows very well that he and I disagree. Violently would be the wrong word, because we don't fight in the halls or anything like that, but we disagree on some of those issues.

I just want to remind that member, when he referred to the transportation of liquefied natural gas from Prince Rupert to Vancouver Island, that it was the position of his party in the last provincial election and of the Premier and his party leader.... While speaking on this topic in the community of Powell River, which I represent, the Premier did say that they would never, as long as he was Premier, transport liquefied natural gas down the coast of British Columbia to Vancouver Island. But of course people can change their minds. We have a government right now — as indicated in this throne speech — that prior to the last election last May didn't tell us a lot of things they were going to do. On July 7 of last year they came down with a budget. I'm sure if the electorate had had the opportunity to know in advance what the government was going to do, they would have voted in a different way. That's all water under the bridge.

What we're discussing is a document presented to this House last Monday by His Honour presumably dealing with the intentions of the government in this forthcoming session. In general terms the throne speech, in my view, represents a reaffirmation of the new social agenda for B.C. introduced July 7, 1983 — the day of the infamous budget, as you will recall. This throne speech, I guess, could be described as a stay-on-course sort of attitude, with the policies that the government decided to adopt at that time last summer. In other words, there is no evidence that the unexpectedly strong reaction to the means chosen by the government to implement its programs had any effect whatsoever. I'm talking now about not only the opposition put forward in this House day and night by the members in opposition like myself, but also the strong public protest which took place on the lawns in front of this building and on the streets of major cities around this province. In my view, the government feels that it has a mandate for another three and a half or four years and is going to pursue — based on the contents of this throne speech document — the policies that they have pursued since last summer.

[4:45]

To some extent, I have to disagree with those who say that this particular throne speech has no substance. Although it's a very short document, compared to documents of this nature received in this House in the past, I think that in many ways it is a clear indication of the government's intentions. I want to discuss section by section some of the statements contained in this speech and perhaps a bit later, if time permits, a few of my constituency matters that I would like to raise at this time.

It's difficult to know where to start — perhaps with an overview of the economy under the present Social Credit government. I guess everyone in this House is aware that the Conference Board of Canada as recently as yesterday predicted that in the coming year British Columbia would have the slowest growth rate of any province in Canada. The reasons they gave, of course, were the high unemployment rate and the so-called government restraint program — as a matter of fact, most of that program had nothing to do with restraint; we've been through that many times in this House. And of course, in British Columbia we tend to rely on the export of our raw materials to a large extent for income to our general revenues.

Unemployment rates are extremely high. I believe — and I'm just going from memory, Mr. Speaker, although I do have the figures here somewhere — that unofficially the unemployment rate in this province today stands at around 15.3 percent. The correct figure is 15.2 percent. There are 184,000 people drawing unemployment insurance at the present time. But that only tells part of the story. What those figures don't tell us about are the young people who are now at home and have never received unemployment insurance. They have no hope of getting a job. They're living at home and not going to school. They are not included in those figures. Another large sector of our population which is not included in those unemployment figures is our native Indian people. I think we could estimate that between 76 and 78 percent of our native Indian people living on reserves — and many off — are unemployed at the present time, through no fault of their own. They are not included in official government of Canada statistics. A third category of people who are not included in the UIC unemployment statistics — which come out monthly, as you well know — are the people in the family who have second jobs: a working mother and housewife, a father and husband, or whatever. In many households where normally two people would be working in a family we have one — if they're lucky. So those people are not included in the UIC figures presented to us by Statistics Canada.

I have discussed with people in my particular riding — and you have to be careful about this — and with the people in Manpower and other areas.... We find that we have approximately 26 percent unemployment in my riding at the present time, and I'm excluding the people who are currently locked out in the pulp mill dispute. Technically they have jobs, and we all hope they will be going back to work at some point. I understand that negotiations are taking place today and may go on all night. Hopefully that will be resolved in the near future, because that dispute is causing severe hardship in some of the communities which I represent in this House.

In my view, this throne speech does not in any way provide employment opportunities for our people in this province. I see very little to encourage employment, particularly for our young people. I'll get into that in a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, what I think I'll do here for the moment is perhaps go quickly through the throne speech — not read it obviously, since it was read to us on Monday, and I'm sure we don't need that again. I'll just go through some of the broader subject matter contained in the speech.

I touched briefly on the economic outlook, and mentioned the view of the Conference Board of Canada of the British Columbia economy today, which is not good. Even if there should be a short-term recovery, the fact is that unemployment rates in British Columbia are expected to stay very high. Even if there is growth in our economy, as slow as it may be — and I hope people are right when they say there will be some growth in the economy of British Columbia this year, but it's going to be slow — the rate of unemployment is expected to remain very high. That means that a number of people will be without jobs again this year. The outlook is bleak. More than that, you must remember that when people are unemployed, at least those who qualify and perhaps do receive UIC, they presumably have to go on welfare when their UIC runs out if they can't get a job. What other option is

[ Page 3265 ]

open to them? I think it was a sad comment on this government to learn not too long ago that the Ministry of Human Resources had to have extended to that ministry special warrants totalling more than $11 million in order to pay out welfare benefits to the citizens of this province. I think what that really means is that this government has been singularly unsuccessful in bringing about economic recovery.

The throne speech talks about diversifying our economy, and that's great. All political parties in Canada, and everywhere else, always talk about diversifying the economy. I guess we're talking about secondary industry. What in fact has the government done over the last two or three years, or longer, to diversify the economy? Very little. They talk about 100 jobs because we're going to build Toyota car wheels somewhere on the lower mainland, and at the same time we've had a further almost 600 people laid off within the last couple of weeks in the forest sector alone, at a time when our silviculture, thinning and tree planting programs in this province are clearly going down the tube. In my view the government has failed in terms of promoting secondary industry, and failed miserably. For example, we are shipping raw logs out of this province. There are many other examples. A case can be made for shipping a certain number of raw logs out of this province, but that amount has been increasing year by year; in this past year I think it almost doubled. Every time we ship a raw log out of this province we are, in effect, exporting eight jobs. Some people in this House tend to forget that, but that's the truth of the matter. When we don't process that log here we're exporting eight jobs to some other country. It's as simple as that.

The government is talking about promoting investment in this province. It seems that about the only thing they're going to do to promote investment is provide more tax loopholes for certain large multinational corporations if they care to move into this province, which, it would appear to me, they don't care to do because of the instability of the government sitting across from me here today.

International trade promotion — what does that mean? In my view, it means a great deal more of what we've seen from this government over the last several years. It means that ministers of the Crown will be travelling around the world at taxpayers' expense with the excuse that they're promoting sales of our products abroad. Millions of dollars are spent on this. In fact, we have the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) absent from this House at the present time on one of these junkets.

AN HON. MEMBER: To Malaysia.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: To Malaysia this time? And a stopby, of course, in Tokyo for a steambath once every three months — for the fourth time in a year.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, a steambath in Tokyo. Once every three or four months he goes and stops over, no matter where he's going — Australia, New Zealand, Europe, it doesn't matter. He always stops over in Tokyo and has a steambath at taxpayers' expense. When he does finally get home from these two- and three-week junkets paid for at taxpayers' expense — God knows who he takes with him — he never reports back to this House. We never hear of any sales being made. What did he sell? The last time that particular minister went to Japan, they cut back on our coal orders and cut back on the price. Every time he goes there we take another beating. Remember that?

AN HON. MEMBER: He got a bath.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, he did get a bath.

But what I'm really saying is that I never see a minister getting up in this House and reporting back on these junkets and saying that we've sold a further three or four million tonnes of coal, or that some country somewhere has decided to buy three or four billion more board-feet of plywood from us. Do they ever get up and say that? No, they never say that, because they haven't sold anything. So they're going off on these holidays at taxpayers' expense, and God knows what the heck they do over there. I honestly don't know.

So that's what international trade promotion means. It reminds me: I do believe the Premier.... Isn't he going away to China this time? Right, he's going to visit the Great Wall of China, no doubt, and maybe have lunch in the great People's Hall in Peking if anybody will go, and a few of those things. But what's he going to accomplish over there — goodwill? We just saw the Premier. Lots of goodwill exists. They said they wouldn't nuke us and we won't nuke them, and we have plenty of nuclear-free zones here in British Columbia now. Can't get roadsigns put up, but nonetheless we've got nuclear-free zones. Anybody who comes to the Sunshine Coast with a nuclear bomb is going to be fined $50 or sent to jail for three days.

AN HON. MEMBER: As a first offence?

[5:00]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A first offence, right, But we can't get a road sign. No, no. We can't get the minister to put up a road sign announcing to the public that that is a nuclear-free zone.

But in any event, back to the throne speech. Where were we? We were in China, were we not?

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We're getting to that.

They go on at some great length about Expo 86 in this speech. Expo 86 is some two years away, so why we're discussing Expo 86 in this particular throne speech is beyond me. But anyway, it's here and goes on at some length about how great the government is doing on Expo 86. I'm not necessarily opposed to Expo 86, Mr. Speaker, to be honest about that. But why go on at great length in this particular throne speech? If we have two pages in the throne speech devoted to Expo 86 in this speech, next year we're going to have four pages at least, because it's a year closer to Expo 86, right? How many countries are coming, and all that. Well, not too many yet, but hopefully there will be more. I hope it is a success, and I hope there is some benefit to communities outside the lower mainland as a result of Expo 86. But we'll talk about that in a few minutes too.

Northeast coal. Well, I did mention it in passing. But the fact is, in spite of what the ministers of the Crown have told us in this House, in many speeches and in many answers and non-answers in question period.... Today was a good example of non-answers. The fact is that it has been a disaster to date, At this point we are subsidizing the sale of northeast

[ Page 3266 ]

coal to our Japanese friends and customers — it's as simple as that — to the tune of hundreds of millions, if not nearly a billion, dollars. I don't recall the exact figures at this time, although I do have them here somewhere as well. I think it's nearly a billion dollars of taxpayers' money that will be going into that project in terms of highways, railroads, schools and all of these things. Which is fine, but there is no way to recover that money. Japan is cutting back on its orders, which one of the ministers told us they could never do, because we have a firm contract. They are offering less now for the price per tonne for coal. I don't want to dwell on this; we've been through it so often in this House.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, the government devoted so little time to discussing northeast coal in this particular document that we're discussing at the present time because they know it's a disaster. Hopefully, orders from that sector of the province will reach the 15 million tonnes a year of coal that has to be exported to break even, as the Minister of Industry told us in this House last year. Finally, after a year and a half of questioning, we got that figure out of him. That's what he told us in this House: 15 million tonnes of coal per year would have to be exported from that sector for the province to break even and eventually get its money back on that project. That's taxpayers' money. Money that could have gone into social services, health care, education and these types of things is being spent on northeast coal, and we'll probably never get it back, from the looks of things today.

The speech goes on about broadening the economy, stimulating employment. Well, we discussed that at some length. Small business assistance. That's a joke, in some ways. Now money has gone out, quite a bit through the Lottery Fund and some through one or two of the provincial programs currently in place, but it's gone out very, very selectively. First of all, those who were excluded are people in the service industries. They can't get a dime. If they want to create some employment by adding onto their hotels, motels or restaurants, and create a few jobs, they're excluded from the program altogether. Everybody knows that, because every one of us represents a riding where we've had people come to us requesting this type of assistance — provincial assistance. There has been some federal assistance, but none provincially for that purpose. We know very well that there's no money available. The service industries are totally excluded.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to get into a lot of detail at this time, but if you are an applicant for some of the grants that are available under the small business assistance program and happen to be a member of the Social Credit Party, and have the good fortune to know a cabinet minister, particularly, then your chances of receiving a grant are much much better than those of the ordinary British Columbian out there today. I don't like that aspect very much. I don't like that aspect of the administration of this program. I'm going to discuss that aspect of this program and document case by case examples at the appropriate time in this House.

Student job support. That's great news. We're sure going to need it, because they have cut back on student aid programs, which is going to make it much, much more difficult for the average British Columbia student to attend the university or college of his choice with the higher tuition fees and the cutback in the student loan program. There's no question about that. What the government has done with that program is make it difficult for the average British Columbia young person who graduates from high school to attend the university of his choice, and only the sons and daughters of the upper middle income group will be able to attend university. That, in my view, is a crime and a shame. I'm sure you're going to hear a lot more about that before this session is over as well.

The document goes on. The heading is: "The Vancouver Island Pipeline." Well, what do you know about that! Every throne speech or budget speech since 1968 has hidden away in it or somewhere prominent within that document a mention of the Vancouver Island pipeline.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You're absolutely right. To the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston), I want to tell you, it's going to be there as an issue in the next provincial election and possibly the provincial election following that one.

The reason I mention it at this time, although I spoke about this in some detail under the spending estimates of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers) last week, is that I was really surprised. It says in this document that Utilities Commission hearings are underway. Wasn't that a surprise! They've been underway for almost a year now, and hopefully there will be a report in April.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) mentioned a federal government subsidy in regard to that proposed pipeline, and he was right to some extent. That pipeline will not proceed without federal government assistance. The difference that I have with the member for North Vancouver–Seymour is that he is saying that the pipeline should never go ahead — period — and if one dime of federal-provincial government money has to go into the construction of that pipeline, then it should not be built. I disagree with him on that.

The federal government has subsidized the eastern natural gas pipeline to the tune of about a billion dollars. That's from the federal government alone. I'm suggesting to you that if the decision and the recommendation from the Utilities Commission of British Columbia is to proceed with the proposed natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island, choosing the northern route — which would be of great benefit to my constituency, by the way — the federal government should be fair, whether it be Liberal, Conservative or New Democratic. Hopefully it will be a New Democratic federal government, but it's going to be pretty tough. In any event, I think we should have fair play. I think what's good enough for eastern Canada is good enough for us in the west and for British Columbia. If the federal government — I don't care what political stripe they may be — sees fit to subsidize under its energy program the construction of natural gas lines to eastern Canada, then we want fair play, and I want fair play for western Canada and for this province. If the Utilities Commission recommendation is to proceed with that natural gas line and can show us and prove that it will be a cost-benefit factor to people living on Vancouver Island and people living throughout my riding on the coast of British Columbia, we should receive a subsidy for that gas line from the federal government.

In the section on mining here in the throne speech what do they say? Over 100,000 mineral claims were recorded in British Columbia — an all-time record. That's great. There are so many unemployed people in British Columbia that they've got nothing better to do. They're going out staking mineral claims. Do you know what it takes to stake a mineral

[ Page 3267 ]

claim in British Columbia? A free miner's licence, which costs $10now, I believe. I tused to be $5, but this government increased it 100 percent not long ago. In any event, that's all it takes, and you can go out and stake mineral claims by the dozen — as many as you want. But what does that mean? Does that mean we've got 100,000 new mines in British Columbia? Not very likely. As a matter of fact, we have more mines shutting down in British Columbia than starting up. That's a fact from the Price, Waterhouse report on mining which I received not too long ago. I'm not going to get into that debate here this afternoon. We'll do that in another forum in this House.

One more item has some bearing on my constituency. The document goes into three paragraphs on tourism. They speak about tourism in the Speech from the Throne and the promotion of tourism in British Columbia. The fact is that this government, by increasing ferry fares again — recently in some areas by as much as 50 percent and certainly throughout my area by an average of approximately 26 percent — is discouraging tourism. We want to bring tourists to this province: okay, fair enough; they'll come if they want or stay away if they feel like it.

One of the points I'm making is that that Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) sitting over there — well, he's not sitting over there, but he normally sits over there when he's here — did not say one single word opposing the horrendous fare increases imposed upon the residents of the Sunshine Coast, Bowen Island, the Gulf Islands and the north coast of British Columbia. That's the kind of Minister of Tourism we have in this province today.

You know, during the last election campaign — and I'm going to go back to this — Social Credit members came into my.... Cabinet ministers, not those people sitting over there — oh, the Minister of Tourism is in the House, he's just not in his seat. Several cabinet ministers came into my riding, and one of the platforms they had, because it's a serious issue in my riding, was water transportation. Those ferries are our highways. Unless you fly, you have no other means of getting in and out of my riding, as a matter of fact.

The point is, they said: "One of the first things we're going to do should we form the next government" — which they did — "is bring in legislation to prevent strikes in the Ferry Corporation." Yes, that's what they said, although two pieces of legislation are in existence in British Columbia today, brought in by the present government, that in effect, if they really wished, could prevent strikes in the ferry system any time they wished. Nonetheless, they used this because it was popular to say this in my riding during the last election campaign.

So what happened? There was no strike in the Ferry Corporation of any consequence. I think the longest strike they've ever had in the Ferry Corporation — or at least the longest they've had in the past six years — has been only one day. So what did they do? They cut the schedules in half. There were no strikes, but they cut the scheduling in half. There are only half the runs in many areas that we had two years ago, half the vessels. Nine vessels are currently tied up over here at Ogden Point, at the Deas Island terminal and at other terminals in British Columbia.

So they didn't need a strike to stop the ferry system; they just pulled the vessels off and fired the people. That's all they've done. It's simple. That's how they aided tourism in my riding. So where's that Minister of Tourism. He's talking with someone over there when he should be out raising heck with the Minister of Transportation (Hon. A. Fraser) over those very high ferry fares we now have to pay, locking people into these remote communities.

[5:15]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What else do they say here? "The forestry picture" — good, let's get into that for a bit. I did want to speak briefly on this. I know we're going to have the opportunity to discuss in detail during the debate of the spending estimates of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) his lack of initiative regarding the forest industry. One of the things they say, by the way, Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech is that many of the functions of the Ministry of Forests are going to be....

MR. CAMPBELL: Privatized.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Exactly. Thank you, Mr. Member. What that means, translated into English — if I can speak English; I'll try — as one of my colleagues so aptly put it here a day or two ago is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. They're going to allow the people who now pretty well control the overwhelming majority of the forests and dominate the industry here in British Columbia to police themselves: cutting standards, probably privatizing the scalers and these kinds of things. We won't even have people within the ministry who are charged with policing the forest industry to see if the industry is living up to its part of the TFL licences and their contracts. What the government is going to allow is the people who now control the multinational corporations, in many cases, to police themselves, and no one will know what is happening in terms of logging standards, stream protection and these kinds of things.

Even worse than that, by its own admission the government has severely cut back on the silvicultural programs here in British Columbia in terms of tree thinning, replanting and these kinds of things. I think one of my colleagues here a few minutes ago said that for every six trees we log off a site in British Columbia, we only replace one, whereas in the United States it's the other way around: for every tree they harvest....

Mr. Speaker, I see the green light is on so I don't have much time. I am severely concerned about this lack of funding, which we will pay for in jobs down the road — mark my words. As the companies start to leave this province because of lack of suitable timber, jobs will be lost and revenues will be lost to the people of British Columbia. I thank you for listening to my 15 or 20 minutes of remarks.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the amendment: in other words, I speak in favour of the throne speech. The hon. Lieutenant Governor said that he hopes this Legislative Assembly will serve the interests of the people of British Columbia. In my view, that is what the throne speech does and that is the way I intend to behave and perform here. I think what that said, in fact. Is that he would wish us to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. That is indeed what I intend to do on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of everybody who resides in this glorious province. We are lucky to live here.

The speech addresses several items, starting with facing the challenges. There have been some and there are more to come. Certainly we have not solved all the problems as members sitting on the government side, but then again,

[ Page 3268 ]

neither have we created them all. We certainly are part of a worldwide system here; there is no doubt about that. Nor would I say that we have all the answers ourselves. I would suggest that any members of any political party — and certainly the opposition — who wish to propose things of a positive nature to the government will find them well received, as the government would receive them from members of their own side.

Clearly there are challenges to come out there. I believe we have come through one of the most difficult sessions of this Legislative Assembly, and I think we can be proud of the performances that we have worked on so hard, and the efforts we all made for all the people of this great province. The information that I get from the great riding of Vancouver South tells me that the majority of the population out there support the activities of this government, and will for a long time. The people who are working understand what this government is trying to do, and even those people who unfortunately are not working at the moment understand. That is why I rise to support this Speech from the Throne.

I was very impressed with the speech of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton), who I think shares with everyone here a genuine interest in performing on behalf of the people out there, hoping that by working together we can find some answers and can do things that will create the jobs. Certainly that will be difficult when we have to spend such a large percentage of our income on people services. While willing to do those things necessary for the people who are presently unable to help themselves, I am one who would be interested in the creation of 100 jobs here and 100 jobs there, for only with the collection of taxes from people who are earning money can we indeed provide the services to those people who need them desperately.

I support the restraint program that this government initiated — the first in Canada and certainly ongoing here — as do most people. I believe it will come to be a recovery from the restraint program. If we can make our government just as efficient but leaner, then that would be in harmony with the way I feel things should work anyway. I am certainly pleased that the government intends to continue with the consultative process that I witness. If my experience is any indication, everyone has a chance to talk to their member, and many talk to cabinet ministers. Certainly people see the Premier. Despite his busy schedule, I haven't heard of anybody being denied, although they may have to wait now and then, which I don't think is completely unreasonable.

Certainly the access is there. The members are answering their mail and their phone calls, I suspect doing the job from both sides of the House. If that will continue, access is no problem as I see it. I support the ministers' efforts to talk to those interested parties, whether business, industry, labour, social groups. Anyone who has something constructive to offer will be listened to. Even those with complaints will be heard, because perhaps we can learn something from that. Perhaps if we can't learn anything new from them we can explain to those who believe they have complaints that in fact every effort is being made. Maybe they will find that their complaints aren't actually justified. So we will not deny access; we will consult with those who are willing to learn and to listen.

I would support the idea of a new productivity sense in the public. Certainly I have a feeling from my communication with the business community that leads me to believe that people are being more productive and wish to be productive.

They are making a contribution in a solid and positive way. There is no doubt in my mind that those people who have jobs are very anxious to keep them; in fact, they would like to see the results of their efforts turn into jobs for their friends. I would support them in that endeavour.

There is no doubt that we are an export province; we live in a country that depends on the export market, and I support the Premier and the ministers in their efforts to go overseas. I have a lot more faith in the value of their trips than some others might have. As a person who has been in business, I know that you don't make a sale on every single call, but you'll never make a sale unless you do make the calls, so you've got to make them. When those ministers and the Premier go overseas from time to time, I will support them completely, believing that the more contact we have with people overseas the more chance we have of making a sale. If we can get our products over there and get those export dollars here, that is something I can support absolutely and completely. International trade is something that we need and will have.

I am pleased to see that Expo 86 was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. I'm sure that we will hear about Expo 86 again; in fact, every chance to mention Expo 86 I would support it. Certainly it's a major project. I'm one of the lucky people in the lower mainland, and I live in the neighbourhood. There's no doubt about the thousands of manhours of work that that project will create; there's no doubt about the interest it will create in B.C. and Canada. There's no doubt about the fact that after the fair is over we will have buildings and projects there in a scene that will make that city look really good. I'm pleased that we're having Expo 86. I look forward to having people from all over the world visit B.C. and Vancouver during that transportation and communications fair. I think it will be wonderful to bring attention to our province from all over the world. It will be another opportunity for us not only to create export markets and meet people overseas but certainly to bring them here and have them see us and us see them, and build communication networks.

There have been those who have spoken against some of the efforts of this government, Mr. Speaker, who now speak for it. I'm pleased to see that they are coming along, because they finally found out that it takes leadership, courage and good government. Certainly you have to be able to withstand the criticism of those who don't immediately see the benefits of the projects that this government is taking on. I'm pleased that those people who are latterly coming on board are at least coming on board.

Another subject of interest to me is the piece on small business assistance. I think we all know the role that small business plays in Canada and B.C. Certainly we know that a majority of the employees in the province work for small business enterprises, and we know how hard those people have to work who own small businesses. I know how dedicated the employees are in small businesses; I meet them all the time. They prefer to work in small companies, and they want the chance to survive. Anything that this government can do to make their life easier is something that I can support. Certainly I am not in favour of supporting businesses financially if there is no way they can survive, but if we can do something to make their life easier, then we should do that. We shouldn't spend money to compete with another, but we certainly can spend money to help them, whether it's overseas jobs, sales or anything like that.

[ Page 3269 ]

The energy initiatives are just wonderful. There are lots of things that we can do as government, and I would hope that we would make people aware of the alternatives they have with respect to fuelling their cars and their homes. Certainly I would hope that they take cognizance of the fact that energy can be used wisely and shouldn't be wasted. The days of careless consumption are gone — we all know that. Anything that this government can do to help people use energy wisely, to conserve it and make it go farther is something that I can do. Again, the idea of alternative fuels for cars and homes is something that is very worthwhile, and I certainly would support that.

[5:30]

I'm pleased that we can remind everyone here that we are doing forest renewal work; we're planting 100 million or more trees. Certainly I think it's better than planting 90 million trees. I know everybody would want us to plant more trees, but, Mr. Speaker, when your income levels are down, your expenditure levels have to go down accordingly, and people have to work a little harder and put a little more into the system. So I'm pleased to see that we have 100 million trees. That's a lot of work, and that's what we're going to depend on. Certainly we are a resource-oriented province. We will be for a long time to come, so I would encourage the government to continue in that very important area.

On the subject of industrial relations, I think that B.C. is famous in that particular respect. I would hope it would not be infamous, Mr. Speaker, but famous. I'm really hoping that as a reflection of the attitude that I've witnessed today — and I'm sure we will disagree from time to time.... I would like to think that that attitude I saw today from both sides of the House, and spoken so eloquently by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) particularly, is an indication that the industrial relations atmosphere in the province will improve. I know that any legislation brought forward in that regard will be in a mood of improvement and optimism. I know that the people out there in the workforce would like to have the best possible relations. I'm equally sure that the leaders of unions and businesses want to have a good working system so that everybody will survive and profit from that experience. It's such an important issue that we really can't spare any effort in improving the labour relations in this province — none whatsoever.

On the subject of human rights and the discussions I've had with people in my travels around the province since the election and since the introduction of bills to that effect, I suggest to them that the motives of the government are good, as are mine, and that any change in legislation is no doubt brought forward with the best intentions of those people at heart. It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker — as the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) has said on occasion — that no piece of legislation is perfect. So if what we write and present is not perfect and needs improving, then certainly I think we would do that. But anything that we come down with in the field of human rights is an attempt at improvement, I suspect, and I would support it on that basis.

I also agree with the throne speech where it says that we will place greater emphasis on individual responsibility for eliminating discrimination. I support the idea that every one of us in the province should spend a little more time thinking about others who don't happen to look exactly as we do and reflecting on the character of the person rather than his or her appearance. We should make a personal effort to set the example with respect to human rights in that area. In the great riding of Vancouver South I've certainly had many opportunities to meet a cross-section of that riding. As I said on a previous occasion, we have a very wide cross-section of incomes, types of businesses and ethnic communities. I notice that the spirit of all of them as Canadians is the same, and we should treat them the same. I commend the government for reminding everybody, especially those of us here who are the leaders, to take individual responsibility in that respect. I support that idea.

I've always felt that the country was built on the self-reliance of our pioneers. It was not built with government assistance, because there simply wasn't any government. I can tell you that prior to World War I the level of federal income tax for people in business was in the few hundreds of dollars. We now spend a huge percentage of our money in income tax. We really have to go back to that era, at least intellectually, and take on the idea that individually we can do it, collectively we can do it. We have to stop looking to government for everything. It's simply not the way to go, in my opinion.

I have a vested interest in education, certainly secondary education, even primary education; my own children are still in school. I have spent time, particularly in the last few months, talking to my children and to their teachers and to the teachers in the school generally, both in parent-teacher groups and to teachers exclusively. I think the teachers in this province by and large consider themselves to be a professional group, although I suspect there are people who have a different sense of that. But the teachers I talked to are dedicated and committed people. I think they're looking for guidance from this government, and I think, in fact, that guidance will come. I hope that they are as resilient as I believe them to be. I certainly want them to take the funds that are available and make the best possible use of them. I really want them to put the interests of the children first, although they certainly have to think about themselves, which is normal and human. In my view the interests of the children clearly come first, and I suspect that with the help of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) the teachers and the education system will be better. I know that's his motive. I think the teachers will find out that it will be of benefit to them, and they will become ingenious with the use of the funds. They'll find ways of entertaining the kids besides finding out that there's money to spend. I really want to commend the Minister of Education in his efforts to help the teachers help the children.

I clearly support the idea of examinations for students. I know that the level of examination results used to count 100 percent, then it went down to 75 percent, and now it's down to 50 percent — or up to 50 percent in this case, because it's been reinstituted. We can certainly argue about what level the percentage of a final examination result should be. We could say the examination should be 25 percent of your total final marks, and I think we could argue about where you would draw the line. But wherever we draw the line — and I suggest that 50 percent is a good place to start — we certainly have to tell our students, one way or the other, quickly or slowly, that they are tested every day in life, and they might as well find out how to write an exam. It would be interesting to find out whether or not they are learning the subjects they are taking in school, and perhaps it would be of benefit to the teachers to find out how effective they are being. I would not suggest that they should teach strictly to the exam, because I don't believe they will do that, but I think they will certainly find the exams

[ Page 3270 ]

useful from their own points of view and will be able to use the results of those exams to help become better teachers. I therefore encourage this from more than one point of view.

I am pleased to get up today to support the Speech from the Throne. I am always pleased to present my views to this House, and I will continue to serve not only the constituents of Vancouver South but I will always be working on behalf of the entire province.

MR. BARNES: In light of the time, I probably will just make a few introductory remarks. There are only about 20 minutes to go and it takes at least 20 minutes for us to get over the formalities, such as welcoming the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Strachan) back once again, us having re-acclaimed his total objectivity and desire to serve us. I'd like to congratulate him on his reappointment to that position. But, Mr. Speaker, we have so much to reflect upon that we should take our time and consider just what we've been through the past few months.

I don't need to tell you that I'm disappointed with the throne speech. But then again, what's new? Throne speeches are notoriously empty and lacking in objectivity. I think that the value of throne speeches is pretty well known. They are designed to give the government an opportunity to launch another of its propaganda campaigns, respecting what it intends to do. I think one of our members on this side of the House put it quite succinctly when he said that throne speeches are really better described as "screeches from the throne." They aren't all that clear in terms of their intentions, but we know that it's one of those rituals that we go through.

But we've just come through a very difficult year. We're just about at the end of a fiscal period that had a budget debate just completed. Stop and think for a moment, Mr. Speaker, what has happened in the province of British Columbia the past few months. May 5 was the great day of this government's being returned. Throughout that campaign of 29 days we kept demanding that the government tell us what its fiscal policies were, what its budget was. It was spending money through warrants. We didn't get the budget completed in the fall. We went over the Christmas holidays and came back and just now finished the budget at the beginning of the new fiscal year. We're just now finishing last year's budget. So much for fiscal management, Mr. Speaker. So much for this government's concern about fiscal policies and about trying to plan the economy effectively.

What is the message? The message is, I think, that the Legislature is not the place that it used to be. It is not the traditional place that it has been. Those of us in the opposition are rather hesitant to get very excited about anything that the government says or any of its proposals. I must say that I am very disappointed in not having had an opportunity last year to discuss the spending in the budget that the government brought in for 1983-84. This time last year we should have been debating that budget, but we have just finished it. Now we're going to have an opportunity, hopefully, to debate the spending for 1984-85. I hope that the government will finally come back to its senses and give us an opportunity to do this with fair dialogue and exchange in order to assure that what is going to happen will be meaningful and will relate to the concerns that the people of British Columbia have been complaining about.

[5:45]

Mr. Speaker, I want to try to put in perspective something that I predicted was going to happen about a year ago — that is that the government was intending to transform the social and economic structure of this province in such a way as to render those of us in the opposition also redundant — not just the transformation of the public service by eliminating essential services and privatizing them, but effectively eliminating the effectiveness of the opposition. I think you can recall, as can most members of the House, in the fall of last year at about 5 o'clock in the morning, when we saw an example of disrespect for a member's right to dissent and to ask for a vote on a question of disagreement. I'll never forget that day myself, Mr. Speaker, because I saw a colleague lifted bodily out of the Legislature and deposited in the hall. I won't reflect in any detail on that, but it gives you an impression of the kinds of things that have happened in the past few months in this Legislature.

We saw the unilateral decisions by this government to remove human rights staff even though it left in place the statutory right of that staff and the commission to exist. Even to this day that statutory right still exists and there is no staff. We saw as well the removal of protection for tenants by unilaterally again, through order-in-council, eliminating rent controls. What we've seen, in effect, is the removal of things that matter to people in order to assist them in trying to cooperate. Safety on the highways; the pronouncement by the Lieutenant-Governor, echoing the desires of the government, of course, that people could fend for themselves as far as human rights were concerned, and that students could go out and make jobs for themselves without the assistance of the government. All of these are indications that we are in for some pretty rough times in the province of British Columbia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Just recently the government announced its intention to wipe out some 22 social service agencies. It placed an ad in the two main papers of this province advertising that 22 established community service agencies would be put out to private tender, to be operated by those people who were successful in bidding for the right. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be talking at length about those services. I'm going to be talking at length about the individuals involved in those services, about the children involved in those services, about the responsibility of the superintendent of child welfare and the minister responsible, and about what her statutory duties are with respect to these services. I would just like to say that we've come a long way in the opposite direction, back to the days of the Poor Laws, parallelling what existed in England at the turn of this century. We're going to turn over statutory responsibility to the private sector. It's like farming out the children of this province.

As I indicated when I started, I realize that I could not begin to develop point by point just what the implications are behind these initiatives of the government to privatize basic, essential social services, to put a price tag on the good health and emotional security of the children of this province, many of whom are between the ages of several months and eight to ten years, to subject these people to the auction block, to tell them that their future is in the hands of the highest bidder, notwithstanding the statutory responsibilities of the Minister of Human Resources and the superintendent of child welfare in this province, that this government has so much confidence that the people of British Columbia essentially do not care about these values that it is treating these social services the same as it did the Department of Public Works a little

[ Page 3271 ]

while ago when it privatized, through the Buildings Corporation, all of the functions that had been carried on by the Department of Public Works. Surely the government could present us with its plan. What is its master plan? You're offering the children of British Columbia for sale to the public. You're telling the people of British Columbia to come and bid on these young people — on these programs. You're saying that any society or any company can bid on these young people — can bid on the children. That's what you're saying.

We are curious as to your strategy, as to the preliminary feasibility studies that you've done and the kinds of consultations that have taken place with respect to privatizing. The implication, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier, who is standing talking to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) while I'm talking, seemingly to pay very little regard to the member who is on his feet.... That's probably quite typical. Nonetheless, it should be well known that the Premier, while I'm speaking of the children of British Columbia, is disrupting the House with his comments.

I'm quite concerned about what the government means when they say they are going to privatize social services. Social services are not usually seen as money-making propositions, because you can never measure the product the way you can measure dry goods or those things you can put in storage and count and discount and treat in unit form. We're talking about human beings, each and every one of them being different. Yet you are going to privatize them, and you are setting up criteria, presumably, as to how these biddings for contracts can take place.

I'm curious as to how you intend to achieve this and still guarantee that under the statutes of British Columbia the rights and the protection that these youngsters deserve will be ensured, at the same time as you are offering an opportunity for the bidder to profiteer, to capitalize. Surely they aren't going to invest in this expensive service at a loss. Often we've heard the government reflect upon the high cost of social services, the high cost of education and the high cost of people services. Most of these things we've accepted traditionally as being built-in costs, the price of a free and democratic society. It's something we've taken great pride in, but now we're finding that these children are being subjected to the auction block. I hope that my fears will be allayed by the explanations that will be forthcoming from that side of the House. As well, I hope we can have some sanity and some honesty. I hope that we can ask some questions about the future of these children and get some straight answers. I hope that we will be able to ask the minister by what measure she has come to her conclusions that these youngsters are better off in the hands of private practitioners, people who are investing in their emotional, social and economic problems. What measure is she using that she can expect these people to bid on the opportunity to serve them and still make a profit?

Is this a sham, an attempt to subsidize the private sector in any event? If it is, then we're not talking restraint. The objective obviously can't be to save money; it has to be something else. Perhaps it's ideological. Perhaps it's that the government just doesn't feel it wants to assume that responsibility. Perhaps we're looking, ultimately, at the abolition of certain statutory responsibilities we have known in the past to exist in this province. Perhaps we're looking at some changes in that respect, I think we should make it clear that perhaps the system can work, perhaps those private citizens can do the job. But they won't do it at a loss; they're going to do it at some cost. So let's make it clear: is the government doing it because they wish to economize, or what are the other reasons? I suggest that there are some political explanations that we will be pursuing in due course.

With that, I thank the members for their attention to my remarks, and I will look forward to this debate in the future.

I move that we adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Earlier today the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) sought leave to move adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35 to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely damage of the St. Mungo Indian village site in the Vancouver area.

This House is currently embarked on the consideration of the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor at the opening of this session, an order of the day which was provided a priority position by order of the House on the opening day of the session and which provides a wide scope of debate. Where an ordinary parliamentary opportunity for debate is available, the application under standing order 35 fails.

Hon. members, at the conclusion of question period in the afternoon sitting today, the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) rose on a point of order relating to question period: namely, answers given by ministers to questions which had not been taken on notice. I have examined the Blues relating to question period on February 14, and find that while the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) did not appear to take the related questions on notice, the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Chabot) on two occasions stated that he would "take the question under consideration." It may be a matter of opinion as to whether or not the hon. Provincial Secretary was intending to advise the House that he was taking the question on notice. In any event, it should be clearly stated that unless a minister has taken a question on notice on an earlier occasion, he has no status to answer questions in question period. There is no uncertainty in this House about the right of a minister to make a ministerial statement at any time outside question period.

The point has been made that questions taken on notice may, at the minister's discretion, be answered during question period; or, if the answer is inordinately long or complex, leave may be sought by the minister to answer the question outside the question period. The Chair must emphasize, however, that it is at the discretion of the minister, and not the questioner, as to when the question should be answered. Hon. members also have probably observed themselves that the tone of the question often dictates the style of the answer.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.