[ Page 3287 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Land-use regulations. Mr. Blencoe –– 3287

Commodity trading. Mr. Howard –– 3287

Taxation measures. Mr. Stupich –– 3288

Hospital staff terminations. Mrs. Dailly –– 3288

Closure of ambulance dispatch centres. Mr. Lockstead –– 3289

University and college financing. Mr. Nicolson –– 3289

Tabling Documents –– 3289

Speech from the Throne

On the amendment

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 3289

Division –– 3290

Ms. Brown –– 3291

Mr. Michael –– 3294

Mr. Blencoe –– 3297

Mr. Reynolds –– 3300

Mr. Nicolson –– 3305

Mrs. Wallace –– 3309

Shoal Island log scaling-statement

Mr. Skelly –– 3311

Tabling Documents –– 3311

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1984

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we have in the members' gallery today, Mr. Bimal Mitra, consul-general of India in Vancouver, who is returning to India on retirement, and Mrs. Mitra. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them here today.

MR. MACDONALD: The opposition joins in regretting the retirement of somebody who has served his country in British Columbia intelligently and affably. He will be sorely missed.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, Consul-General Mitra has of course had a very close personal relationship with me, as the representative for Vancouver South, since his time of coming to Vancouver. He and his wife have graced me with invitations to their home on several occasions and I have reciprocated, and together we have attended many events. He has been a true servant of his country. Just a private word from me to him — I don't know if the others can understand it: Sat siri akal.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in welcoming a group of grade 11 students who are in the gallery today, from Burnaby North Senior Secondary School, with their teacher, Mr. Cooper.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are three gentlemen from the Tokyu Corporation of Japan. Tokyu, as you probably know, are building a $150 million hotel in Vancouver's inner harbour. I'd like you to welcome Mr. Toshito Shiota, the president of the corporation, Mr. Tatsuo Kanazashi, the treasurer and secretary of the corporation, Mr. Herb Grueter, one of their directors, and Mr. Ken Woodward, director of marketing for Tourism British Columbia.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you to join me in welcoming Mrs. Sharon Wilkinson and her ten-year-old son, Carl. Mrs. Wilkinson is the president of the Sooke Parents' Education Advisory Council, commonly known in the district as SPEAC. Last year they put on an excellent program within the area for Vancouver Island on the educational problems of B.C., and they came down here to see the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) because he couldn't make the conference.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are two of my constituents who reside in one of the older communities in the district of Maple Ridge, Webster Corners. I would ask the House to welcome Mike and Hazel Foster.

MR. MOWAT: In the House today we have a very personal friend of mine, Mr. Norman Young. Mr. Young is the chairman of the Vancouver civic theatres board and a member of the Canada Council, and he was the organizer and general manager for the first British Columbia Festival of the Arts in Kamloops. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: Visiting Victoria today is Mr. Jack Evans. Mr. Evans is the former publisher of the Prince George Citizen, and while publisher of that paper Mr. Evans was the founding father of the very successful "Take the Car out of Carnage" campaign. I would ask all members to bid him welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I notice in your gallery today there is a very hard-working, beautiful young lady from Kamloops. She is the regional director of the Social Credit Party up there, and I would like everyone to welcome Mrs. Jacee Schaefer.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the galleries this afternoon we have several of our regional directors of the Social Credit Party. I would ask the house to please welcome each and every one of them.

MR. NICOLSON: I too would like to introduce a hardworking member of the Social Credit Party, and a regional director, also a regional director of the regional district of Central Kootenay, Wally Penner,

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair is pleased to announce that this House, by agreement, will be adjourned on Friday at the usual hour, and by agreement will be meeting Monday after question period for the introduction of the budget. I would like to take this opportunity to thank both House leaders for the courtesies they have shown toward the Chair in making the necessary arrangements possible in advance. It is indeed appreciated.

Oral Questions

LAND-USE REGULATIONS

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The throne speech has indicated government plans to amend the land-use provisions of the Municipal Act. Will the minister advise whether he has decided to include in these amendments a provision to prevent government MLAs from bringing the influence of provincial office to bear on zoning decisions in which they have a personal interest?

MR. SPEAKER: The question, unfortunately, hon. member, is out of order.

COMMODITY TRADING

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to that custodian of corporate rights and protector of consumer affairs. the minister of that department, and ask the minister if he is aware and can confirm that the only thing which is required to open a commodity trading firm in British Columbia is the acquisition of a municipal business licence.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'd have to take that question as notice to see whether that is the only thing that is required. The member is probably referring to the fact that there is not in place a commodity trading act or piece of legislation in British Columbia, and maybe wants to expand on that. I may be able to help him out with an answer to this question.

[ Page 3288 ]

MR. HOWARD: The minister undoubtedly is aware, though, of the sorry state of commodity trading activities in British Columbia and the losses of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars through the closure of King Lung Commodities Limited. Can the minister tell us what he has decided to do with respect to the losses incurred by British Columbians trading through that firm who appear to have no legislative protection whatever?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I have not made a decision on what to do. If there was anything to be done it would, of course, be government policy. I can tell the member that those traders who are with security firms and dealing in commodities, of course, are licensed. The firm that he mentions does not fall under that particular type of trading company; therefore they were not inspected, et cetera. However, we are in discussion with the investment community at the present time.

MR. HOWARD: They're not licensed under the Securities Act, and didn't want to be. They were not amenable to the provisions of that act.

I wonder if the minister can advise the House why he and his government have failed miserably or neglected to proclaim a piece of legislation that is on the statute books, passed by this Legislature in 1978, called the Commodity Contract Act, a piece of legislation that, if it had been proclaimed and were in force, would have protected the investments of those who have lost money through King Lung Commodities Ltd.

Why did this government neglect or fail or refuse to proclaim the Commodity Contract Act?

[2:15]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in regard to why it was not proclaimed, I can advise the member that since my coming into this office as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs there have been discussions concerning the need for various amendments to that unproclaimed act prior to its proclamation. We are in discussions and negotiations, and have been for some time.

MR. HOWARD: Will the minister be able to confirm that the lack of any determinate action with respect to the protective legislation necessary — protection that is contained within the act to which we referred — is based solely on the financial support and accompanying political endorsement of people who engage in such activities on the stock exchange, like the Pezims and the Browns?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order. The second part, hon. member, is grossly out of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: To answer the first part of his question, which is somewhat in order, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I apologize to the House for the second part of his question.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair may or may not have heard a remark that was attributed from a member. If that's the case the Chair would have to ask for an apology for that remark or a withdrawal of that remark. I'm sure it wasn't meant intentionally to be unparliamentary.

MR. HOWARD: It was not my intention to be unparliamentary or to cast any aspersions — just a straight declaration of opinion.

TAXATION MEASURES

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance. On Tuesday, February 14, the minister refused to reaffirm his commitment to provide for municipal taxation on unfinished commercial projects. On December 22, 1983 the minister issued a news release stating: "The new legislation will allow the value of incomplete machinery and buildings to be added to the assessment roll in time for inclusion on 1984 tax rolls. The legislation will validate the assessment of such properties in past years." Does the minister stand by his statement of December 22, 1983?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, if I refused to answer the hon. member for Nanaimo earlier this week, on Tuesday, it was only because I think I prefaced one answer with the remark that it might impinge on future government policy. Nonetheless, I trust I can assist the member by pointing out today that the decision, which was announced some time ago, is a decision that was reached by the executive council. As events occur over the next few days or weeks, I think the member and others who are interested will see that the appropriate action is being taken.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, part of my question on Tuesday was with respect to what I understand is intense lobbying against this action. Would the minister confirm that there has been intense lobbying to try to get him to change his position in this respect?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the member alluded to intense lobbying to members on both sides of the House. I am aware that some individuals have expressed their views with respect to the government's announced intention and I think that's about all I can say. I don't know if it's "intense." But the member alluded to it and yes, I have received some letters. I have responded to those letters as time permits.

HOSPITAL STAFF TERMINATIONS

MRS. DAILLY: To the Minister of Health: will the minister confirm to the House that the government, acting through its public administrator, has fired Jim Fair, executive director of the Victoria General Hospital, and Mike Butcher, president of the Royal Jubilee?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the minister hasn't read the paper. I think it's common knowledge; as the Premier just called over to me, it's in the paper. Will the minister therefore confirm that Grant Moreton, the public administrator, has also ordered numerous staff layoffs at both hospitals, without seeking the approval of anyone other than the minister?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Burnaby North is a bit confused. There is a board which is responsible for the administration of the new Victoria General Hospital and the

[ Page 3289 ]

Royal Jubilee. Mr. Moreton is the public trustee at this time, but any decisions with respect to staff or personnel are made by the authority of the people responsible for the hospital, not by the ministry and certainly not by the minister. The combined board of the two hospitals had sought replacements for the position of administrator of the two hospitals. The two gentlemen whom the member mentioned this morning were among those who made application for the position. My understanding is that neither gentleman was successful in securing the new position which was being offered. That position is to be filled apparently by someone other than those two administrators. Staff changes have taken place because of the decisions made by members of the board and the public trustee. They are not directed from the Ministry of Health. They are efficiencies which have been introduced into the new hospital because of the combination of the two, and that type of efficiency is being reflected across the system in British Columbia.

MRS. DAILLY: Another supplementary. Would the minister tell the House the makeup of the present combined board that you have seen fit to appoint?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Certainly I'll be pleased to send a copy of the list of all the members to the member and to anyone else who might wish it. It's very commonly known; they were all appointed by order.

MRS. DAILLY: When the minister comes back with that answer, I wonder if he would also inform the House when he intends to restore local autonomy to this board.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The board is responsible for its own actions and responsible for the administration of their own facilities. I would consider that to be representing local autonomy.

CLOSURE OF AMBULANCE DISPATCH CENTRES

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My question is to the same minister. Would the minister advise why the government has closed down the Powell River and other ambulance dispatch centres, forcing my constituents and others to telephone, in this case, Nanaimo for an ambulance.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it would require a technical answer as to what the central dispatch might be, and I'd be pleased to find that out from the emergency health people.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I wonder — while the minister is, in a way, taking that question on notice — if he is aware of the extraordinary and completely unacceptable delays under the new system. Is he waiting for a serious medical problem before he takes action?

I might add that a person in my riding was unable to make contact with the Nanaimo dispatch centre because the line was continually busy. She only obtained an ambulance by going around the dispatch system and contacting ambulance personnel by other means, Does the minister regard this as an acceptable standard of ambulance service?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had all the details of that specific incident with me at this moment, but of course I don't. But I will make inquiries. I will have the responsible people in the ministry respond to the details in that particular incident, and get back to the member as soon as I can.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could also advise this House why no public announcement was made, not only in Powell River but also in other small rural areas throughout the province, about the change in procedures. The point I'm trying to make here is that we've had several very close calls involving heart attack patients unable to get an ambulance, and there was no public announcement made about this change in procedure. I doubt that the government is going to save any money by using this procedure anyway.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is taken on notice.

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE FINANCING

MR. NICOLSON: The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications has recently made some rather extravagant claims to the effect that British Columbia has been taking all of the federal post-secondary funds and then putting even more into university spending. Post-secondary tax point transfers to British Columbia this year amount to $450 million, while university spending remains at approximately $300 million. Will the minister explain where the balance of $150 million went?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the colleges had a budget of $300 million this past year. Plus we receive, as do other provinces, a consideration for the final year of high school; that was because of the CEGEPs in Quebec. Our budget for schools this year would be $1.5 billion — something like that — so you could take one-twelfth of that. You would be looking at another S400 to $500 million from those two sources, and that's where the money would go.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair tables herewith the ombudsman's "Special Report No –– 7 to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia."

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the purpose of this brief adjournment in my remarks was to give the members opposite an opportunity to reflect upon how the policies commenced by the Premier of British Columbia and our government might be translated onto the national scene. Perhaps my suggestion that our Premier should be the Prime Minister of Canada is one that would be difficult to implement, for reasons of practical politics; nonetheless, the policies would be extremely easy to translate onto the national scene. We were suggesting that we could implement the same sorts of policies we've started in British Columbia to generate true wealth in Canada, remembering that while governments create jobs, they cannot create wealth.

To start the ball rolling, you will recall that I suggested that the CRTC be abolished. There are 439 jobs there. The

[ Page 3290 ]

members opposite recommended that the Senate be abolished, a suggestion I was quite prepared to accept. Some had favoured reform, but I think the latest Senate appointments have tipped the scale in the direction of abolition.

[2:30]

So the members can understand how it works, I wasn't proposing that in eliminating all these unnecessary federal civil service jobs we create an unemployment situation such as we witnessed in Alberta, where the energy-producing and wealth-producing sector of our economy is experiencing a sharp recession because of the national energy policy; whereas Ottawa, spending our future dollars with a $31 billion deficit, is recession-proof. In talking about laying off all these unnecessary civil servants in Ottawa, let me start by illustrating what could be done with the CRTC. If we were to take those 439 people and use them to staff a factory that would build satellite home receivers, then they would be productively employed, and the citizens of Canada would get some benefit from the presence of these people, instead of a decrease in their standard of living. Of course, we would then be able to sell some of these abroad, with our advanced technology, thus earning money for Canada. With the CRTC productively employed in this fashion, it would not be necessary to bring in the kind of legislation changing the Communications Act that is being debated in the House of Commons today, thus saving us the expense of the lawyers who are involved in drafting and bringing forward the legislation. In turn, it would be unnecessary to hire all the police that will be involved in enforcing that legislation for the benefit of Home Box Office in the United States. You can see how quickly the benefits escalate when we embark upon a program of eliminating the unnecessary jobs in Ottawa.

The members opposite were going to reflect how they could contribute. Of course, I'm now open to further suggestions from the New Democratic Party. We could make this a bipartisan affair, taking the lessons of British Columbia, translating them into the national economic scene and thus bringing the whole country out of the economic slump that it's in, rather than just British Columbia.

I also suggested that we could eliminate the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. Clearly we don't need that whole ministry and all the civil servants who go with it. We've recently got a Minister of State for Youth, with more civil servants there who will only duplicate the ones already present in the Manpower, who are mostly dealing with youth, because this is where our unemployment problem is today. We could do away with the Minister of State for Finance, because we've got a Minister of Finance. If one looks at the situation in Ottawa, they're not just duplicating the services of the provinces; they're also duplicating their own services, thus creating the miracle of staffing jobs three deep, as we did in the shipyards during the war.

It's so obvious where our basic problem is in Canada. To work our way out of these $30 billion deficits we need to cut at least 100,000 civil servants from Ottawa alone, and then we'll see that kind of ripple effect — not one of unemployment, as the New Democratic Party continually suggests, but one in the form of productive capacity. Instead of being a drag on Canada, these people can contribute to its wealth. Instead of inhibiting those in the private sector, they could be helping them. It's really all so simple. Mr. Speaker, I would be the last one to blame the civil service itself. What you've got to do is to get right down to policy and the policy-makers. After all, it's for developing effective policy that we elect members to this Legislative Assembly and to its counterparts all across Canada. As I see the problem nationally, we simply don't have a choice, because all our parties are vying to spend more public money. None of them is grasping the nettle, as the Premier and the government of British Columbia have done. Surely it's becoming evident, as still another federal budget has come forward and there is still this insoluble problem of deficits of $30 billion or so annually. Surely every citizen now realizes that this is a time-bomb ticking away, and sooner or later the accumulated problem will explode in our economy, leaving us with an unemployment problem and a national economic disaster on our hands that should have been foreseen. It will be far more difficult to deal with than the considerable problems we've had in British Columbia adjusting our public expenditures to the level which true wealth in our province can support.

I am disappointed that the New Democratic Party have had an opportunity to caucus and to reflect over lunch hour, to come forward, if not in British Columbia at least nationally, remembering that your own party is on the way out, not just in British Columbia but right across the country, that opportunity once more forgone, to be here debating this particular amendment — to find that neither the mover nor the seconder is here to listen to the remarks on their particular amendment, indeed to have the New Democratic Party, as always, down to a corporal's guard in the Legislative Assembly, dozing away their time.

Mr. Speaker, it's with great disappointment that I say....

AN HON. MEMBER: Dozers' guard.

HON. MR. McGEER: A dozers' guard.

It's with great disappointment that I say once more, Mr. Speaker, that the New Democratic Party has failed in their responsibility to their electors and to the people of British Columbia. Once more their party has lost an opportunity to reform itself, to start on the road to political recovery, which will parallel their ability to see the needs of the country in recovering economically.

I'm sure my colleagues in government will be joining me in rejecting this most unworthy amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 29

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 3291 ]

[2:45]

On the main motion.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak in opposition to the throne speech, which should come as no surprise since I supported the amendment which was also in opposition to the throne speech.

I know that traditionally what we do in throne speech debates is talk about ways in which our constituencies benefit from the stated plans of the government. It's not going to be possible for me to do that, because there are no benefits for Burnaby-Edmonds in this throne speech.

The Annacis Island crossing, which the members for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson), Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), Surrey (Mrs. Johnston and Mr. Reid) and other areas think is going to be so good for them, is going to penalize Burnaby-Edmonds. The people of Burnaby-Edmonds do not support the crossing. We feel that we are already being used as a giant transportation corridor for the lower mainland, and the last thing we need is having more traffic tunnelled either through or around. The LRT we support — no question about it. As a matter of fact, during the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), I told him that it better work, because if the LRT doesn't take some of the traffic off the roads of Burnaby, we're going to secede. We're going to close our borders and stop allowing all these people from Surrey and other areas driving to and fro across our municipality.

AN HON. MEMBER: Check-point Charlie.

MS. BROWN: Check-point Charlie, yes. I just wanted to state that our opposition to the Annacis crossing continues even though we know we've lost that battle. There is nothing in the throne speech which addressed itself to the escalating number of bankruptcies in our riding. Small business is still under attack, and the number of bankruptcies is still on the increase. The same applies to the unemployment rate. Our young people still cannot find work. There are no jobs. So as far as the throne speech is concerned, Burnaby-Edmonds has nothing to be grateful for.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

But what I really want to talk about today, and what really forced me to my feet, was the statement in the throne speech on page 10 concerning human rights: "British Columbia is entering a new era in human rights where a greater emphasis will be placed on individual responsibility for eliminating discrimination." The individualization of human rights is what alarms me and forces me to participate in this debate, because it goes beyond privatization. We're now talking about individual people taking responsibility for something that not just our nation, but certainly our society, should have responsibility for.

Human rights, Mr. Chairman, is part of the infrastructure in a society which protects its members. Not just its minority group members or its special-interest groups, but every single person living in the society is protected when there is good human rights legislation in place, and there is also a good mechanism for dealing with perceived or real acts of discrimination against any individual or group, That is the reason why we have human rights legislation in most countries in the western world. If the only thing that human rights legislation did was to protect minorities, most governments wouldn't have the incentive or the desire to put human rights legislation into place. But they recognize that human rights legislation gives individuals and groups in a society a sense that they are protected, and that in any event where their rights are being infringed or trampled on, they have an avenue of recourse — a court of appeal to which they can take their complaint — and hopefully justice will be given.

That's what human rights is all about. Good human rights legislation is more beneficial to the majority members of a society than it is to the minorities, because by being in place, it says that the minority members do not find themselves forced, nor do they feel that they have to rise up, as we find in some of the revolutions in some of the more oppressive regimes around the world, against their governments and against the majority members of the society. because they have a protective valve and an outlet. To a lesser degree, when good human rights legislation is in place, we are protected as a society against even the kind of uprising which we experienced in British Columbia last summer when something like 50,000 people took to the streets of British Columbia to say to this government that human rights was important to them and that human rights should be protected by legislation, as well as by a mechanism, whether it's a commission or some other form.

When we read that human rights is going to be taken away as a responsibility of government and handed to individual initiative, it should alarm not just members of minority groups and not just special-interest groups, but it should alarm all of us. That's a very important protective device which is going to be removed. That's what happens when society and governments abandon their responsibility for seeing to it that that protection is there for groups who cannot protect themselves, or groups who perceive themselves as being vulnerable in any way.

What I want to do, Mr. Speaker, is to talk on behalf of two groups with whom I have more than a passing interest. I want to talk about what human rights means to women. I also want to talk about what human rights means to racial minorities, because those are the two groups that I know a little bit about.

I'm going to use the model for human rights development that is accepted in most parts of the world, and that is as human rights as negative support — negative rights — and human rights as positive rights. The negative rights in human rights are those rights which are governed by the words "thou shalt not." Thou shalt not discriminate. Thou shalt not refuse to hire persons because you do not like the colour of their skin. Thou shalt not refuse accommodation to persons because you do not like their sex or their marital status. What we had in this province was human rights addressed primarily to the negative rights, protecting the thou-shalt-nots in the Human Rights Code. What we didn't have enough of — and what we should be getting more of — were the affirmative rights, the ones saying that as a member of our society you are entitled to an adequate income, adequate health care and adequate education. Those kinds of basic needs come to you simply by virtue of being a member of the society we call British Columbia.

A little bit of history. In the 1960s, as a direct result of the tabling of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in the federal House, women in British Columbia became more conscious of their position as members of a minority group in

[ Page 3292 ]

society. We began to recognize that we too experience discrimination in employment, in housing, in access to opportunity and those kinds of things, in the same way that racial and ethnic minority groups and disabled groups experience discrimination. That was part of the consciousness-raising process we went through as a direct result of the tabling of that document. What we also started to do was look at the statistical tables for Canada as a whole and for British Columbia in particular. What we found was that we as women made up the largest group of the poverty component, the largest group of low-paid workers and the largest group of unorganized workers of this country and this province. We also found that we were the group most penalized by not having decent pension coverage and other privileges and rights which men not only took for granted but had simply by virtue of the fact that most of the decision-making in this country and most of the institutions governing our lives were almost exclusively controlled by men, and certainly the decision-making corridors were almost entirely empty of women.

So we started to talk to each other and to search for various tools and means and ways of dealing with what we perceived to be not just discrimination but discrimination which resulted in exploitation as well as in oppression. One of the tools we recognized as being very vital and very important to us was the tool of human rights as legislation and certainly in terms of a structure, whether it be a commission, a board, a council or whatever. We recognized that we needed to have a place where we could go and file complaints and say: "We are being discriminated against because we are women. We are not being hired for jobs that pay decent wages, we're not being allowed to have the kinds of pension coverage we should have, we're not permitted to live in certain places where we want to live, and opportunities for advancement and upgrading in terms of our jobs are not open to us, simply on the basis of our sex and for no other reason at all."

We worked very hard during the 1972 election with every single candidate who ran in that election. What the Vancouver Status of Women group did was to assign at least one person to attend every single all-candidates meeting — we tried for the whole province — and to ask all of the candidates who were running at that time whether they would be willing to accept as their mandate if elected a commitment to strong human rights legislation which would embody the protection of women against discrimination. As you know, in 1972 not only was a new government elected, but I was elected as part of that government, and came into this House with that as one of my mandates: to do whatever I could to ensure that there was human rights legislation on the books of this province which protected women against discrimination. I also spoke very strongly for protecting people of ethnic and racial minority groups.

We got together, once we formed government, and a number of the back-benchers — two members from Vancouver Centre were both back-benchers at the time — were part of a committee that worked with our Attorney-General and a number of people in the Attorney-General's ministry in drafting Bill 100. I am the first person, Mr. Speaker, to say to you that it was not a perfect piece of legislation. We were not conscious — with regret I have to admit this — of the fact that the bill's coverage should have been extended to cover people who were discriminated against by virtue of the fact that they had a mental or physical disability. The bill did not extend to cover that which was an oversight on our part. There's no question about it.

We were not courageous enough to go even further in terms of our protection of women and include such things as equal pay for work of equal value. The bill was not perfect, but it was stating clearly that the government of the day, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, recognized full responsibility for putting into place legislation and a mechanism — some form of machinery — which would ensure that people who were disadvantaged, vulnerable and unable to protect themselves would have a means of being protected. They would be able to state their complaint, their complaint would be investigated and hopefully a decision would be made that would be of benefit to everyone, not just to the person who was discriminated against.

That is the bill which was destroyed last summer by the introduction of Bill 27. At the time when Bill 27 was introduced, it sent shock waves throughout the community of women. We recognized that rather than being able to build on the existing legislation so as to improve it by extending its coverage to cover things like equal pay for work of equal value.... It sent shock waves through the community of the disabled, who recognized that rather than being able to build on the extended legislation and to extend it to cover people who were disabled and other groups in our society who needed the protection of such legislation, they were in fact going to lose even that little bit of protection which they had.

We were going to have to start, as women, from scratch. We were going back to the pre-1972 days when human rights was left to the voluntary sector. Dr. Katz, Emily Ostapachuck and other concerned people in the community came together and formed a human rights council and tried to use moral suasion to protect the rights of minorities. I was a part of that as a member of the B.C. Association for the Advancement of Coloured People in this province. Part of my responsibility was to help people file complaints who found that they could not get accommodation because of the colour of their skin and that kind of thing.

[3:00]

That's the bill that was destroyed by Bill 27 in July. As I said earlier, 50,000 people spoke with their feet when they demonstrated and marched against this government. As well there were petitions and letters and phone calls, all of which stated one fact and one fact only: human rights is important. As a society, it is a measure of our civilization, and it should not be eroded.

What this throne speech does when it talks about individualization of human rights is to go even further back. It goes beyond community and voluntary action and initiative for human rights to say that each individual — you in your small corner and I in mine — now have to take full responsibility in terms of acts of discrimination against us, or we have to deal with being accused of acts of discrimination.

There is a philosopher by the name of Jacques Maritain who stated: "'The dignity of the human person' means absolutely nothing if it does not signify that by virtue of natural law the human person has the right to be respected and is the subject of rights and possesses rights." That is what human rights is. It is natural law, which, when it is enshrined in legislation, makes a public statement on behalf of a society, and also ensures that the protection which it gives is enforceable. That's what it does. It says that if you violate another person's rights, you are punished in one way or

[ Page 3293 ]

another, whether it is by fine or by having to revoke the decision you made or whether it is, in fact, by some other form of punishment.

It is almost critical that this should have happened at this time, because as you know, we are one year away from ending the international decade on advancement of women. The United Nations declared, nearly ten years ago, that for ten years nations around the world were going to make special efforts in three areas on behalf of women. Those areas were equality, development and peace. Every nation that was a member of the United Nations family was asked to participate in doing something to raise the status of women in these three areas during this decade. We are almost at the end of the decade and we're going to have to give an accounting of ourselves as we come to the end of it. It is precisely at the time when we should be trying to achieve the goals stated by the United Nations that we in this province, under this government, have chosen to do the exact opposite.

In 1948 the declaration of the United Nations made some suggestions. It talked about guaranteeing the universal right to education, equal pay for equal work, adequate health care, and equality in employment and other areas. But it didn't give those as a rule; the articles of that declaration were a goal, and that was stated in 1948. It wasn't binding on the member nations — just a little bit of encouragement, saying: "That's the star you should be aiming for." It took Canada almost 20 years to get around to doing anything about it, but give us credit; we never leap before we look. We are a very cautious nation. So nearly 20 years later we got around to establishing at the federal level the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. That's where this whole thing on behalf of women started. At the beginning of the decade on women, British Columbia started to put into place the kind of mechanism and machinery that would maybe not help us achieve our goal, but would at least get us more than halfway there by the time the decade came to an end.

There is no point in talking about peace. We're experiencing at this point a government which has given permission for the testing of weapons of war in our nation, at a time when we are supposed to be working and aiming for peace. It is something else that women take credit for, because internationally it is known that we've always been in the forefront of working for peace. That's another battle that we're losing; but it's in a different arena so we won't deal with that now.

But equality is in this arena. This is the place where it can be dealt with. This is where the laws that deal with equal access to employment and opportunities, and with the positive aspects of human rights, are brought down — right here on the floor of this Legislature. This is where we can build and grow and achieve our goals. Instead of that, according to the statement in the throne speech we are going in the exact opposite direction. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that that saddens and grieves me, because as an individual it means that my task has to start all over again. This is one that I thought we'd won, and now it has to start all over again. Without being selfish, it is a task that all women and men of good will, integrity and decency see they're going to have to fight all over again. We cannot as a nation afford to erode, destroy or lose that protective infrastructure which human rights is to a civilized nation.

Instead of individualizing or privatizing the Human Rights Code and human rights legislation, we should be improving it. A number of groups have made suggestions to the minister responsible, and I want to repeat some of those suggestions on ways in which we could be improving rather than destroying this very fragile protection that we enjoy in this province. We need a stronger legislation — not just extended coverage to cover the disabled and other groups, but more emphasis on the positive rights which we share and enjoy; legislation which talks more about enhancing the quality of our lives, a commitment to equal access to adequate health care, and which really addresses itself to the unrelenting poverty in which so many women — so many people of both sexes — in this country find themselves today.

We need the kind of protection which would make it impossible for any group in this province to be degraded for money. I'm talking about pornography, that multi-billion dollar business that thrives unchecked — not just here but across Canada — on the exploitation and degrading of the female as a person and a human being, and also the exploitation and degrading of children of both sexes. We need strong legislation to address itself to that kind of concern, not a wiping out or an eroding of the very fragile legislation which we presently have.

Another suggestion made to the minister and to the government was that the administration of such legislation should be insulated from government interference. It should be autonomous, a board or commission or whatever all by itself; not under the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Health, the Attorney-General or anyone else, but a body that is directly answerable to this Legislature and this House. Surely human rights are as important to us as a people as the work done by the auditor-general. We recognize the importance of having the auditor-general insulated from government interference, and we ask no more than that for human rights in this province.

We also need a code which has primacy over every other statute on our statute books. Whenever any law comes into conflict with the Human Rights Code, the Human Rights Code should have primacy. That's the kind of statement we should be making to other provinces across Canada, as well as to the world in general, about our feelings and our commitment to natural, moral and positive rights, all of which come under this one umbrella which we refer to as human rights. A strong Human Rights Code independently administered in a fair and even-handed manner, and with primacy over every other statute, is the kind of thing which would enhance the esteem in which we are already held, not just in Canada but around the world. Instead of that, what do we have? We have in the throne speech a statement that is contrary to the articles of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, that is contrary to the ILO Convention 100, which Canada has ratified and is a party to, and that certainly is contrary to the recommendation given by the former chairperson of the Human Rights Commission to the previous Minister of Labour, who was responsible for the code. We have embodied in this throne speech a statement which goes contrary to those three distinguished recommendations.

As I said when I started out, I realize that one uses the throne speech primarily to discuss things of interest to one's riding and constituency, but I know that every person in Burnaby-Edmonds would share with me my concern that this statement heralds absolute chaos. What in fact does it mean? Does it mean that a person who is discriminated against can take the law into their own hands and deal as an individual with the person they perceive to be discriminating against them? What protection does a person have against an accusation that they are discriminating, that they are infringing on

[ Page 3294 ]

another person's rights? How do you protect yourself against that when there is no board, no body to appear in front of, no investigation, no one to clear your name? This is the problem with human rights. It cuts both ways. In fact, in most instances it operates more to protect the person accused than the person who is doing the accusing. That the government should fail to see this, that the government should fail to understand that simple fact, is a puzzle to everyone.

[3:15]

1 know there are parts of the world where human rights are not protected. We can name them off on the fingers of one hand simply by listing the parts of the world where revolution is taking place. They do not have that protective vow. The kinds of violations of people's rights which take place in those nations shock us as Canadians. We speak out against those violations. But we should do more than that.

We had the opportunity to set an example in this province, because what we had in this province prior to July of last year was the best piece of human rights legislation anywhere in Canada. Although, as I've said before, it wasn't perfect, it was the best structure on which to build. It was a good place from which to start. We could have expanded and made it so perfect that it would have been our pride and joy, and — as I've said before — the esteem in which we are held in the rest of the world would have been enhanced even further. Instead of that we have opted to do the very opposite. We have opted to erode, destroy and eliminate this fragile structure which acted as a protective vow in our society. It also said something about us as a civilization to the rest of the world; it was a statement that we cared about protecting people who were unable to protect themselves, either by virtue of the fact that they were physically or mentally disabled, or they were too old or because of their race or their religious creed or whatever. In this province, under this government, under that legislation, everyone was protected. We respected everybody equally. That's the opportunity we had. Bill 100, which was introduced in 1973, could have been amended in such a way as to enrich, enhance and strengthen it.

Instead of that, Mr. Speaker, the very opposite message goes out across the nation about this province. The message goes out that it's now open season on racism. Anyone who feels like it can discriminate against anyone they feel like, and it's going to be a one-to-one thing. We're going to slug it out, and whoever wins, wins. It's open season as far as sexism is concerned. If you don't want to hire a woman to do a job, you don't have to. If she doesn't like it, then you and she are going to have to fight that out and come to some kind of resolution. If you don't want to rent your suite to a disabled person, you don't have to, and then you and that disabled person are going to have slug it out and the stronger one will prevail. That's the message that we're sending out across this province and across this land when we make a statement saying that the elimination of discrimination is an individual responsibility.

There are some responsibilities that can never be left to the individual. Individuals cannot take responsibility for health care. We recognize that society has to handle that. Individuals don't take responsibility for meeting educational needs. We recognize that society has to take some responsibility for that.

Developing our natural resources. In all manner of areas, Mr. Speaker, society has to take responsibility for these things; they can't be left up to the individual.

Why then have we decided that as a province we are now ready to throw minority groups — the disabled, people over the age of 65, people who are female, or because of their marital status — to the wolves, and say: "You get on out there and take care of yourself"? Certainly it's not because of anything we've learned in history. If there is anything we've learned in history it's that the individual cannot take care of herself or himself under these circumstances. That's how it all started. In the beginning there were no human rights. For many years in this province there were no human rights or human rights commission, but the voluntary sector — concerned people in the community — came together and formed a human rights council. As it became more obvious that this was the only way in which protection for all people could be assured, it was introduced in legislation. It was enshrined in the laws of our land. That's what history has taught us. It's part of our tradition and civilization. This is not a jungle; this is a province in which people respect each other and in which governments take responsibility for seeing that the strong don't trample the weak. At least that's the way it used to be until July of last year. The statement in the throne speech says to us that it's going to get worse, not better; that the disabled are going to be thrown to the wolves; that people who are old, or poor, or who have a different color of skin or shape of eye, or whose marital status or sex we don't like are going to be thrown to the wolves. That's what this statement says. If for no other reasons, and if there were no other statement made in the throne speech, I cannot support this throne speech and will not support this government.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise in support of the throne speech. I have particular emphasis and support for the tremendous job this government has done in the area of putting Expo 86 together and the tremendous support this government gave to the needed amendments to the Crow rate legislation. I think the opposition will rue the day they obstructed and held up the passage of the Crow legislation, and I can say as the MLA for the constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke that the people in Revelstoke are already feeling the benefits of the Crow rate legislation. Jobs are being created and things are happening in the Revelstoke-Golden area, and there will be hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts let in that area in the coming months.

I also am very proud of the resource development in the northeastern part of this province. I feel this government had the courage, wisdom and foresight to develop that at the proper time, and the stage is now set for the future export of that very important and abundant resource that we have so readily available to us in the province of British Columbia.

I'm also very proud, as all citizens of British Columbia are proud, of B.C. Place Stadium. Anyone who has had the opportunity and pleasure of attending any function there, I'm sure, is very proud and pleased with the performance and, again, the courage of this government in putting together a stadium of that magnitude for the enjoyment of not only the residents of British Columbia but all of the visitors to our great province.

I'd like to talk about a few subjects today, and specifically about items in the throne speech dealing with privatization, efficiencies, cost-effectiveness, job creation and stimulating investment. But before I get onto that, there's one subject we have heard a lot about in the throne speech and from the opposition over the past number of months, and that has to do

[ Page 3295 ]

with the question of health care in British Columbia. I have had the pleasure in the last few months of visiting several hospitals, not only in my constituency — not only the Shuswap General Hospital and the Queen Victoria Hospital in Revelstoke but also the Victoria General Hospital. I have to say that I am utterly amazed and gratified at the excellent care this government is providing its citizens in hospitals such as this throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia. I think it's shameful that the opposition should continually attack and leave the image that health care in the province is not adequate. I would call upon any of those who are doubters about the quality of health care to please go and visit some of these institutions, talk to some of the patients, and see for yourselves what a tremendous job our government and our Ministry of Health are doing for the citizens of British Columbia.

Regarding job creation, there is one subject I would like to touch on today having to do with forestry. I am pleased that, as the throne speech points out, in the last fiscal year the Ministry of Forests was successful in planting in excess of 100 million seedlings. While I'm proud of this and proud of the growth in that particular area, I have to say that I would like to see more, and a better job done in the future. One of the problems we have is the question of costs: not only efficiencies, but cost-effectiveness. When I look at the fact that we have unemployed British Columbians sitting at home this very day collecting $255 a week to produce absolutely nothing, it would appear to me that in our discussions with the federal government on programs to put people to work in the forests to do good silviculture work — thinning, spacing, planting, replanting, clearing — we must, to make the project cost-effective, have a very serious look at utilization of the UIC funds as did EBAP, which has been in effect for the last couple of years.

I think that a lot of the rules in EBAP need to be changed; they have to be streamlined. The rules and guidelines must be more easily applicable to the private sector in order to get the work done. But we are paying people $255 a week to produce nothing, when they could be out in the workforce for $300 a week and doing something. I think it is incumbent upon our provincial government, the minister and the federal government to sit down together and put together a program that we can all live with to get better cost-effectiveness for the dollars that are being spent by the federal and provincial governments.

I would like to speak for just a few minutes about the question of public debt, and say how gratified I am by the efforts of our Premier and the cabinet in cutting down the expenditures within our provincial government. Not many people are unaware of the fact that Canadian interest rates have traditionally been 1 or 2 percentage points above those of our American counterparts. It has been necessary to have slightly higher interest rates in Canada than in the United States in order to attract that much-needed foreign investment. I am sure that we all realize that the tradition generally in North America, and indeed the world, has been that interest rates have been 1 or 2 percentage points above that of inflation. Those are the general guidelines that have been in effect in the world money market. I'm sure we're also aware that annual inflation in the United States is somewhere less than 2 percent; in Canada it is around 5 or 5.5 percent, and we would therefore expect interest rates to be somewhere around 6 or 7 percent at the prime level. The prime rates in both countries are in excess of 10 percent, and in fact Canada is now sitting at 11 percent, There is only one reason for this, and that is the fact that the national governments in the United States and Canada have not done a good job in holding down the public debt and reducing the cost of government. Thus the reason for those high interest rates. I think the opposition and the people of British Columbia and all of Canada have got to realize that if they expect to enjoy a prime rate at the level of 6 or 7 percent again, government leaders must bite the bullet and bring the cost of government and the cost of debt down to a level that will make it possible for the money market to provide us with realistic interest rates.

[3:30]

In the area of efficiencies I would like to speak for a few minutes on the question of the utilization of a very important resource that we have in the province of British Columbia, that being natural gas. I would hope, in the next year or two, to see the extension of natural gas to many areas in British Columbia that do not now enjoy it. In my own constituency people in a very large area, including Revelstoke, Sicamous and Chase and all areas in between, the north shore, the Sorrento-Blind Bay-Celista country, do not enjoy the utilization of natural gas that many other British Columbians do. They're using a very high-cost energy in the way of oil, a fuel which is imported from outside British Columbia, whereas natural gas is a very valuable resource that we have in abundance within our boundaries,

Further to that, I look forward to and encourage and hope that we approach in a positive and determined manner the conversion of government fleets to compressed natural gas. The evidence is before us. Black Top Cabs in Vancouver has 128 vehicles, and one of the sentences from their recent document dated September 1983 reads as follows: "Using gasoline our annual fuel cost would now be about $1.3 million. By displacing 95 percent of the gasoline with compressed natural gas we anticipate a cost of about $400,000." That is just one small example of what's happened in the province of British Columbia, and this same story could be told of many other fleet vehicles if they were to transfer to compressed natural gas. I might just add, as a matter of interest, Mr. Speaker, that New Zealand surpassed the 50,000 vehicle mark in 1983, and they have a target of having 200,000 vehicles swung over to compressed natural gas by 1990.

Regarding safety, a recent U.S. survey of the major fleet operators using natural-gas — powered vehicles found that in approximately 1,300 collisions since 1970 there has never been a fire involving vehicles with natural gas storage tanks. The safety record was perfect. The survey covered more than 2,400 vehicles driven nearly 175 million miles.

I would hope that we can all pull together and give this publicity talk to our municipalities, regional districts and school bus systems, to see how many vehicles we can have swung over in the next 12 months to utilize a resource that we have in abundance in British Columbia and cut down on the amount of money that's being exported outside our province buying other forms of energy.

I would like at this time to pass on a compliment to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) for what I consider to be the very fine job he has done in the expansion, general management and administration of the Lottery Fund. I think it's been a very successful program. The only point I would ask him to look at in the coming months is the fact that we have cut out a lot of the service clubs, non-profit organizations and societies from the selling of these tickets. I would

[ Page 3296 ]

ask him to give serious consideration to perhaps finding a means.... It may mean that a new lottery would be made available to the service clubs and non-profit organizations for charitable purposes, to provide them with the necessary funds to do their community betterment work.

I would also suggest to him that he give some consideration to amending somewhat the rules on spending, to perhaps allowing a certain amount of money to be put into recreation facilities. I think we must understand that some of the communities away from the big centres like Victoria, Vancouver and Nanaimo.... A lot of those smaller communities in British Columbia do not have the tax base available to provide some of the basic recreation facilities that are needed. On looking at the expenditure side of the ledger in the lotteries branch data, it's my view that it's a little bit unbalanced in the amount of money that's going into the lower mainland, particularly to Vancouver Centre and areas of Victoria. Perhaps he might look at some modifications there to give the residents in the outlying areas a bit of a break in the spending of that money.

In my speech I would not like to let the day pass without mentioning the sorrow that I feel for this unfortunate lockout situation in the pulp industry in British Columbia. If we look at the tremendous amount of energy that individual, private sector, fund-raising organizations at various levels of government, putting up money for make-work programs.... If you look at all the money and effort that goes into all these areas, trying to better our communities and our society, and then you look at the other side of the ledger and see the strike lockout situation, in which the province of British Columbia is losing $10 million a day in lost production and wages and there are 12,500 people who are not working..... The effect of this throughout the province of British Columbia is being felt very severely. It will become worse with each passing day. I'm very sorry that we have three unions in the forest industry.... They've had the same contract-expiry dates for many years, dating back to the early 1970s. They've had the same base rate, they've had the same trade rate, and basically they've had the same benefit plans. The largest union, the International Woodworkers, have settled. In excess of two-thirds voted in favour of a settlement on a three-year contract. Yet we have a situation in which 12,500 people rejected a contract. I would hope the parties will continue to negotiate and that we will see an early settlement of that dispute, because it is having a very serious economic impact in these most difficult times throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia.

Turning to another subject, I believe that one of the things the government must do in these times of restraint and economic recovery is utilize to the greatest degree the multiple use concept of government facilities. I'm speaking now of such things as schools, recreational facilities, libraries, garages, repair facilities, gas stations — things used by government. If you look at medium-sized communities, they have two or three garages to service: one for highways, one for hydro, one for school buses and one for the municipality. I would think that with a little bit of planning and encouragement a lot of these things should come together. It's the same with libraries. Every school's got a library, and the community's got a library. There are tremendous amounts of money spent in duplication of services. Perhaps that is an area we could look at for some efficiencies and cost-effectiveness.

Another area that, I'm sure, anyone involved in any level of development — anyone trying to do anything in society today........ That is the tremendous amount of red tape people are faced with. It's strange that whenever I speak with anyone on the telephone or sit down personally and talk to them about a problem dealing with red tape — anyone working for the government, whether it be municipal, regional or provincial, or any of the ministers — they have very sympathetic points of view and are very understanding; but there are still an awful lot of frustrated people out there trying to get things done but held up by bureaucratic red tape. I would call upon all of the ministers of government and all of the people in positions throughout the province of British Columbia to please do what you can to continue to cut down the red tape and the holdups the private sector is experiencing in trying to get things underway.

In closing, I'll just touch for a minute on the question of privatization. I think this government is on the right track. I think there are lots of things that can be done to further privatization in the province of B.C. Here is a simple example. People who had empty beer bottles used to take them in to the private dealer down the street. Many years ago the government decided to allow the empties to come back to the liquor stores. Innocent victims, who had set up bottle exchange companies, were caught in the squeeze, and the next thing you know the government is taking back the empties. I think that would be a very simple one to look at: to cut that out of the government bureaucracy altogether, turn it back to the private sector and let them have a go at it. I'm sure I could talk about that for two hours, and several other subjects, but that is probably one of the more simple, elementary ones I choose to mention at this time.

Also, on the question of expenditures in the budget, if one looks back 20 years and examines the amount of money that was spent by various ministers 20 years ago compared to today, one sees one department that has been severely restrained, and that is the Ministry of Highways. Twenty years ago the expenditures of that department were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20 percent of the provincial budget. Today it's down to less than 6 percent. I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot continue to press services such as highways and other valuable ministries for the sake of continued high expenditures in the social departments of this province. We must cut that off at some point and face the fact that we must have more double-lane highways and improved bridges, and we must do things that would lead to maintaining the quality of our highways and bridges in the province of British Columbia.

I am advised that we have a guest, and I will now take my seat.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: With leave, I would like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We have two most distinguished guests on the floor of the House this afternoon. They arrived in Victoria just a few moments ago. May I introduce to the assembly His Excellency Paul Robinson Jr., ambassador of the United States of America, and Mr. George Ogg, consul general of the United States of America in Vancouver.

The ambassador has, as well as his official duties in Canada, many connections with our country, not the least of which is ancestral. Some of the ancestors of the ambassador's family were farming in the area north of Kingston, Ontario,

[ Page 3297 ]

up until the mid and late 1800s, before finding their way to the Chicago area. In addition, the ambassador served in Korean waters with destroyer units of the Royal Canadian Navy. He is a frequent visitor to our country on vacations and other personal opportunities as well as on his official duties.

Mr. Speaker, in welcoming our distinguished guests to our assembly this afternoon, I should mention another matter of some importance to British Columbians, particularly those citizens who live in the city of Vancouver. As a long-suffering supporter of the Chicago Cubs, the ambassador is, I know, speaking well on behalf of the city of Vancouver in its efforts to obtain a major-league baseball franchise in either the National or American League, and for those efforts we appreciate him very much.

On behalf of the government and the people of British Columbia, I extend a most cordial welcome to our very distinguished guests in the assembly today.

[3:45]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition we want to join with the Minister of Health — the government House Leader at the moment — in welcoming His Excellency and the consul-general of the United States to our midst. In the past I had occasion to participate in the Parliament of Canada with what we on this side used to call the "Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary group," and in Washington it was called the "U.S.-Canada interparliamentary group." During that time I had occasion to meet with many distinguished people from the Department of State of the United States of America. We do have a great deal in common. Because we have a great deal in common, we also have differences of opinion from time to time about those matters that we do hold in common. It is only because we are friends and have an undefended, friendly border between us that we were able to discuss and resolve those differences. It's those differences that are discussable that lead to peaceful and contented solutions and resolutions of those differences. We join with the government in welcoming the two distinguished gentlemen, and we bid them a good time while they are here representing their country.

MR. BLENCOE: First, Mr. Speaker, may I take the opportunity to congratulate you on your re-election to the post of Deputy Speaker.

I would like to take the opportunity to dwell briefly on some of the thoughts of the member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who had a few things to say to this House before we adjourned for lunch. Some of those points do indeed need to be addressed and discussed. I think they perhaps represent the perceived, philosophical gap between the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit Party.

The member referred to a steel mill in the United States that was closed. Of course he referred to the reasons why that mill was closed, and his words were: "The workers were to blame because of the high wages they demanded." It's unfortunate that the current government, and its attitude, is one of trying to depict a particular segment that can be blamed for the economic problems we have, not only in our province but in the western world. I think that minister perhaps represents the black-and-white kind of rhetoric that does none of us any good. I would remind that member, and this House, that there are steel companies in this country — for example, Stelco — that manage to manufacture steel at a profit. They manage to have good union people; they manage to export steel to the United States; and they manage to have good labour relations. They are well known for that fact in the labour field. But there are some reasons for that. The fact that that minister decided, once again, to reflect this government's attitude toward workers in British Columbia, that they are to blame for the recession in this province.... It's a pity that this government doesn't take a leaf out of the book of companies like Stelco and other progressive employers who are trying to develop mechanisms whereby management and labour respect each other. They try to work out their problems and concerns instead of blaming labour all the time for the problems that we face. I'm quite serious that it's time we look at alternative ways to resolve some of those labour-management disputes in this province. Stop blaming one side or the other. Certainly the government could once and for all stop blaming the workers of this province, both union and non-union, for the economic problems of this province and say to the workers of this province: "Look, you've got a major role to play in the future and in the recovery of this province back to where it should be: one of the richest, most well-developed and socially progressive areas in the world." To do that you cannot constantly declare war on the workers of this province, who are going to help you bring that economy back around.

We have had all sorts of mentions and rumours and references to changes in the Labour Code. Obviously we don't know what those changes will be or if there will be any at all. But I would like, in all sincerity, to ask the government to really think seriously about their actions or their potential actions in terms of the Labour Code or labour changes. I don't think it is a matter of saying that the workers of this province are.... On their backs we'll get recovery; therefore we have got to cut wages and cut benefits and cut their rights and cut their collective bargaining privileges. I'm glad the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is here. Maybe the way to get this province back on its feet is by saying to the workers of this province that they are an integral part of the economic destiny of this province. If you can try and develop mechanisms that respect those unions and respect the traditions behind the labour movement in the province and in this country, and see them as an equal partner in economic recovery — rather than as a group to be declared war upon, creating incredible confrontation and upheaval, not only in this province but in the financial centres in North America — then maybe we might start to get some resolution to some of the deep-seated problems in this province.

I guess what I am saying is some moderation, some compromise, some understanding; maybe, indeed, some concepts of industrial democracy; maybe a willingness to work towards the fact that the workers in companies and institutions have a right to participate in some of the decision-making of those companies. They work for those companies all their lives, for 20-odd years, but suddenly — like that — that company can remove itself from a town or a city and say it is relocating in the Philippines or somewhere else because of cheaper labour. That sounds very well, but there has to be a responsibility in those companies to British Columbia and to Canadians.

But to do that there has to be a willingness to recognize that the workers, union and non-union, of this province have a role to play. Rather than severing the relationship between management and labour, workers and employers, it is a matter of building some links and some bridges. The minister this morning worried me and scared me that it is going to be a declaration of war against the workers of this province, and

[ Page 3298 ]

that is going to be the way you are going to bring about economic recovery. I hope that's wrong. We have seen some of the actions of this government in the past, and we have seen the reaction, and we have known that it has not been healthy for this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is the healthiest province in Canada.

MR. BLENCOE: The statistics don't indicate that, Mr. Member, and you know it. The bankruptcies, the unemployment rate, the welfare rate, your credit rating and your borrowings don't indicate that. This province — let's face it — is in serious trouble.

The point that I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the workers of this province, both union and non-union, have a role to play. Rather than blame them for companies closing down.... You know and I know that one of the basic reasons why those companies are closing down is that they are moving to developing countries where they have cheap pools of labour, and leaving Canada.

What this government has to recognize is that there are some mechanisms where we can achieve some labour dignity and labour peace, but the current direction of this government, and some of the reflections of the members of that government, indicate that we could be in serious trouble. I urge the government to think long and hard about that direction.

I want to talk about the Victoria riding and some of the things that are happening here. As many of you are aware, Victoria now has a higher unemployment rate than some of the cities that have traditionally suffered some of the most horrendous unemployment rates in the country. We are now classified as a depressed area because of 16.2 percent unemployment. Eighteen thousand people that we know about are still looking for work, and, of course, there are thousands who have given up and are on welfare.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) remarked the other day that it isn't the government's responsibility and that someone else is to blame for this unemployment problem in Victoria. That is not a proper way for a government to act in the face of a horrendous 16.2 percent rate of unemployment in this community. Not many Victorians will remember it ever having been higher than that. There are some very good reasons why that is happening. The government must ensure that the job transfers out of Victoria are curtailed. We cannot afford to see this community — the capital of British Columbia, the centre of government and one of the major tourist attractions in the country — continue to be ravaged by the effects of high unemployment.

I believe the government does have some responsibility to try to check that statistic. I think it's time the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), for instance, reintroduced some serious apprenticeship training programs for our young people. Day after day young people come into my office saying that they're on welfare but that they'll take less on an apprenticeship program. Just last week a young man came to see me who wanted to train to be a cabinet-maker. He can't find the support to help him do it; the programs don't exist. He admits that he'll take less than he's getting on welfare. He has two children....

[4:00]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Please don't always blame the unions. There you go again. It's a fact of life; let's work on it. That's the problem we have. It's blinkered thinking; you won't think any other way. I'm saying to you that there's a problem and that we have the power to do something about it. Let's try not to blame one side or the other. Let's have the resolve to try to do something about this.

Over 25 percent of those who are unemployed in British Columbia are in the younger age bracket. They're having to grow up with the reality that unemployment or underemployment is going to be a fact for the rest of their lives. What the member for Point Grey said this morning — that government does not have a role to play in trying to ensure that unemployment is curtailed — is wrong. If you know your history in terms of economic development, government has always had a role to play in achieving a sound economy. It doesn't have to be black or white; it doesn't have to be total government involvement or total private sector involvement. It can be a private-public link on some of these projects in which it is absolutely essential that we become involved. However, it would appear that any time we say the government should be a catalyst to create jobs or set the stage for jobs, the other side of the House reacts and says: "Leave it totally up to the private sector." History does not show that to be a reality for a healthy economy. There has always been government involvement and participation in the development of an economy.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Once again, without getting into who is right and who is wrong, the fact is that in Victoria and in British Columbia we have some serious unemployment problems that have to be looked at and dealt with, that cannot be shoved aside and blamed on someone else or the rest of the world — which my colleague for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) talked about this morning. On behalf of the constituents of Victoria, which now has just about the highest unemployment rate in this province, I would ask this government seriously to consider introducing some mechanisms in the coming budget whereby we can start to have some impact on the devastating unemployment in this community.

Let me give you an example of where you might be able to do something. Not far from this very building is the Oaklands fish plant. We have a report written about a year ago, commissioned by the government, to try to indicate whether that fish plant was viable. Your own government report indicated that that fish plant is viable, can operate, can employ 300 or 400 people in this community — and we have a fishing fleet down at Fishermen's Wharf. It is going to take some involvement by the public sector, along with the private sector, to get that fish plant going. But because the public sector is mentioned as maybe having to be a partner in developing that fish plant initially, this government reacts negatively.

We have become so divided on how we approach the economy — this way or the other — that we tend to forget there are thousands of people who are getting caught up in that philosophical division. I urge this government to seriously consider that they can link up with the private sector. I've got an Oaklands plant here; your report said a private-public initiative could make that plant work. But the report sits there, the government won't take any action and we're losing 300 to 400 jobs we desperately need in this community.

[ Page 3299 ]

I want to talk a little bit about the economic strategy of this government. I'm obviously referring to this government's attitude toward the economy. We have been hearing that your budget and your deliberations over the last year or so are resolving the problems of this province, or of this Victoria community. I would indicate once again that the statistics quite clearly show that thus far your policies have failed and that it's time to perhaps rethink some of those policies. When are you going to look at the bankruptcy rate in the province of British Columbia compared to the national average? It was up 37 percent between January and October of last year in British Columbia; down 11 percent ii the rest of Canada. In this community, for instance, not a week goes by now but we see another business start to dwindle.

I would urge this government in this session to consider some special policies and ideas for the problems of small business — a government that supposedly has the interests of small business at heart. Unfortunately, it would appear that that is just rhetoric rather than fact. I would ask the government to consider introducing a small-business policy, for instance, that would have a guaranteed breathing space for businesses under pressure of receivership and bankruptcy. We've only got to look to the United States example, where they have a bankruptcy code to provide the right of small business to petition for a reorganization period before that receivership period comes into effect. There has to be a serious look in this time of recession at the problems of small business, particularly in this community. This community is full of small family businesses, all struggling to survive. They don't want governments to intercede and protect them everywhere along the line, but they are saying that maybe the development of a small business policy that really does help them in these difficult times is needed. One of those ways, I would suggest, is: take a look at chapter 11 of the United States bankruptcy code — even under Mr. Reagan they have such protection for small business. It's a novel idea, and it's something we may want to take a look at. During that breathing space, management consultant advice is made available by the government to enable the small business to draw up and implement refinancing proposals. I would suggest that the B.C. Development Corporation could play a role in that particular kind of discussion. I think that any small business policy should take a look at some of the regulations you have recently introduced that are really creating all sorts of problems for small business: the horrendous paperwork you make them do; the restaurants now having to do this sales tax, which, I can tell you, is a nightmare for these small restaurants.

AN HON. MEMBER: Balderdash!

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, it's not balderdash. I'll take you to meet some of the local restaurateurs. They'll tell you about it.

I make a plea on behalf of small business, particularly in this community. It is the backbone of this community. Take a look at what's happening to that particular segment of our economy. Your policies are not helping them at all. Indeed, your policies in the last budget hurt them, with extra taxes and extra paperwork and no move to try to soften this bankruptcy thing that's happening in this province. Maybe the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) can take a look at chapter 11 of the United States bankruptcy code.

It would be remiss of me not to comment about the state of tenants' rights and the rentalsman in this province, particularly in this community. I can assure you that there are 355,000 tenants in British Columbia who for virtually a year have wondered what was going to happen to them, to their rights and privileges and to their equity under the law. Without getting into the usual political rhetoric, I have to say that what has happened because of Bill 5, which is now dropped, and now all the rumours of what's going to happen to the office of the rentalsman.... Some really unfortunate implications and perceptions were left. I know for a fact that thousands of tenants, particularly the elderly on fixed incomes, are deeply concerned about what is going to happen to them. Certainly they've witnessed a government that was prepared to have things like "eviction without cause" put into law. We now have rent control eliminated. Through the proposed elimination of rent review, we're still going to have eviction without cause through economic eviction: that is, landlords will be able to put their rents up as much as they want when they want to get rid of tenants. I would suggest that tenants in the province of British Columbia are a very important proportion of the population. The proposed changes that we are hearing now will be really just a mock rentalsman's office. Any move to weaken the rights of tenants will be fought long and hard by this side of the House, I can tell this government right now. Those tenants have the right to fairness and equity under the law. They have the right to know that whoever arbitrates is protected from government abuse. It's a distinct possibility that the new legislation will have the arbitrators — as they may be called — being appointed by cabinet with no protection at all, and therefore subject to political interference. If that is the case, there's no point in having a rentalsman at all.

[4:15]

Without going into the office of the rentalsman any further, suffice it to say that any move by this government to weaken the rights of tenants to have a fair hearing before an objective arbitrator will be met with deep resentment and opposition from those thousands of tenants in the province of British Columbia. They, indeed, do have rights, and what's concerning those tenants is that this government is swinging all the power and decision-making over to the landlords. There has to be a balance and equity between landlords and tenants, and the office of the rentalsman, as it is today, maintains that power and works well. But any mock rentalsman, which, it is rumoured, is now going to be established with a handful of people with no protection from government interference and no rent review or rent control, is just a front to take away what you hope will be the opposition to your rental legislation.

We have a high proportion of tenants in Victoria, many of them elderly and on fixed incomes. The uncertainty of this governmentos actions over the last few months, and the fact that they could even consider eviction without cause, and, of course, economic eviction through huge rent increases, has created a nightmare for many of those tenants. I would urge this government, rather than introducing some weak excuse for a rentalsman, to reinstate and keep the rentalsman as is, and improve it and make it work properly.

In Victoria there are literally thousands of tenants who have come to respect and call upon the rentalsman when they're in trouble or have a dispute, and not have to wait months to go into the courts to get a dispute resolved at great expense. So don't throw tenants and their rights to the wolves

[ Page 3300 ]

— the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is not here — but maintain those rights in a fully staffed, well backed up, objective and fair rentalsman's office.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard some members of the government indicate that they feel the ombudsman's office should disappear, which is unfortunate. It is sometimes difficult to find the right words to describe a government that appears to want to take on so many services to people. Without reflecting on the last session and what this government did, suffice it to say that this government does have a reputation for wanting to destroy or eliminate many essential services that make life bearable and tolerable for those who are having difficulty in many areas of our province. Now we hear, after you've removed human rights legislation and the human rights branch, and the office of the rentalsman is to go, and other support workers for families and children in trouble have been removed, that there is now a move afoot to take away the last vestige of any government service that tries to help people when they have a complaint. What are you going to leave? Is it going to be a total jungle out there, with survival of the fittest, with, as the member over there talked about, dog eat dog? We are going back one or two hundred years in our attitudes. We're supposed to be a civilized and progressive community, but we're destroying some of the very things that allow people to demand accountability and accessibility to government, in things that often go wrong. Now you want to take way the one thing that is left to someone who, feeling that they have been treated improperly, can say: "I can go to the ombudsman and have it investigated objectively and without political interference." Where is this government going to go next? All the little people out there who have a problem and can't get it resolved — and there are thousands of them.... Now you're going to take away — or we hear certain members want to take away — the very office that helps those little people.

It's very sad. I hope the government, or the saner members of the government, will not heed the wishes of some of the back-benchers who cry out to cut virtually everything that helps people, under the guise of restraint. It's not restraint; it's a philosophical mission that you're on to destroy some of the very things that have come to be part of a progressive and civilized British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I urge this government to think about that course. Don't take away the last thing that people have, to try and get accountability or some objective recourse for improper actions.

Before I close, I want to talk briefly on the education system. I tried to last week, but it was right at the end of the session, and everyone wanted to pack up, so the opportunity wasn't really there to go into what is happening in the greater Victoria area. I have to speak up on behalf of those who are trying to teach our children in this area. School boards are under horrendous pressures and budget constraints that have been ordered by this government. Because of its policies this government now says that School Board 61 is going to have to remove $15 million from its budget over the next three years. I asked the minister — and he didn't deny those facts — whether he was concerned about the quality of education in this area and how many teachers he was prepared to see go.

I see my time is just about up, Mr. Speaker, but on behalf of the children of this particular school district, which is going to see some incredible restrictions in the educational services in this area — a school district that has become well known in the province for offering a variety of services and types of educational pursuits.... I hope the minister and this government can reconsider that course of action, because education is the future. It is one way that we were trying to build and bring back economic recovery in this province. It's so shortsighted to cut off the children's education and opportunities.

Again, I have to question a government that takes on some of the most fundamental parts of what we've come to expect in a progressive and civilized society. It starts to really eat away at what makes us a civilized and progressive part of society, and education is certainly that, Mr. Speaker. We've said the words over and over again, and we just have to ask this government to consider some moderation and rethink some of their policies. Certainly, on behalf of the children of this area, and looking at what is going to happen to their teachers, support services and programs over the next three years.... I hope it doesn't come about; I really do, because there won't be much left.

Mr. Speaker, my time is up. But I hope this session will be a little better than the last one and that there will, indeed, be some rethinking by this government. They don't just have to think about the bottom line and the cash register. There are people and services.... We are in a terrible economic time. People are having problems in these times, and they have to be considered.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to speak after the second member for Victoria, because you don't really have to do a lot of research in your files to know what to speak about. He leaves you a lot of things you can comment on. I too, like the second member for Victoria, am concerned about the children in his constituency. I also happen to own a home in his constituency and he's my MLA when I'm here in Victoria. My great concern for the children in his constituency and the area I live in is the fact that he's the one who's talking to them. He's the one who's spreading this doom and gloom in the city of Victoria — which goes right across this province.

I wrote down some notes as the member was speaking. He said: "This province is in serious trouble." I don't want that kind of an MLA going around telling the children in our schools that this province is in trouble when it's not in trouble. This province is the greatest province in all of Canada to live in. It's got a great government, one that has been praised in the financial community around the world. I see the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is here, and he'll probably get up and speak. I know that with his stock portfolio and his land portfolio he must read Barron's every once in a while — a well-respected financial newspaper that comes out of the United States. If he read the front page of the September 5 edition of Barron's he saw that they said very positive things about the province of British Columbia and the things the Premier is doing in this government. I would suggest to this member for Victoria that it might pay him to read Barron's once in a while. Also, give that point of view to those young children in his high schools in Victoria so they would have another view of what's happening in this great province in a buildup to the year 1986, when we'll have a world exposition here that every British Columbian can be proud of, no matter what their political stripe.

MR. BLENCOE: Should I tell them about B.C. coal?

MR. REYNOLDS: I would suggest that he take a group of his school children up to see B.C. coal. I wonder if the

[ Page 3301 ]

member has been up there himself to talk to those New Democrats who have jobs because this government has one of the greatest projects in the world going on in that area.

MR. BLENCOE: How much is it costing the taxpayer?

MR. REYNOLDS: The taxpayers of this province will make millions and millions of dollars out of that project. It's too bad that this NDP has to be so negative about everything this government wants to do in this province. This is the same party that was so negative about the stadium. They didn't want to build it downtown; they didn't want to build it at the PNE. But now it's been built they go to the football games, they enjoy it, as do the people who vote for them in this province, because it's the greatest stadium not only in Canada but in the world — built by a progressive government that doesn't listen to the negativism of the NDP in this province.

[4:30]

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, even Mike Harcourt likes it now.

The member for Victoria talks about the unemployment in Victoria. Might I suggest to him that it's because of himself and his cohorts on the Victoria council, and some other councils in this part of British Columbia, which scares business away from this area. I might suggest to him that right now there's a large development waiting to take place in this area out in Tod Inlet. They want to build a large golf course and a large hotel, and promote tourism in the area. The promoters from Vancouver are even putting up $160,000 so Victoria can have a golf tournament this year to promote this area. They're not the negative NDP thinkers of Victoria; they're the progressive businessmen from Vancouver who are trying to get things done over here. But they're still being held up on the Tod Inlet development because there's a bunch of socialists running around worried that somebody might make a profit by putting their money up. When is the NDP going to learn that profit is not a dirty word, that if the public is going to put their money into projects they want a return on their investment and they can't be so negative?

MR. BLENCOE: Where's the return on B.C. coal?

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the member keeps on talking about B.C. coal. We'll show you the return, Mr. Member. We'll show you after the next election, when we'll win more seats than we won in this past election because of the progressive attitudes of this government.

This same member talks about the fish plant in Victoria. He says the government won't take action. Why should the government take action to get into this kind of business? If this member is so concerned about this fish plant in Victoria.... He said: "Put up your money and you can employ 300 to 400 people." Why don't these same NDP members go to their union friends, with their big bank accounts of union dues, and ask them to put the money up to open the fish plant?

MR. BLENCOE: There you go — blame the workers.

MR. REYNOLDS: Aha, Mr. Speaker, here we are: "Blame the workers. Blame the people." I'm not blaming the workers, I'm not blaming the people, I'm blaming the union leaders who invest those funds. I'm saying, why don't you invest it in some businesses to employ your own people? You say: "Blame the workers." Those same union leaders demanded from their workers that $5, $10, $15 come off a paycheque to go to Solidarity, without asking those workers whether they wanted it to go there or not.

MR. LAUK: So what?

MR. REYNOLDS: So what! The S100,000 a month going to Solidarity could put those 300 to 400 fishermen to work. That member doesn't like that idea because they wouldn't be fighting this government then. They might be doing something constructive.

MR. LAUK: Get rid of this bunch sitting over here.

MR. REYNOLDS: Now the member says: "Get rid of this bunch sitting over here." He wants to get rid of the Socreds in this province. He says: "That's right." Well, I'll tell you something: the people of this province don't want to get rid of us, Mr. Member. I don't have to go through the rhyme of the member for Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) that will tell you how many times your party has been defeated in this province. You got in once, and that was enough for a couple of centuries.

I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Member: why don't you get serious? If the member for Victoria wants to talk about putting people to work, why aren't the unions in this province, instead of donating money to Solidarity, putting it into some of these businesses that you seem to think are so great? Have the union leaders got something against making money in a fish plant? Let them put their money into constructive activities.

MRS. JOHNSTON: They did build a hotel in Nanaimo.

MR. REYNOLDS: Well, they don't want to talk about that.

As I said, I haven't even got to any of my own notes yet, there are so many things that this member said. He talked about the ombudsman and how some members would like to reduce the ombudsman's department. Well, he's right there. He didn't say it was the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound, but I'm very proud to be able to stand here and say that I have no objection at all to looking into reducing the size of the ombudsman's department. If you want to be serious, take a look at his report. Over 90 percent of all the cases he hears could be handled by every MLA in this House, including the members of the NDP, and we could be saving this province a lot of money.

I issued a press release today. I won’t go through it all, but the figures in there will show you that the ombudsman's office, even his report, is flowery and inflated. I'm very serious when I ask this House in my motion to reduce the ombudsman's staff to himself and two secretaries. If after a thorough investigation by the members of this House they decide he should have three or four staff members, I'm the greatest guy in the world to compromise. I've looked at the ombudsman's department and his very pretty report, and I've read it thoroughly. You can go through item after item of cases he has solved; any one of us could have solved the majority of the cases in this book without the added expense.

[ Page 3302 ]

MR. BLENCOE: That isn't true.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. REYNOLDS: Unfortunately for this member for Victoria, he doesn't believe that's true, but that's probably because he runs a constituency office covered with NDP signs that the average citizen's afraid to walk into. I'm going to get into that in a few minutes, too, when you want to talk about fairness and how you treat the citizens of British Columbia.

But $1.6 million for an ombudsman who is supposed to be independent.... I thought that when I came here. Reading his reports, I didn't agree with what he was doing. Then I saw the conference they had on the Canadian legislative ombudsman which was held in British Columbia on September 12. The official opening.... This is the official program I got delivered by his office to my office. In the chair at the Park Ballroom at the official opening was Karl A. Friedmann, the B.C. ombudsman. That makes sense: he's there inviting all the other ombudsmen from across this country. Seated next to him, His Worship Mike Harcourt, the mayor of Vancouver. That's not unusual; he's the mayor of Vancouver and he should be there. But who's there representing the rest of us? Mrs. Eileen Dailly, Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia; greetings from the official opposition.

MR. NICOLSON: You were invited and refused to go.

MR. REYNOLDS: One member says we were invited and we refused to go. I was never invited to go there. If I'd been invited as an individual I may have considered it. I spoke to the ombudsman and asked him, and his answer was that he invited.... The government House Leader was speaking later that afternoon, and he considered that was appropriate. I don't consider that appropriate in a province where the New Democrats aren't the government, to have one of their members welcoming people from the rest of the country by an ombudsman who's supposed to be politically neutral. I don't believe that he is politically neutral, and that's why I would like to have a look at his department and see it reduced. I ask the members of the NDP to read my press release today....

MR. BLENCOE: How low can you go?

MR. REYNOLDS: The member wants to know how low we can go. Well, we just love to look at all these government expenditures, Mr. Member, and I'm going to continue to look at them. I'm looking into other areas.

I mentioned in a speech last week that the corrections department is another one where the bureaucracy is just too large. This government is doing a tremendous job of looking into all areas of the bureaucracy and getting government down to the size it should be. I don't know why this New Democratic Party member is afraid of more responsibility being placed on MLAs and Members of Parliament and members of councils in this province. They seem to want to create bureaucracies upon bureaucracies, because of course if they ever get in again they can fill them with their friends and maybe really keep power, or power that they think they have, a little longer.

Those were just the notes from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). I also made some listening to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who makes very similar speeches all the time. She talks about the violation of rights: the message is going across Canada that it's open season on racism in British Columbia and open season on sexism in British Columbia. The New Democrats, when they were in, brought in this great human rights legislation. They're the party in favour of human rights. They're the party in favour of women, children and everything good, and the Socreds are just bad guys.

MR. BLENCOE: Hear, hear!

MR. REYNOLDS: Keep on banging your desk and it'll cure your cold.

While I was listening to that great speech from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, I just went and grabbed my little file and came up with some things. The NDP say they're so great when it comes to human rights. They forget about John Bremer, the man who got fired by this government and libelled by the Premier of the day, who had to apologize — he did it on television. Poor John Bremer. At least he got a financial settlement. That is not an issue to these NDPers. You see how they get excited. The second member for Vancouver Centre's (Mr. Lauk's) hair will even curl a little bit if we mention John Bremer. That's not an issue any more, because it happened years ago. They fired the man on television. They lost their libel case and had to pay him some money — and that's not an issue, Mr. Speaker. That's the great human rights the NDP see in British Columbia.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) fired Stanley Knight, an education commissioner, with no notice. And it goes on and on. The NDP talk about this great human rights group that they have, how they protect everybody. You just want to go through and look at them. Stephen Craig, who obeyed the law and crossed an illegal picket line set up last August by his fellow workers, was subjected by his union to enormous verbal abuse. They then fined him $1,000. Is the NDP defending Stephen Craig?

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: He went to court. This man, verbally abused by his union, fined $1,000 for doing something that was perfectly legal — and a court said it was legal....

Where was the NDP, asking our minister? Are they protecting Stephen Craig? No, they wouldn't offend their union members. They couldn't do that.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would hope, Mr. NDP Member, that if the man needed any assistance for legal fees, we would take up a donation here and help him out.

I mentioned the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, and I happened to come across a column by my old middle-of-the road friend, Les Bewley, who is also a good friend of the second member for Vancouver Centre. Reading Les Bewley is, I think, very appropriate when you hear the member from Burnaby-Edmonds get up and talk about the sanctity of human rights, how great they are, and how pure she is in all her intentions. I quote Mr. Bewley:

[ Page 3303 ]

"The other example of a woman unfortunately led astray by her male colleagues is the MLA for Burnaby-Edmonds. She is the New Democrat who is always ready to assert that anyone who makes disparaging or mean remarks about anyone else should be fined or jailed, or both. In the Legislature she once referred to the Minister of Human Resources, who has red hair, as 'the scarlet teenager,' [sic] in the course of a speech in which she also cheerfully slandered Deputy Attorney-General Richard Vogel (Hansard, March 7, 1980, p. 1331).

"I didn't think that was a very nice remark about another woman's hair. But it must have been all right, because the member for Burnaby-Edmonds didn't turn herself over to the police afterward. Anyway, the Minister of Human Resources didn't respond to that nasty observation by calling the member for Burnaby-Edmonds Brillo-head or something, which I suppose she could have done in return."

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, when they have got to yell and scream when they are listening to some of the facts. They really have a hard time sitting there listening quietly.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The standing rules ask that we only have one speaker at a time.

MR. REYNOLDS: It is very interesting. They talk about Les Bewley, who in fact is a former judge, a well-respected British Columbian who only prints the truth. I wouldn't read his column unless every word of it was well researched by the honourable former judge, who writes a tremendous column in the newspapers. But it's certainly not appreciated.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: It wouldn't be the first time he had attacked me, Mr. Member, because I say what I feel, and sometimes even my colleagues don't appreciate it. The one thing he does is print the truth. Les Bewley goes on to say:

"The member for Burnaby-Edmonds recently got all fussed again, in a letter on this page — 'Cricket Wasn't the Issue,' August 17 — in which she complained that Sun sports columnist James Lawton hadn't been fair to her. Lawton had written a column headlined, 'MLA's Comments Weren't Cricket.' Of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds' speech in the Legislature asserting that the abolition of the Human Rights Commission allowed the B.C. Cricket Association to discriminate against a cricket team by not selecting it to play in the B.C. Summer Games, Lawton said it 'was a ragbag of stupefying nonsense.'"

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, I wonder what this has to do with the throne speech?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Extremely wide-ranging debate has traditionally been allowed during the throne speech, and this certainly satisfies that.

MR. LAUK: I could answer the second member for Victoria's inquiry. Les Bewley wrote the throne speech.

[4:45]

MR. REYNOLDS: It's always nice, Mr. Speaker, to have these gentlemen from the opposite side jumping up and down, and to see them getting some exercise.

Les Bewley goes on:

"Well, as the facts turned out and as the member for Burnaby-Edmonds obviously later discovered, her assertions of discrimination were indeed a ragbag of stupefying nonsense. But the B.C. Cricket Association would have to go belly-up broke to prove its innocence if the Human Rights Commission, beloved by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, were still in existence.

"The member for Burnaby-Edmonds wrote: 'Mr. Lawton erred in accusing me of not understanding the game of cricket. As one who spent her childhood in a British colony that gave the world some of the world's greatest cricketers, I not only played the game but had the pleasure of seeing it played at its best.' Let's try to make some sense out of that. She not only loves cricket, she actually played it. In that case, why did she assure her fellow legislators, as reported in Hansard, July 14, on page 301: 'As I say, it's no big deal. I don't understand why anybody wants to play cricket anyway. I don't understand it. It's a game I observe because I observe it'?

"Poor James Lawton, who gets hit over the head with the member for Burnaby-Edmonds' handbag and has his accuracy questioned just because he took her at her original word, has to understand that that appears to be just the member for Burnaby-Edmonds either telling a little whopper to the Legislature or to the public.

"No big deal, really, but it does illustrate again how very far the ladies have to go before they really master the useful ancient art of stretching the facts."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I recognize the second member for Vancouver Centre I'm afraid I'll have to ask the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound to withdraw any imputation of improper motive. Whether or not he's quoting from an article or using any other device, he cannot impugn another hon. member of this House. I ask him to withdraw any imputation of dishonourable motive.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would withdraw any imputation of improper motive toward the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The device of reading someone else's correspondence really does not qualify a member to use unparliamentary language, expressions or concepts.

MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the second member for Vancouver Centre for bringing it up. I was just quoting the article, Mr. Speaker, and got carried away in the last paragraph.

[ Page 3304 ]

MR. LAUK: And the first one.

MR. REYNOLDS: And the middle one also.

I could go on and on, talking about these human rights that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds talked about and some of these NDP members talk about, but I just hope that we bring back that legislation. I know it will have a different number on it. I think it was a great move that the government made in the last session to abolish the Human Rights Commission as it stands and to set up a new one. I hope we'll see that legislation very shortly. A number of people in my constituency feel very strongly that we have to replace it with what we said we were going to replace it with. I know the Premier promised consultation, and that's what we've been doing over the last few months. I took forward to that human rights legislation being introduced very shortly in its new form. I'm sure it will still not be acceptable to my New Democratic friends to the right over here, but I'm sure it will please the majority of the citizens of British Columbia.

I would also suggest they talk about the rentalsman. I'm looking forward to that too. I know the minister has been consulting with people around the province, just like we said we would do last year. We've been consulting all the way through. I'm looking forward to that piece of legislation coming back into this Legislature very shortly.

When they talk about human rights, I cannot help but say thank God that the mayor of Vancouver, Mike Harcourt, didn't run for the leadership of the NDP. If he had, I think he would have embarrassed the group who sit in this Legislature, because I'm sure they couldn't agree with the mayor's comments about trying to keep a great man of the stature of Henry Kissinger from having the right to come to Vancouver and speak to a group of people, who were going to pay $150 each to hear him and have most of that money go as a donation to a worthy cause.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Vancouver Centre calls him a warmonger. Well, I would suggest to him that the man won the Nobel Peace Prize. He may think he's a warmonger, but he probably doesn't think Fidel Castro is a warmonger. He probably doesn't think other dictators who are killing people around the world are warmongers. Henry Kissinger is a respected man around this world, a man who had a tough job when he was doing what he did. I think he did an excellent job. I'm looking forward to going to hear him about a week from now. I know that the rest of the people....

MR. LAUK: Who's going to explain his speech to you?

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Vancouver Centre wants to know who's going to explain the speech to me. Mr. Speaker, I don't need to have any explanations for Henry Kissinger's speeches, only the speeches from the second member for Vancouver Centre. I would imagine that's why he's now the second member for Vancouver Centre because a lot of people in his own constituency didn't understand his speeches.

It's embarrassing to me, as an MLA in this province, to have the mayor of our largest city and some council members start complaining about a man of Henry Kissinger's stature coming here. They also complain because Bill Vander Zalm is part of the Pope's visit. I'm just wondering how far these people on the left and ultra-left will go in causing us problems in this province. Are we going to have to pass legislation to make sure that none of these left-wing people can complain or...?

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Certainly they can speak, Mr. Member. But do they want to come out and embarrass this country by talking about who's going to welcome the Pope? I'm surprised that some of these members from the NDP haven't asked some of their colleagues on the Vancouver council....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, although the throne speech debate does allow great latitude, I think we have really stretched it. If we could return to some reference to His Honour's address it would be appreciated.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I think the speech talked about human rights and our new legislation, and I'm keeping it in that area.

MR. LAUK: Why didn't Archbishop Carney ask me to help the Pope come to Vancouver? I was only late for mass once in 20 years.

MR. REYNOLDS: You know better, Mr. Member, why you didn't get invited.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about restraint in this province, but we hear nothing from the NDP on how to solve the problems. We heard today from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), who said we've got to work together. That sounds very nice, but we haven't heard any positive proposals from these members of the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, the other day your office kindly sent out some guidelines for our constituency offices. I was shocked when I drove by the NDP constituency office in the city of Victoria and saw NDP signs all around the windows, and a sign on the window which says: "This office is supported by donations from the New Democratic Party." There are a lot of Socreds in Victoria who are paying taxes to support that office also. I would suggest to the member that constituency offices are meant for constituency work, and that if I was a Socred senior citizen living in Victoria I might be a little afraid of walking into his office if I saw all those NDP signs. I think the member should be proud of being elected as a New Democrat, because that's what his political philosophy is, but when it comes to his constituency office.... I don't mind if he has a picture of Dave Barrett there; he's the leader of his party. But that office should not be so blatantly advertised as a New Democratic Party office. I would also suggest to him that I don't think it's proper that he sits there as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and mails out....

MR. LAUK: Are you attacking Grace McCarthy?

MR. REYNOLDS: During the last civic election the second member for Victoria mailed out a package to aldermen around this province, using the mailing room of the Legislature, at $1.70 per package. One of the alderman

[ Page 3305 ]

happened to send me his package. I guess they made a mistake, Mr. Speaker, because this alderman, Paul Swenson, is in Delta. He's not a New Democrat, yet he received the package saying: "Dear Friends...." Mr. Swenson brought it up in council, saying he didn't think that we should be using the facilities....

MR. BLENCOE: A dirty trick.

MR. REYNOLDS: The dirty trick, Mr. Member, is the fact that you spent $1.70 of public money to send him this package. How many other hundreds of dollars were spent by this Legislature to support NDP candidates in a civic election?

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that's the kind of thing that should be happening here. If you want to talk about sanctimony and how you run your business, you should watch what you do with your own act when it comes to using the mailing privileges out of this Legislature.

MR. LAUK: You've reached new heights of sanctimony, I'll tell you that.

MR. REYNOLDS: I've just been listening to you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close by talking about one of the motions that I placed on the order paper on the first day. I would like to read it. It says:

"That this assembly urge the Minister of Health to introduce after consultation with the public and interested organizations legislation to establish a health disciplines board similar to that now operating in Ontario to oversee the effective regulation and coordination of all health disciplines in the public interest with a particular mandate to ensure that innovative and nontraditional techniques and disciplines including chiropractics, acupuncture and holistic medicine be given reasonable and impartial evaluation and scope for practice within the overriding consideration of public health and safety."

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that when this motion is debated this assembly will give it serious consideration. I know a number of people who are members of the New Democratic Party will support the motion. I think it's time that we told the medical profession that they do not have 100 percent control over the medical situation in this province. It's time that we did have a lay body that can look at what they do and what is happening in this province.

The number of people that I've had write me since I got involved in preparing this motion has been in the hundreds. They are people who are concerned, and I'll give you an example of why: two chiropractors are being taken to court because they call themselves doctors. The medical profession, through their society, has put that upon us. Why should we as taxpayers, who have a health cost in this province that is already too high, have to see our money wasted by the doctors fighting with the chiropractors over whether they should call themselves doctors or not? Why should we be concerned if people want to go to an acupuncturist if the man is well trained? It's outside of the medical bill anyway.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that when this motion comes up it gets good support from this House. I look forward again to speaking after the budget; hopefully, after the second member for Victoria or even after the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). They make it awfully easy to make a speech in this House; you just have to get up and talk about some of their socialist traits that never seem to change.

I would also hope that in this session we'll see some changes in the rules in this Legislature, that we'll see a new leader of the New Democratic Party who can get this group together and make them an effective opposition that the people of this province deserve. After having spent six years in the House in Ottawa.... I remember talking to a reporter today who asked: "Why is this place in such bad shape?" I said: "It's only in such bad shape because the NDP are in such disarray." I really believe that. I think they need a leader, Mr. Speaker, who can teach them to negotiate with this government, to sit down and do things in a fair way.

Question period is so bad that it's unbelievable. I saw a couple of press guys falling asleep today. There was an obvious question today, Mr. Speaker, and they didn't even ask it. It would have made headline news. I'm not going to tell them what it was. One member over here could have asked it, but they didn't. It's so bad that even I sitting on the government's side would like to see them improve a little so things could get a little more exciting.

I would like to see us have committee meetings where the Chairman could get us all to attend at the same time and he wouldn't try and pull sneaky reports off when nobody is there. That's the kind of cooperation we need in this Legislature; we don't get that kind of cooperation right now, and until we get it — until they get a leader to suggest to them that in the long term.... They haven't got a chance for 20 years anyway, but at least they could be respectable over that 20 years in their debates in this Legislature.

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad I got them all excited, because it must be just about time to go for dinner. I'm sure they'll all appreciate their dinners a lot more after this discussion. I'm looking forward to more speeches in this debate. I'm really looking forward to the budget debate next week, because I have been watching our Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and I can see the smile on his face. It's getting better every day. I see the smiles on the people's faces around this province, because what we're doing is right. We are not only a government of the right, but what we are doing is right. I only wish that we had another election coming up, because I think we would knock off another ten of these guys and really have responsible government in Victoria.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Don't be a pessimist — 22 of them.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm just trying to be fair, Mr. Premier. We don't want to knock them all off — some of them need their jobs. I don't know if they could find one somewhere else.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the budget, and I look forward to future debate. I want to say how strongly I support the throne speech.

[5:00]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, we are here again to debate the Speech from the Throne given by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor but, as we all know, prepared in the Premier's office — no doubt by the satraps who have become, I suppose, the earmark of that particular office. We note that

[ Page 3306 ]

the Premier has much more spare time, because he is taking less and less a direct hand in the affairs of this province. More and more it is being taken over, just as the office of Prime Minister Trudeau was taken over, by the executive council bureaucracy. So we see the very jovial, very improved communicator figuratively leading this province, but the real leadership is taking place more and more in the hands of this very tight — and becoming even tighter — bureaucratic office.

One of the things I would like to talk about today is that we as politicians had better take on a responsibility for running the province and not leaving it to bureaucrats. It will be to the better governing and the better interest of people in British Columbia. We cannot allow ourselves to fall prey to easy solutions to one blanket philosophy, whether it be "Let's privatize everything" or "Let's turn everything into a Crown corporation." There has to be some middle ground for reasonable people, and I think that if we delay embarking upon that any further we are going to be in the most serious problems which even the natural and abundant resources of British Columbia cannot rectify.

This speech might have been more accurate if it had said that our government announces that its war on prosperity continues unabated, that we have wrestled affluence to the ground, and that we have reduced our position in Canada in post-secondary education to ninth place and we're going for number ten. That would have been the proper keynote of this address: a continuation of the war on prosperity by following lock-step, mindless, simple slogans.

Here in British Columbia we have a government that believes they can address one thing and one thing alone. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has been talking about this and perhaps letting out the philosophy of the government — if there is any philosophy or guiding force carrying this government, which seems to stumble from day to day. He talks about wealth creation as if wealth creation, if not taken hand in hand with wealth distribution, would improve the lot of the average or even the above-average or all but the very elite of British Columbia. Creation of wealth in British Columbia will not prevent the movement of that wealth. The success of a corporation like Daon Development in British Columbia does not mean that the wealth they generated when a person like Jack Poole.... He started out, if I recall, as a housing framer, and saved up about $10,000, started a company and built a multimillion-dollar organization. But there's nothing to prevent him from taking that wealth, having created it here, out of this country and moving the major part of his operations to California, Dallas, Texas, or some other part.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seattle.

MR. NICOLSON: Or to Seattle, sure. Or others whom I know in that business, and who have done so.

What I'm saying is that we cannot simply create wealth in this province and then expect to live in some sort of an abundance if there is not some direction, some program that would help to keep that wealth that has been generated and see that it is reinvested in this province. That has been one of the problems. The Universities minister mentioned in his speech earlier about going by this plant in Pittsburgh and seeing it all empty. I don't know which of the plants it was — perhaps a Bethlehem plant — but he would also be well advised to know that members of the very same union are well employed in Hamilton, Ontario, at the Stelco plant, because Stelco reinvested profits and kept modern. The U.S. steel industry cannot compete — without tariff barriers — with some of our Canadian steel industry, because they did not keep pace and allowed their industry to fall into disuse. You can find that by reading it in Barron's, as was mentioned by the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), or many other journals, or by watching "Wall Street Week" and other finance programs on PBS.

We do have to do more than just that. This government is accepting the new philosophy — accepting it without questioning the concept of jobless growth. They talk about one of the economic indicators, inflation, improving. It's very nice to see inflation improve, but if inflation improves and unemployment continues to get worse and worse and if the only reason we've wrestled inflation to the ground is that we've put everyone out of work, it doesn't take any genius to create that kind of a trade-off between those two indicators.

We continue to be in very serious problems in this province. I am afraid that there is an acceptance of jobless growth. This is a brand new journal: Compuwest. It's a computer journal published right in Vancouver. This is about the fourth issue of it that I've seen. In it is an article about Canadian banking and how the whole nature of jobs in banking is being revolutionized and how tellers are being replaced by automated tellers. This article naturally takes a fairly optimistic view of it — talks about retraining, other challenges and so on — but these are the kinds of problems that are going on in this province. We are in the midst of a revolution in terms of work opportunities. There's no mention of this in the throne speech. There won't be any mention of it in the budget speech. We are undergoing as much economic change — and it will also be subsequently cultural change — in the 20 years at the end of this century, into which we are well embarked, as we went through in the 200 years after the Industrial Revolution started. It will have an effect of possibly allowing us to decentralize, just as the Industrial Revolution caused people to centralize and cut down various opportunities. British Columbia was way ahead of national averages in bankruptcies last year — about 26 percent as compared to a 13 percent national average. If we look at other indicators we see that we're falling further and further behind and that we are less and less capable of keeping up.

When the government talks about its economic initiative in the throne speech, it talks about the northeast coal project, into which billions of government dollars had to be invested and in which, by the minister's own admission, there will not be a return based on the current contracts. We will have to pay and subsidize the export of every ton of coal that goes out of this province. Also we see, in things like the Far Eastern Economic Review and B.C. Business and all of these journals — not in the Democrat or in some labour journals — absolute, ironclad evidence that the Japanese are successfully negotiating downward the volume and the price of coal.

An apologist for the northeast coal project in either the Vancouver Sun or the Province said: "Don't worry about the northeast coal project. What is more likely than seeing a major cutback in volumes from the northeast coal is that we will see that slack taken up by one of the projects in the southeast in which the capital has been paid up." But we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. If you looked deeply enough in the budget, you saw about $23 million going into northeast coal last year; next year you'll see more and more and more. So don't say that we're privatizing everything. This government

[ Page 3307 ]

has been involved in a major development in a way in which no free enterprise government would ever dream — probably in a way in which no socialist government would every dream of being involved. In doing so we have had to cripple the economy of other parts of the province.

I would like now to come to the most serious problem in the region which I represent. I suppose that it isn't really David Thompson University Centre per se, but it is the government's lack of any kind of planning in terms of initiating policies and programs which are creating the highest rate of unemployment that probably has ever existed in that region since before the turn of the century — since the first miners came in and started to create an economy and create, indeed, the very wealth that put this Italian marble into this venerated building. Now we say "Kiss off " to the West Kootenays — to the area that probably had six representatives in this Legislature in those days, as a reflection of its economic importance.

Mr. Speaker, that type of reasoning — this lack of thinking — is not going to lead to any improvement for British Columbia. It is not going to pull British Columbia out of a recession. It is not going to assist any kind of natural recovery that might come about by improved world conditions, when and if that comes about. It is going to further postpone recovery. We see by the latest figures of the Conference Board of Canada that British Columbia, Alberta and Nova Scotia are trailing the rest of the country in terms of economic recovery. Look at what is happening here in British Columbia. How can a government make so many isolated decisions that are so totally disastrous to one area? You would think there must be a minister for creating ghost towns rather than a minister for creating industrial development.

[5:15]

I have worked very hard in my area to assist any kind of industrial development, and I have enjoyed some success and some cooperation from the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development and from the B.C. Development Corporation. With that help, we've been able to create three new sawmills. One was built during the absolute depths of the recession in the sawmill industry. Now, a fresh-water bottling plant, with some contracts with Safeway and markets in California, looks like it is perhaps well on its way to creating some employment. At the same time, the government has taken measures....

First of all, they're ignoring the kind of cautions that I have given to government. If anybody wants to look at my record in terms of predictions, I think you'll find it almost disquietingly accurate. In 19771 made the prediction that there would be enough excess electricity for a ten-year moratorium when the Revelstoke Dam was completed. I wasn't listened to by Robert Bonner, and I certainly wasn't listened to by the Minister of Energy of the day. I presented graphs, statistics and a monograph which indicated that the government should at least have commissioned an independent inquiry, and listened to it, but we went ahead. Not only do we now have surplus energy, which we say we can sell....

We cannot sell it at a recovery rate. We cannot pay the interest charges with what we will get out of the sale of that surplus energy.

What we have also lost is the valley bottom behind the Revelstoke Dam. We have lost more logging jobs. We went in and creamed that renewable resource prematurely, and the way that place was harvested was absolute butchery. We lost that so-called — and maybe accurately described, I might say — productive sector referred to on page 3 of this particular document. We lost very heavily. Those were real jobs — not just creating wealth but also distributing wealth back to loggers and millworkers and people in the transportation business, the accounting business and every other aspect that spins off from that kind of basic production of wealth. It produced wealth with jobs. If we produce wealth simply by creating power which is exported across the border and has no jobs associated with it, we say that's the wrong kind of capital investment in this province. We say that capital investment has to do more than just create wealth; it also has to create jobs. Otherwise, we have to get into a very radical form of wealth redistribution, which I think even our party is perhaps afraid to address, let alone the government in power. Decisions like that could have been avoided.

During the election in 1979, I got wind of the reorganization of the Ministry of Forests, and I said it was going to be a very costly reorganization. If you look at the government estimates that have followed since that reorganization, you'll see that the cost of putting a roof over the Ministry of Forests — that is, the building occupancy charges for the ministry— rose from $3.5 million to $10.5 million to $19.5 million in three successive budgets. That's where the money was lost, and that's why such drastic measures are being taken today.

I also questioned the timeliness of building a huge centralized bureaucracy in the B.C. Systems Corporation. Look at that brand-new building. It just opened earlylast year — less than a year ago. Look at that building as you drive by. Those members from outside Victoria who come in on the Blanshard cutoff see that huge Systems Corporation building that cost millions and millions of dollars — some $30 million, I believe. It is a capital project equal in dollars to about one-third or one-quarter the size of B.C. Place Stadium. It's a megaproject that no one has really heard about in this province, but now the government is thinking about getting rid of it. The improvement in computers is such that such a thing might well be done away with. Indeed, 20 years ago, when banks started to go into computers, they went into the IBM 1401, which had a 12K memory. A home hobby computer, a little Atari that just plays games, has more memory capacity than that. The way costs are being brought down and the pace of the computer revolution would have told anyone that they should not have made that move. What has happened since the announcement to get rid of B.C. Systems Corporation is that the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Finance are going back to in-house computers, building up their own in-house bureaucracy. It's just as it was before B.C. Systems Corporation was created at such great expense. We saw data processing costs in this province just eat up money in a rabid sort of way. Because of that, we see that gross expenditure on research and development as a percentage of gross provincial product in British Columbia is probably the worst in Canada. It's only 0.55 percent, compared to the Canadian average of 1.04 percent. Maybe there'll be a change in leadership and maybe it will change.

We see that in post-secondary education we place eighth or ninth in almost every respect. In my community we see that the concept of decentralized post-secondary education, something being offered beyond Hope, has been killed without any opportunity for input. Was a purely centralized decision, and it is having disastrous effects.

Unemployment in the Victoria area is a disastrous 16 percent, but in the West Kootenays it is 26 percent; indeed, it must be weighted that way because of the extraordinary

[ Page 3308 ]

unemployment rate in Nelson, which must be at least 40 percent. That doesn't even include many people who are not registered, but who would be available and would take a job the minute it was offered.

We've seen government departments shut down. We have seen 51 forestry jobs lost in Nelson as part of the government's program. That, of course, is the kind of thing which would be felt maybe in Kamloops or Prince George — other parts of the province. On top of the jobs that have been lost and the ministry offices that have been moved out, we have lost a huge number of jobs at the David Thompson University Centre. But we have also the economic input that comes when students come from all over the province and spend in the area. We've also lost the cultural benefits.

It isn't something that was simply asked for and granted by government; it was something that was earned by that community. In 1950 the idea of offering university programs got its start in Nelson. Over the years people donated money. The Catholic Church had many people pledge certain amounts so that property could be bought, buildings could be built and education could take place in that area. Nelson realized at that time that mining, while it continued to play some role in the area, was not going to play the role it played at the turn of the century, and the people realized that people weren't going to be making wooden matches such as at the old Eddy factory which was closed down. We also realized that transportation patterns were changing, but that community.... I was not part of that community at that time; I was a student in high school in North Burnaby, I guess, at the time when they started. The people of that day looked ahead and said: "If we are going to have a future then we should stake out education. As planning for the future, it's something that will be needed." So Notre Dame grew, and I could say it flourished. Its attendance reached as high as 700 students. It has had some very noteworthy graduates, my colleague the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) being one of them. I might say that it would have been very unlikely that he would have been able to get a university education had it not been for that opportunity. The other day I met with Nola Landucci, the former head of the Human Rights Commission. She also attended Notre Dame University, and she attended there because people made a sacrifice. They didn't just ask for a handout. They were builders, planners and people who did not look backward. They looked ahead and tried to create an educational opportunity.

That same kind of initiative was carried forward again in 1961 when the city of Nelson bought a piece of property at market value and then turned it over to the government for $1 so that the government could build a vocational school up in Rosemont. That again was part of carrying on that same theme. To pass along very quickly.... I won't pass over the year 1973, in case anyone wants to mention it. When we were government there was a look at rationalizing or calling into question the problem of having Notre Dame University only 25 miles away from Selkirk College, a community college. We resolved that problem. It took a great deal of time, a royal commission and many efforts to get cooperation from the three major universities. I must say the university presidents cooperated, but it was premature. The university faculties could not be brought to cooperate in offering university programs at that campus at that time. We determined that the way was to create, then, a fourth autonomous university in British Columbia. It was also logical that it should have campuses in the Okanagan and in Prince George and other areas of the province, because we believed that there is a place in British Columbia for small, human-scale educational experiences and that these would grow to sufficient size to be economically viable and that when you have a campus of that size you do not have to have the huge bureaucracy of commissionaires policing the students and student parking and all the kinds of problems you see around the University of British Columbia. There are efficiencies of scale, it could be accomplished, and we were willing to do it.

[5:30]

The next government came along. It had the Winegard report and reached different conclusions, but it embarked upon a David Thompson University Centre. We were told that the way to go would be to create a Banff School of Fine Arts in Nelson — that type of a model. We were told that we should build on the strength of the Kootenay School of Art, which existed up at that Rosemont campus, and move it from the Rosemont campus and just leave the vocational programs at the Rosemont campus, which we did. We went along with the suggestion of the government of the day and the people in the Ministry of Education. We were never given a chance, though, as a community — the city council was never given a chance; the local school board was never given a chance — to really look at the expenditures that were taking place there, at the programs that were being offered and whether they were efficient or not. But there was an evaluation study done, headed by Dr. Glen Farrell at the University of Victoria, which came up with the conclusion that things were going fairly well and that there were some areas which could be improved.

Then the two ministers — not six months ago, as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) said, but last September 21 — wrote a letter signed by Patrick L. McGeer and Jack H. Heinrich addressed to Dr. Jack Colbert, chairman of Selkirk College, board and to Dr. Petch, president of the University of Victoria. It said: "We are satisfied that the success achieved thus far by the centre warrants its continuation. However, this must occur within the context of moneys which may be available, and you should not anticipate in the foreseeable future any increase in funds presently allocated." In other words, don't worry too much about growth; it's a status quo situation. Indeed, people were expecting to be cut back to 96 percent of the current year's budget in the upcoming year's budget, because that's what was happening in the colleges and universities.

Then, just a little bit over three months later, there was this tremendous change. Then we hear that there are concerns. We hear that the per-pupil cost is high. We hear that our area is getting more per capita than other areas in the province. If one were to look at the University of British Columbia and look at the riding of Vancouver-Point Grey, I suppose they may be getting $3,000 per capita. We're getting $278, and the average in the province was about $118.

If you were to look at Burnaby, where you have Simon Fraser University, BCIT, B.C. Vocational Institute and maybe one or two other educational institutions, I suppose you'd come up with a very high figure as well. That is a totally spurious thing, but the point is that we had no opportunity to react to the concerns of government. A meeting was scheduled and it did take place. We were not given much encouragement, but we were given an undertaking that we would be supplied with base-line data that would show the concerns of government and that we could react to those concerns.

[ Page 3309 ]

In exactly one week the government apparently made a decision, and that decision was to not listen to anything from the local community and not have anybody sharpen a pencil. Mr. Speaker, the most ill-considered decision that has ever been made in the history of Notre Dame University or David Thompson University Centre was the decision not to involve the community at all.

For years there have been people looking to destroy whatever was going on at that campus in Nelson. Some of those people work for the government. Some of them worked for the government even when we were government. The kinds of things that have constantly been put out.... I have a proposal here addressed to the Selkirk College board. It's called "Increasing Accessibility Through Program Rationalization." I have three papers here, all authored by the principal of Selkirk College, and one of these proposed to shut down a $12 million plant in Nelson and rebuild it with government funds — in Castlegar in order to rationalize and centralize facilities, which some of the bureaucrats feel are not quite neat and tidy enough for their liking. If you were to take the amount of money that could be saved by financing a $12 million relocation of one building to another, you could hire helicopters to move students around that regional district area. You could put that into the budget. You could probably give all the administrators a 100 percent increase in salary, and you would still have money left over. That is the kind of blind advice given to the minister. Obviously they've been listened to, and there's been no opportunity for rebuttal or for local community input.

Since that meeting last week we have had people working night and day to address the concerns of government in terms of costs. They will not have any opportunity to be heard. There was going to be a report about that proposal to the community tomorrow night in a public meeting. Do you know what kind of a meeting we're going to have tomorrow night? We have been trying to hold the lid.... Responsible people in the community, like Mayor Chuck Lakes, former head of the UBCM, Mayor Audrey Moore of Castlegar and Mayor Louis Maglio have been trying to keep rational people from doing irrational things. The government could not have done anything more to inflame, to incite and to create a very dangerous and explosive situation. I appeal to the Premier, who is in the House right now. I know the Premier wants to let his ministers manage and not interfere and not get involved in everything. I remember the day when the Premier did listen to a very small problem in Nelson concerning the local police force, the smallest municipal police force in the province, and they had been caught in a bind with the AIB. The Premier listened then, and I hope that there is still something of the same person in the Premier, and in the seat of the Premier, today that will listen to this and cause a very serious review to be made.

Government has had some very bad and some very mischievous advice, and the very least the government can do now is to give the people a chance to respond. Let some of the responsible local people try to address the problem of paring those budgets. If those expenditures are way out of line, it's the first that we've ever heard about it, and the only decent thing that can be done is that we be given an opportunity to respond.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would be prepared to allow one of the government members to speak.

We've been taking turns very nicely here, but obviously they don't want to get up and defend this speech.

I don't want to get up and defend this speech either, Mr. Speaker. This is just a rerun of last year and we're going to have a complete upset and confrontation in this province. The signs are all there. It is couched in rather vague terms, but it's very easy to read between the lines the direction this government is taking, and it's not a good direction. It is not a direction that is going to do anything about our unemployment situation; in fact, it's a direction that is going to worsen it, if anything, and I'm sure it will worsen it. It certainly worsened it last year.

I have been going through this speech and making a few notes as to some of the things that are mentioned in here. They talk about unemployment and the fact that too many people are without jobs, and it's really interesting to note that they say that interest rates and mortgages are too high. Well, that's the 1984 version. It is also interesting that in 1978 the Premier of this province had quite a different idea. In fact he was the first Premier to go down to Ottawa and urge the Liberal government to introduce a policy of high interest rates to fight inflation. They were going to wrestle inflation to the ground. That was the Premier — who is just leaving the House now — who went down there and urged the Liberal government to take those steps. Let employment get along as best it could; never mind about jobs; get a high interest policy that would curtail inflation. That was his idea then.

Now he's talking in this throne speech about the fact that unemployment is too high and we have to reduce interest rates. That's quite a switch. He's saying it in the throne speech, but he's really not doing anything to ensure that happens. Certainly he's not doing anything at all to bring down our unemployment rate. We have one of the worst records in Canada for employment here in British Columbia. As of the end of last month we had a total of 238,991 persons in receipt of unemployment insurance. That doesn't count all the ones who have run out of UIC, have given up looking for work and no longer have enough stamina left in them to try and get a job — too discouraged, too frustrated. On top of that, as of the end of December — the latest figures I have on top of nearly 240,000 in receipt of UIC there were 131,732 dependent adults receiving social assistance: people who had no UIC, who had no jobs, who had had no jobs for years. That's an all-time high for receipt of Human Resources allowance for people who would like to be working. That's what these government policies are doing as far as employment is concerned.

I had an appointment this morning, and as usual I was waiting for that appointment, and I picked up Reader's Digest. There was an interesting quote from a Richard E. Heckart, a professor who was speaking at Howard University to a group of young students. I thought the quote worth copying down. Speaking to these students, Dr. Heckart said: "Many of you learned quite a while ago, at a very young age, that it's not work that makes you tired, it's frustration. It's frustration that comes from the lack of work and the lack of accomplishment. Real frustration comes when you cannot find useful work to do." That's the situation this government with its policies has brought about for those thousands of people, the 240,000 forced to rely on UIC and nearly 132,000 forced to rely on social assistance. That's a lot of people, and a lot of frustration.

[5:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 3310 ]

What happens when people get frustrated? I think you'll find that more and more people are attending doctors, winding up in hospital and consuming more alcohol. Frustration can be a very costly thing for society. We hear so much about the high cost of health care. It really isn't health care, it's sickness care. Those costs are increasing partly because of the frustrations that people feel out there, the utter lack of any hope — the hope is gone. As a result there are more physical and emotional problems, more and more high costs of health care — or sickness care.

The throne speech talks about — I really can't believe the words — how they haven't reduced the.... I just want to find the exact words, because they're worth quoting: "Health Care. My government...has managed to preserve the integrity of our most essential service — health care." Mr. Speaker, they have "managed to preserve the integrity"! I have a package here relating to some of the things that are happening in health care. As a result of this government's policies, vacancies are no longer filled. I have stood on the floor of this Legislature year after year after year asking for a second person in the Central Vancouver Island Health Unit— a second audiologist — because we have a great difficulty with hearing problems. We have a great many patients there with hearing difficulties. We had one in Nanaimo whom we were all required to use.

I want to read to you from the local press: "604 Await Tests. The lineup for hearing tests through the Central Vancouver Island Health Unit will grow longer before it grows shorter. That's the news from the Central Vancouver Island Board of Health, which met January 19 in Duncan. The lack of an audiologist in the area served by that unit is part of a larger picture which features a unit operating without 20 former employees." That's this government's way of practising restraint — 20 fewer employees in the one Central Vancouver Island Health Unit. "The twenty medical personnel positions have remained unfilled following resignations and retirements since the province imposed a hiring freeze. The one audiologist we had, as of October, resigned. The CVI unit has been without an audiologist since the resignation from that position last October." It goes on to talk about the audiologist hearing tests, which must be taken before those who need hearing aids are permitted to purchase them through the government. You cannot purchase a hearing aid through the government unless you are tested by that audiologist, who is no longer there. If the aids are purchased from the private sector, the cost is 50 percent higher, according to Dr. Peter Reynolds, director of the Central Vancouver Island Health District. That's privatization.

That is what we are looking for in privatization. That's what happens when you privatize the health care system — fifty percent higher for a hearing aid. You have to go there, because you can't go to the government unless you go through the audiologist, who is no longer there. You're forced into buying those units, if you are going to get one at all. There are currently 604 names on the hearing test waiting list for the area served by the unit, and in Victoria there is a year's waiting list, according to Dr. Reynolds. The lack of an audiologist affects the elderly and the pre-school students. But Dr. Reynolds said there have been no indications that the hiring freeze will be discontinued in the near future. There are certainly no indications in the throne speech that that is going to happen. It is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better, if you read what is in that throne speech with any degree of intelligence. Until that happens, the waiting list will grow. What does that mean to an individual, one of those older persons that Dr. Reynolds was speaking about? Well, here's one of them. Violet Viola Lowe took her pen in hand on January 18 and wrote to the Premier, with a copy to the Minister of Health, a copy to myself and a copy to Dr. Reynolds. She said:

"Hon. Mr. Premier:

"The present policies of your government are causing me personal distress. Would you please review my situation and see if some positive action can be taken to help me and others in similar circumstances.

"My situation is as follows. Because I am a pensioner on limited income, when my doctor determined that I needed a hearing-aid he referred me to the hearing department of the division of speech and hearing at the Central Vancouver Island Health Unit in Nanaimo. The referral was made May 3, 1983. At the end of September, since I still had no appointment, my doctor phoned the health unit and was informed I would have my appointment in a couple of months. On January 6, 1984, a letter was written to me stating that the health unit audiologist had resigned at the end of October 1983, and as there was presently a hiring freeze, no appointments are being made to replace staff. The letter also stated that my name was being kept on a waiting-list for some future time.

"The long wait, from May to November or December, which apparently was normal when an audiologist was on staff, indicates the great need there is for such service and the urgency of a speedy replacement.

"I would be grateful for a prompt response to this letter, and I am hopeful that the response will indicate a commitment to expedite the reinstatement of this important service for the hearing-impaired."

Mr. Speaker, I will adjourn very quickly, but before I do that I want to read the Premier's reply to that letter. This is one letter he did reply to. He says:

"Dear Mrs. Lowe:

"Thank you for your January 18 letter in which you expressed concern about the vacant Nanaimo audiologist position. I appreciate knowing your concern and wish to assure you that I am aware of the importance of the position.

"I am pleased to note that you kindly provided a copy to my colleague the Hon. James Nielsen, Minister of Health, under the jurisdiction of whose portfolio this matter comes. I have asked the minister if he would look into this matter on your behalf and contact you as soon as possible. I feet confident that you will be hearing from Mr. Nielsen in the near future."

I don't know whether she will hear from the Minister of Health or not, but I know that if the government policies outlined in the throne speech continue there will not be an audiologist in Nanaimo and Mrs. Lowe will not be able to get her hearing-aid.

I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

[ Page 3311 ]

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to make a brief statement.

Leave granted.

SHOAL ISLAND LOG SCALING

MR. SKELLY: My statement concerns the report that was tabled in the House today entitled: "The Shoal Island Case." It documents what the ombudsman describes as a case where the ministry has refused to exercise its authority to assess stumpage against the operator of a dryland sort where defective scaling practices have been carried out. As a consequence, six logging contractors suffered losses of $4 million to $6 million. The provincial government suffered a loss of stumpage estimated between $1.3 million and $2 million.

Shoal Island is only one of six locations where defective scaling techniques were used between 1978 and 1981. The ministry has been aware of the problems at Shoal Island since 1981 and has refused to act on the issue since that time. As a result, some of the contractors are on the verge of ruin and the province has been deprived of revenue to which it is entitled and which it desperately requires in these difficult economic times. The most damning information in the report is the fact that the ministry attempted to thwart the ombudsman's investigation by denying access to information and also by asking the complainants to remove the ombudsman from the case.

According to the report, the ministry's activity is not only contrary to the spirit and intent of the Forest Act, it also contradicts any proposition that the ministry may be managing the province's forests in the public interests. Such a finding would be sufficient in any other jurisdiction to require the resignation of the minister pending a full judicial inquiry into the ministry's handling of this case and whether there was criminal behaviour on the part of any of those involved either in the ministry's handling of the case or in its attempt at a coverup.

I would ask that the House immediately consider a resolution which would strike a full judicial inquiry into the minister's handling of the case and an investigation as to whether there was criminal behaviour on the part of any of those involved, either in the ministry's handling of it or in its attempt to cover up the facts of this case.

Hon. A. Fraser tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for the year ending March 1983.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.