[ Page 5147 ]

CONTENTS

Forestry For The Future Act (Bill M201). Mr. Howard

Introduction and first reading –– 5147

Tabling Documents –– 5147

Oral Questions

Salmon enhancement. Mr. Hanson –– 5147

Post-secondary education funding. Mr. Rose –– 5147

University program cutbacks. Mrs. Dailly –– 5148

Mr. Williams

Vancouver women's health collective. Ms. Brown –– 5148

Aid for Westroc Industries. Mr. Macdonald –– 5148

Tabling Documents –– 5149

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 5149

Mr. Barnes –– 5151

Hon. Mr. Pelton –– 5155

Mr. Cocke –– 5157

Mr. Davis –– 5159

Mrs. Dailly –– 5162

Mr. Kempf –– 5165

Tabling Documents –– 5168

THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1985

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are a number of people from the Okanagan valley: Mayor Ivan Messmer from the city of Penticton, Mayor Bob Frost from the town of Osoyoos, Mayor Richard Topping from Oliver, Alderman Charlie Miller and his wife Phyllis from Oliver, and Ray Martineau, the administrator from Oliver. I believe the mayor of Summerland, Rita Hermiston, is also somewhere in the precincts. I would ask the House to welcome these people.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, together with the mayors from the Okanagan is Mayor Gloria Stout from Princeton, and I would ask the House to also welcome her.

Introduction of Bills

FORESTRY FOR THE FUTURE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Howard, Bill M201, Forestry for the Future Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the 1983-84 annual report of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services.

Oral Questions

SALMON ENHANCEMENT

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. Recently the federal government of Canada completed a treaty with the United States regarding salmon management on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. The rationale for signing that treaty was to rebuild existing stocks, and the federal Conservative government promised $25 million for salmon enhancement in British Columbia. Is the minister aware of that rationale being used as the basis for signing the treaty and of the $25 million for salmon enhancement promised by the federal government?

HON. MR. PELTON: I thank the first member for Victoria for the question. Inasmuch as I would like to answer that question with complete accuracy and as quickly as possible, I will take it as notice and bring the answer back with a great deal of alacrity.

MR. HANSON: I have a new question, Mr. Speaker, for the same minister. It has come to our attention that the first act of the federal government, with respect to this very important issue, is to break their promise of $25 million and to roll it back to $10 million in the federal estimates. My question is: is the minister prepared to take this important matter up with the national government — with Mr. Fraser, the federal minister — to fight for those jobs that were promised in this province and to fight for the restoration of this very important stock?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the new standing orders before us clearly give direction in question period, both for questions and answers. Once again, I commend those new guidelines to all members.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

MR. ROSE: I would have asked this question earlier, except that the Minister of Universities, I imagine, is just getting over the shock of the fact that UBC president George Pedersen resigned just after noon.

Mr. Speaker, since the probable reason for his resignation has been the systematic diversion of federal funds for post-secondary education over the years — up to $40 million this year — has the minister decided to reconsider his 5 percent cut for university budgets for next year?

Is the minister not going to reply to the question?

HON. MR. McGEER: My understanding is that the budget will be presented on March 14.

MR. ROSE: I suppose the operative question might have been: has the minister decided to follow the example set by Mr. Pedersen? However, I'm not asking that question. I'm asking whether or not, since there has been a tremendous cut in budgets –– 19 percent this year, despite the increase — amounting to $27 million last year, and systematic diversion, he is going to change his bonus-incentive plan, which was designed to fire staff at UBC.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, I think the details of the budget will be available on March 14, and not today, so therefore I think the member's question may be based on an entirely false premise. He really should wait for the budget and not jump to conclusions, present rumours, and all those sorts of things.

[2:15]

MR. ROSE: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for basing my assumptions on previous announcements by the minister which had to do with the incentive plan. Since the province appears to have decided it can no longer afford a full range of university programs, what plans has the minister to send B.C. students to other jurisdictions where they can get the courses they need and desire?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, no jurisdiction in Canada, and probably none in the world, provides a greater spectrum of opportunity in post-secondary education than does British Columbia. I will get the member exact figures, but I can give approximate figures from last year. About 35,000 students were in grade 12; about 25,000 of these obtained high school graduation; about 4,100 went to our three universities; and just under 10,000 went to our colleges and institutes to take university-level programs. So our entry into university-level programs is just over half the graduating student population. This is extraordinarily high; indeed it is so high that as our high school graduation classes diminish in size, as they will from now until the late 1990s, we can anticipate that our total post-secondary population in British Columbia will be smaller in the year 2000 than it is today. Our size reduction in British Columbia will be smaller than the reduction in size that will take place in Quebec, Ontario

[ Page 5148 ]

and almost every other jurisdiction in Canada. The fact is that we're into the era of the baby bust.

MR. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish you'd admonish that minister. He is not following the current rules of this House, which outline question period and lengthy and erroneous responses.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I will address the point by the member at the conclusion of question period, rather than take up the time of question period. The point will be addressed at that time. Has the minister concluded his remarks on the question?

HON. MR. McGEER: Before they ask the question, would the members advise if they want it answered? If they don't want to have the answer, then please tell me.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, if the options and opportunities for post-secondary education in B.C. are so grand and glorious and extravagant, can the minister explain that except for Newfoundland, B.C. has the lowest per-capita participation rate in Canada?

HON. MR. McGEER: Far from what the member says, it has the highest. This is, of course, one of the great myths out there. Perhaps what I'll do, Mr. Speaker, if you like, is table in the Legislature figures which show each year the number of high school graduates in British Columbia, and each year the number of entrants to our three public universities, 21 colleges and seven institutes — I will leave out the Open Learning Institute, the second-largest institution in British Columbia, with 16,000 registrants — just to give you some idea of the enormous population we have in post-secondary institutions, largely because of the variety and depth of the programs this government is funding for British Columbians.

UNIVERSITY PROGRAM CUTBACKS

MRS. DAILLY: My question is to the Minister of Health. Letters have gone out on the UBC campus — in spite of what the minister for post-secondary education has just said — suggesting there may have to be complete elimination of some full departments, such as the rehabilitative medicine department and the dental hygienist program. I know the Minister of Health is quite aware of the importance of the programs, particularly dealing with occupational therapists: they're needed; there are jobs for these people. In view of the fact that they could be eliminated, has he decided to intervene with his government before the axe truly falls on some of these programs?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that they could be eliminated, I would certainly like to be advised if indeed they are to be eliminated. I'm well aware of the games played at certain institutions with respect to trying to maintain certain budget levels. I'm also well aware that when certain modifications and cuts are required, it is fashionable to go after certain programs that they know full well should be retained. However, they get maximum exposure and criticism when they try to eliminate programs which they should not, while retaining other programs that they could easily eliminate. Yes, I would be concerned if they were to think of dropping programs for which we require training in our province, while retaining certain programs which require none at all. I don't know which letter you refer to, but if that letter has been circulated, certainly I will respond, and I'm sure the minister responsible for universities will offer some advice to those people.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, one of the important programs at the university contemplated for potential closure is the School of Architecture, probably the greatest school of architecture in this country, worth untold wealth physically, economically and socially to the people of this province. Is it acceptable to the minister that such a department should end its long life at the University of B.C.?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, it isn't acceptable. As the government, the general policy that we try to develop on behalf of all the people is that every program should graduate approximately the same number of people as the annual demand for the province. Therefore I think you can take it as government policy that a school of architecture should graduate at least as many architects as would be annually required in British Columbia, and so on down the line. The only profession where we have had difficulty is in medicine, where we continue to graduate only a fraction of the annual requirements in our province; but that's a particularly difficult question to address because of the enormous surplus of doctors being graduated in the United Kingdom, Ontario and Alberta who eventually become practitioners in our province. Nonetheless, the objective is to serve the needs of the province and to offer opportunity to our students. Therefore government policy would be that we continue to offer that opportunity in architecture.

VANCOUVER WOMEN'S HEALTH COLLECTIVE

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health and is in the context of International Women's Week. I wonder if the minister has had a chance to visit with the Vancouver Women's Health Collective and take a look at the very valuable work they are doing in terms of health education for women, and, if so, if he would reconsider restoring their funding.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The answer to the question is no since there is only one question asked.

AID FOR WESTROC INDUSTRIES

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. There's a productive industry — a secondary industry — in British Columbia, Westroc Industries on Wall Street in Vancouver; 58 men are losing their jobs. It's wallboard and gypsum products. The same company has built a new plant in Calgary that produces wallboard at 135 feet per minute, compared to 75. It hasn't been modernized.

Has the government any plans at the present time to step in and give that kind of a productive industry — an employing industry in the province of British Columbia — a chance to live, the way the other plant is going to live in Calgary?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the first member for Vancouver East: if the company has not been able, under its own initiative, to undertake modernization in order to maintain its market share — that is, to be competitive — it

[ Page 5149 ]

may find great incentive to do so after the Minister of Finance tables his budget, and after other programs in legislative form are introduced by various ministers into this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier the point of order was raised regarding question period. While the rules that we operate under may be somewhat new, the advice from the Chair will be familiar to all members, and that is, simply, that when open-ended questions are asked, it is only reasonable to expect some latitude in open-ended responses.

Further, hon. members, if it is the desire of members to strictly enforce the guidelines of question period, it would be difficult on general observation to find many of the questions in order at all, under the very confining regulations. So as always, I would ask members to use discretion, both in asking questions and in answering them, in keeping with the spirit of question period.

Mr. Blencoe tabled a petition from 600 students of Mt. Douglas Senior Secondary School in Victoria.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, again I rise to support the throne speech. Just before lunch the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) painted a pretty negative picture of what has happened in British Columbia in the past while, and cited such things as Expo, B.C. Place and northeast coal. I'd like to put a positive note on those and indicate to the members and the public of British Columbia that in a time when jobs were scarce, when the economy had turned down not just here but in the rest of Canada and in most parts of the world, projects were undertaken by this government to create jobs — productive jobs, not make-work jobs — for the future. Expo 86 created a tremendous number of jobs, and when the fair begins in May 1986 we will see the benefit of the production related to those jobs in constructing the Expo site. Northeast coal: we are moving coal to market. We have created a transportation system, and a port at Ridley Island to move product to all parts of the Pacific Rim. Those were done by projects of this government to create jobs in a time when jobs were scarce. That's the positive message, Mr. Speaker.

[2:30]

I want to start my comments by quoting from a recent article in the Vancouver Sun: "The budget should be balanced. The treasury should be refilled. Public debt should be reduced. The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and assistance to foreign lands should be reduced lest the state become bankrupt." The question was put: Was that Premier Bennett in 1982 when he made his speech on restraint? Was that Brian Mulroney making his speech with regard to controlling costs? Was that Ronald Reagan making his speech with regard to reducing the deficit in the United States? No, Mr. Speaker, that was Cicero in 44 B.C. So the problem of economic downturn, of economic cycles, has been with us for thousands of years and it's no different now than it was then. A government, if it is to be responsible, has to bring its spending under control. Otherwise, the impact in the long run would be substantial on the people of that province or that country.

The throne speech states:

"British Columbians, having shared the adversity of the international recession, are entitled to feel a quiet sense of optimism as our province enters what promises to be a time of economic renewal over this second half of the decade. Having restrained public sector costs, thus preventing the buildup of massive debt and corresponding tax increases, my government today has room to manoeuver to pursue its number one priority, the creation of real, permanent jobs for British Columbians."

Mr. Speaker, we have got our house in order in British Columbia. It's taken a lot of hard work and some short-term pain to achieve those goals, but we have our costs under control and can look to economic renewal in 1985. This is at a time when other governments are just starting to address the question of controlling government costs. The finance minister for Canada, Mr. Wilson, has stated that he looks to reducing the annual deficit by $4 billion to $5 billion in the coming year. The only way he's ever going to achieve that goal is to look at his cost of operating government, look at his programs, and he has to get his house in order. There'll certainly be some short-term pain if he is able to achieve that goal.

President Reagan announced budget-cutting proposals in December 1984. He wants to reduce his annual deficit from $200 billion, which is 5 percent of the gross national product in the United States, to $100 billion, or 2 percent of the gross national product, by 1988. How is he going to do it? He's stated that he has to look at reductions in the medicare program, in aid to college students, in support programs to farmers and in pay to federal employees. Those are just a few of his initiatives to try to get his deficit spending under control. The point I make is that this government identified this problem in 1982, took action in 1983, and we have our house in order. Now we can, as the throne speech says, offer a helping hand to the private sector to assist it in its recovery.

The throne speech talks about tax relief. Last fall the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) toured this province talking to the business community, the municipalities, the labour union leaders to find out where they felt the heavy burden of government was and how we could correct it. He's going to introduce his budget next week, and I think at that time we will be able to see some of the results of his work over the past several months.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) did the same thing. He went out and talked to the municipalities. He wants to work, as it states in the throne speech, in partnership with municipalities to achieve economic renewal, at the local level.

The throne speech also states that we're looking to the creation of a commissioner for critical industries. That commissioner and the commission would be there to assist industries in their effort to recover from some of the difficulties they've experienced in the past. That commissioner of critical industries would bring together business, management, the labour unions and the government to work in partnership to resolve some of the problems so that those businesses become competitive in a world marketplace. It's not a handout, but a helping hand to assist the recovery of industries which have been ravaged by a worldwide recession. Success will only result if we are to be competitive in the world marketplace, and in British Columbia we have the greatest potential to compete in that marketplace if we can assist our industries in being competitive.

[ Page 5150 ]

When I say that we have the greatest potential, I want to give you another quote, from Maclean's magazine:

"In 1983, Canadian exports to Asia bypassed our trade with Europe. Nearly half our immigrants now come from the Pacific, compared to less than a third who still arrive from Europe. Our trade with South Korea alone rivals that of our total commerce with France. Yet we still short-sightedly peer towards Europe, hunting for business prospects. According to recent data from the Asian Development Bank, Canadian firms bid on only 23 of the 2,100 projects put out for tender in the Asia-Pacific area in the past two years."

That's an indication of why we need a Minister of International Trade to represent British Columbia in those areas where there is tremendous opportunity for us to export our goods and services, and to improve the lifestyle of the people in British Columbia as a result of additional jobs and new products being created here.

Mr. Speaker, the other report I have, from the Wharton Economic Outlook, also indicated the opportunities that we have on the Pacific Rim. I just quote these words: "The Pacific Rim developing countries are expected to have the highest growth rates at 5.6 percent. Next is Japan at 3.8 percent, followed by the total for all developing countries of 3.7 percent." The greatest amount of growth is going to take place in the Pacific Rim and in Japan, and we are Canada's gateway to the Pacific Rim. Because of transportation systems that have been developed, because of new rail lines, because of double-tracking, because of port facilities, we have not only tremendous opportunities as an expediter of products but opportunities for B.C. industries to get out there and obtain new markets. This government will assist, through the appointment of my colleague as Minister of International Trade. He's a respected representative of this province in the world marketplace, well known in the Pacific Rim countries, and he will do a great deal, I'm sure, to assist the private sector in finding new markets.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The opportunities are there, Mr. Speaker. All we have to do is seize them. We as a government can't do it alone. It must be a partnership, and we all must want to be part of the recovery. All of us, Mr. Speaker, means business, labour and the government. Business has got to recognize that it has a responsibility to produce a good-quality product at a competitive price. The workforce must take pride in their workmanship. They must recognize the need for efficiency in the workplace if their employer, the man who pays them the cheque, is to compete in the marketplace. And the government must recognize that excessive taxation only results in making the private sector less competitive and excessive regulation only stifles the private sector. We must have — and I am confident in saying we will have — a continuing commitment as a government to be lean and efficient, and to ensure that the taxpayer's dollar is well managed and well spent. A three-way partnership to success: business, labour and government; a tremendous opportunity to achieve great success in the coming years through the 1980s.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments about my constituency. This happens to be the one speech in which we can expand our point of view and give some good news about the area we represent. I have some mayors in the House today, if they're still there. I want to pay a compliment to a few of them up there.

Talking about partnership, I saw the greatest example of partnership at the recent 1985 B.C. Winter Games, hosted by Osoyoos and Oliver. There were 2,000 athletes and 2,400 volunteers, and I have to tell the mayors who are here today that everywhere I went, when I visited the various sites, the people said: "Isn't it great to have the communities working together? Isn't it great to have all these athletes, both young and old, out here competing in friendly competition?"

I want to publicly congratulate Mr. Howard Engel, the president of the Osoyoos 1985 Winter Games Society, his board and all their volunteers for a tremendous job; and Mayor Bob Frost, who in 1983 submitted the bid on behalf of Osoyoos, and then joined forces with Mayor Dick Topping and the people of Oliver to make the 1985 B.C. Winter Games a one hundred percent success. My hat is off to the people of Oliver and Osoyoos for a job well done.

There is one major issue in my constituency. I notice my good friend and colleague the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) is here. He usually sits through these speeches, because he knows that every member is going to ask him about roads, and I'm not going to be any exception. The reconstruction of Highways 97 and 3 is most important to us in the south end of the province. The number one priority identified by the regional districts and the communities in my area is the road from Penticton to Summerland, which is a very scenic road, beautiful to drive. However, it is very dangerous when the tourist season is at its height. It is a windy road, only two lanes, and numerous accidents have occurred on it. Recently my colleague the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and I met with the councils and the regional district directors, and they identified this as the number one priority in the area. I hope the Minister of Highways gives it serious consideration. I know the mayors are going to be meeting with him shortly. I think it would be an opportunity for us to make sure that the tourist industry benefits by improved transportation systems in the Okanagan valley.

Moving from that to my ministry, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I have to tell you that we have been attempting to do our job in becoming lean and efficient. We recognize that because we are a regulatory ministry we create an awful lot of red tape. In playing our part in recovery, I have had my staff in all departments and divisions review their procedures over the past year and create improvements where there was the opportunity to do so. We've improved in the processing of documents; we've eliminated a number of unnecessary demands re reporting, etc., in the private sector. We're not perfect, Mr. Speaker, but we've come a long way in working with the representatives of the business community to eliminate delays.

ICBC. I'm no longer the minister responsible, but I have to tell you that I'm proud of the organization and its work in the area of prevention and in providing good service to the motoring public at a reasonable price. It is in good financial shape, with a reasonable surplus and adequate reserves.

Mr. Speaker, in the time that I have left — and maybe you could give me some indication what it is, because I don't want to get half way through this — I want to mention two items that I as an MLA would like to see resolved while I am in office. They are very controversial issues. One deals with Indian affairs. In 1975 I came to the Legislature. I was to make my maiden speech in 1976, and I went to a former colleague, Mr. Allan Williams. I said: "What do you speak

[ Page 5151 ]

about in your maiden speech?" He said: "The best advice I can give you is to go to Hansard and look up some old speeches." I did. I looked up an old speech that Mr. Williams gave in 1966. It was an excellent speech and one that dealt with Indian affairs. In 1976, when I made my maiden speech, I too talked about Indian affairs. I have made many statements in this House and elsewhere on this subject since that time.

It is now 1985, and I'm not sure whether we are any closer to a solution. What I want with regard to the affairs of British Columbia and Canadian Indians is equality. I want the Indian child and the white child to have equal opportunities. I want the Indian and the white man to have equal opportunity in education and in the workplace. I think we can achieve that goal. I don't believe in aboriginal rights for the Indian. I do believe that he can retain his culture and at the same time determine his destiny just like any other Canadian. A massive change has to take place, in my opinion, to give the young Indian boy or girl a future full of opportunity, while still retaining their proud heritage. I don't have the answers, but I sincerely hope that politicians, both white and Indian — those people who gather around the tables to discuss the constitution and the Charter of Rights — don't get caught up in the parliamentary rhetoric of land claims, aboriginal rights, etc. Let's not try and rearrange the sands of time. Let's address ourselves to the future, because the future is where our success lies. The future has to be in equal opportunity for white man and Indian alike.

[2:45]

The second item I would like to comment on deals with the B.C. Labour Code. It is the responsibility, in my opinion, of politicians and labour leaders to ensure there is equity in that code. Partisan positions must be put aside if we are to achieve equality in labour-management matters in British Columbia. One example that I feel is not equality is the matter of secondary picketing, which we as government have addressed in the past. But I do not think we have been fair and just to innocent third parties.

I am told that delivery trucks are considered to be an extension of the primary place of business; therefore they can be picketed at the time of delivery. Mr. Speaker, that's an innocent third party that is accepting the delivery, the small businessman who has to be faced with a picket line because he orders goods from an industry or a business that is struck; I think it is wrong. I think the dispute should be with the party with which you have a contract. The dispute is not with the third party, and that third party should not have to suffer. I think that should be addressed.

Public sector unions organizing in the private sector. Mr. Speaker, I am well aware, and don't have to be told by Mr. Richards, that collective bargaining rights for the provincial employees became law in November 1973. The Labour Relations Board subsequently granted union certification to 25,000 direct government employees on March 8, 1974 –– I don't have to be told that in addition to the government service bargaining unit, the BCGEU holds over 75 certifications for bargaining units spread throughout the province. These certifications, which are held by the BCGEU under the Labour Code, are private sector certifications, and any one of them can also be rated pursuant to the Labour Code. I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker. I know that — and I am quoting from a letter to the editor by Mr. Richards, president of the BCGEU — and that is not the issue I am raising.

1 am raising the issue that although the Labour Code allows it, it is wrong; I cannot accept that concept. The public sector union receives dues from public sector employees, who are paid by taxes from the businesses in the private sector. The public sector, in many cases, is not impacted by economic downturn, as is the private sector. I do not feel that we should be looking at allowing the public sector union to organize in the private sector. I feel that the demands and the decisions to have work stoppages are not influenced by the same criteria in a public sector union. I think that if there were negotiations by a public sector executive negotiator — if they were organized in the private sector — their decisions would be influencing the fact that the massive size of the public sector union is within the public sector, and the small businesses that would be organized by the public sector in the private sector could be seriously impacted, because of the non-understanding of what happens in the private sector when the economy turns down, when your product isn't selling and when your cost of productions are so high that you're non-competitive. It's a different world. I recognize that Mr. Richards has the ability and the right under the present Labour Code to do what they are attempting to do in the hospitality industry. I just say, as an individual and as an MLA representing an area, that it's wrong.

Mr. Speaker, those two issues, the Indian question and the Labour Code, I raise as the MLA for Boundary-Similkameen, a right I have in this House. I live in an area with a substantial Indian population; I can see the young people coming up, and I would like to make sure that they have every opportunity to succeed, the same as the white child.

1 also live in an area which is largely related to the hospitality industry. I can tell you that the businessmen in my community are concerned by the strategy of the BCGEU to organize that hospitality industry. I only hope, Mr. Speaker, the government and the parties concerned can reach a resolution on these issues which will be in the best interests of all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say I look forward to an exciting year. The Throne Speech outlines the strategy for economic recovery. I am pleased to support it, and I would hope that all members of this House would work in partnership to carry out the thrust of the throne speech in the coming months.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I want to say thanks for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the members on this side of the House in opposing the limited concepts that are in the throne speech with respect to economic recovery. However, I must say that in doing so, I sympathize with the government in its attempts to find solutions to the complex problems of having a healthy economy in this province. I don't think that we've found there to be much value in being negative. I'm sure that all those members on that side of the House do care about finding solutions to the difficulties that we face in this province. So when they announced a few years ago that it was necessary to impose a restraint program harshly upon the people of British Columbia, it was, in their wisdom, the wise course to take. Unfortunately, as a result of those programs, we find ourselves today in a situation that is compounded in terms of adversity and hardship and fallout from those initiatives. In fact, it is being suggested by those who are analysts, in terms of details involved in fiscal policies and money management, that we will be hurting for some time to

[ Page 5152 ]

come. That brings no joy to this side of the house, and certainly not to myself.

I was disturbed, having recognized the government's attempt to find solutions, that the government did not really take advantage of the opportunity it had to bring some inspiration to the people of British Columbia. Not everything that we do is in black and white. It has to deal with the human element; it's not all in units and in squares. It's not all the bottom line of dollars and cents. One of the things we've learned in society is that all of the expertise in the world, all the academic analysis, the charting of courses, the studies and the details, the research, the surveys, all the statistical data we can put together and all of the computer and technological use of advanced systems of forecasting results.... None of that seems to work without keeping in mind the purpose for which it is being implemented. We are concerned about British Columbians as human beings. I fear that in our zealousness to expound the virtues of good business practices to the exclusion of the fact that there are the people involved, people with varying experiences and varying degrees of comprehension and understanding, and people in the millions, not just in British Columbia and Canada.... This is a situation in the world, a situation that we simply must address seriously. It's a much more difficult task for us as legislators to try to incorporate that human element into those statutes we can conveniently design to deal with turns and twists in the bureaucracy.

It was a tragic, but noble and honest, gesture on the part of Mr. John Munro — the federal Minister of Fisheries, I believe that's his name...?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think that was the other man.

MR. BARNES: What was his name?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Fraser.

MR. BARNES: Fraser, thank you. I knew there was something wrong with that.

What I'm saying is that that man said something that really shook me when he said: "It was my fault." Imagine a politician saying it was his fault, when he had all the excuses in the world that we all use all the time when we alienate the public. By hiding behind our office or our ministerial privilege, by the benefits of being a member of this House, we say: "I don't have to be responsible; I'm only a legislator. There are limits on what I can do, and I have to make these rules." But here's a man saying: "It was my fault. I should have maybe looked a little closer at the implications and consequences of cutting out that program at UBC, because look what happened."

I don't really think it was his fault, as such, but this is the kind of detail we have to look at when we start cutting programs. It's not just in that program. Sure, you cut a program, but you're dealing with human beings. When we cut those programs in the high schools — particularly the special needs programs, not just for people who are disadvantaged because of economic reasons, but those who are disadvantaged because of affluence.... Some of them are very bright, and don't get the special attention; it's not just the ones who are without.

The politician who is going to be effective in the future is going to have to stop and say: "Hey, we're not just going to take this raw material and move on it without considering the implications and consequences for human beings." Human beings. People. We should all take a course; we should back up a few steps and consider the implications and consequences of our actions.

When the restraint program was initiated in April of 1983, and we had our infamous dirty dozen — it developed into something like 24 or 26 or 30 pieces of legislation, but there were about 12 pieces that we called the dirty dozen — there was a hue and cry from across this province, from one end to the other, from everybody from every walk of life. Educators, people in organized labour, students, teachers, professional people, business people — everybody was concerned about the initiatives that the government was taking, and we all claimed that the government was using it as an ideological war, an attempt to get even with their enemies, because some of the things that were being done were just not rational and made no sense at all. There couldn't be any valid, logical, sensitive, concerned reason for doing what the government was doing, except to try to impose something, to subvert the democratic process. We had 25,000 people standing on the lawn in front of this Legislature at one time trying to get attention.

This is what I mean, Mr. Speaker. It's just not good enough for the government to stand here and impose legislation. It's just not good enough for the government to use rhetoric. Even the rhetoric, I suggest, is getting slimmer and slimmer in the throne debate. Less and less is being said. In any event, rhetoric in itself is an insult if there is no opportunity for the people to participate.

[3:00]

The government has started an initiative which further demonstrates the lack of confidence that the public has on behalf of a government that uses rhetoric. They talked about "Let's Talk About Schools, " suggesting to the people of British Columbia that they would have an opportunity to discuss in detail all aspects of the public school system in terms of the scope of the school system, what it was supposed to accomplish, what kind of experiences young children were going to get in terms of employment opportunities, academic development, social skills — in other words, the ability to survive in the workplace, not just simply to survive but to be able to be constructively involved in the socio-economic system. That has fallen somewhat as an exciting idea in the eyes of the public, because the government is saying one thing and imposing its will, despite what it's saying.

One of the opportunities that the government had in the throne speech that it failed to expand upon — barely touching on one of the most important topics in the world today — was an idea that was introduced several years ago through the United Nations and was to be supported in 1985: International Youth Year. I don't believe International Youth Year has been fully appreciated by the people of British Columbia. I don't think we understand what the opportunities could be if we were to use this as an opportunity to inspire people.

I want to tell you what happened about International Youth Year in the province of Manitoba compared to the province of British Columbia. In the province of Manitoba last year, just by way of seed money, in anticipation of this great opportunity to rally interest and to excite some awareness of a group of people, which, incidentally, in British Columbia represents almost half a million.... In the 1981 census there were 490,610 people between the age of 15 and 24 living in British Columbia.

[ Page 5153 ]

By the way, that particular group of people represents something like 40 percent of the 16 percent unemployed in this province. In the province of Manitoba they appropriated $250,000 last year in preparation for the event. In addition, a $1.1 million budget was provided, with a staff of ten. They are spending half a million dollars for grants and projects. These funds are not for salaries or for workshops at conferences; they are specific funds made available for people to do their own thing. And the government is still paying its fair share. There is a youth committee of 22 members appointed by the cabinet to function as youth ambassadors of good will. These people will be able to travel around the province and review projects and make recommendations. In other words, it's a participatory approach by the youth in Manitoba. They are given an opportunity to reflect upon the situation and to feel relevant, to have a sense of meaning — that type of participation, compared to the government making a rhetorical announcement, and having little in the way of opportunities available for the youth of British Columbia to actually get involved. To my knowledge, the only real initiative that has happened in British Columbia has been the designation of an advisory committee, without a budget and without any real authority to initiate action in the community.

Mr. Speaker, I'm really very sorry that the province has failed to take advantage of an opportunity that has been provided by International Youth Year. But who are the youth of British Columbia? I'm sure that when I mention a figure of nearly half a million, I'm not talking about an absolutely disadvantaged group of people. We're talking about some people who come from wealthy families. Many have had good educations and are the proud inheritors of family fortunes and estates. Many of them are studying to go into professions. They are not all destitute or disadvantaged. But they are all members of a group of people who are viewed in a light other than as equal citizens. There are those small numbers who become very large when you consider the inequities in our system, when you stop and think of the ones who are disadvantaged. It's a long list of people who fall into that category. The demography of this province is changing day by day. It is estimated that there will be only about 4 million people in that age range by the end of this century, compared to 4.7 million today. As the minister of universities pointed out, there is a decline in enrolment in schools. There are many factors and reasons for that, but that doesn't change the needs of those people who are here. We're not just dealing in numbers; we're talking about people. Whether the scale goes up or down, the quality is what we're concerned about. It's not dollars and cents. It's consequences, because of neglect and failure, that we have to deal with.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the demography is changing. It is not a status quo. There are more and more people from visible minorities who are making up the population — the so-called "ethnic community," of which we are all members. But in terms of standards and the established order of things, status quo usually excludes those people who are in the visible minorities: new Canadians, the immigrants, the people who have English as a second language — not their major mother tongue — and who have some difficulty communicating and participating in the marketplace, having access to the various services that are available in society, and being able to compete equally. In other words, statutorily we may say they have an equal opportunity, because it says so right here in our bill of rights, in our new Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which will soon be made available. It will be a document that guarantees certain rights and freedoms. But you know, a document is only as good as your ability to have access to it, only as good as your ability to utilize it, to maximize those benefits. And you know, in this province, that government, in its restraint program, cut back on the access to the justice system and on access to these laws. To get those equal opportunities, quite often you have to have legal representation, you have to have the ability to protest, the ability to appeal, the ability to make your case. Many of these people don't even speak the language. They have no idea about what we're talking about. But we can always say to them: "You have the right. You have an equal right, provided you have the ability to use the facilities and the resources that are available."

You know, there was a scam that was done on the labour movement in the United States, and it still goes on today. We call it the right-to-work syndrome. It's an approach to telling people that they have the right to starve by separating themselves one by one. So we've got to be careful when someone tells you about your rights. What we want are results. I suspect that the results that we would like are wanting under the government's new initiatives.

I wrote the Minister of Labour not too long ago and asked him to indicate the plans that were going to be in place in supporting youth employment and opportunities for youth during 1985. I did get a reply back from the minister thanking me for my interest and concern and telling me that his ministry will place increased emphasis on those questions that I addressed. "Increased emphasis": that's got to be a positive response. My problem is that the increase will be based on last year's contribution, which was wanting. I'm concerned that the ministry, in all its good intentions, should survey the situation and the need. Why doesn't the government invest in a task force on youth led by youth to go around this province and find out what the needs are, and for the government to have a resolve and a commitment to try and do something about it?

We have so many people in this province who care about the province, but who cannot got involved. They can vote federally by the time they are 18, but in this province they can't vote until they are 19, just as a small point. In the province of British Columbia you are told that if you are 24 years of age you don't have the same rights as someone 25 years of age, unless you are the head of a family, but as an individual you are going to be discriminated against. These kinds of things that go on all the time, abuses.... It was only a few years ago that we finally got the law changed with respect to discrimination against young people because of driving. If you were 25 years of age, prior to 1972, as you remember, the assigned risk program under the private automobile insurance.... We got that changed a decade later to the point where a driver was responsible for his actions, and it could not be passed on to someone next to him because they were of the same age. In other words, we got away from the actuarial rationale about all of them in the same category, just to charge them all the same thing and treat them all the same. We are now beginning to realize that these people are individuals.

What incentive can there be for a young person to try to be a good citizen, to try to live by the standards that we set down, suggested by our educators as good lines of direction for them to follow, when they're not going to receive the respect, the rewards and the opportunities? It's disillusioning

[ Page 5154 ]

and discouraging and in some cases an insult to their intelligence for us to take that approach. We all know that, Mr. Speaker, but why don't we resolve to go that extra step and start listening? What are we afraid of? Why can't we listen to the youth? Why don't we put them on the spot and look at them eyeball to eyeball and say: "Okay, look, let's cut out the dilly-dallying around. You need a job, you want to know about your future, you're tired of being uptight, you're afraid of a nuclear holocaust somewhere down the line, you don't trust our judgment. What are your thoughts?"

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

If we think that the youth are so important for the future and they are, then why don't we equip them so that they can do the job? What do we expect them to do — all of a sudden just become brilliant, emotionally mature, stable, confident, committed to the system that has been shafting them all along? What are they supposed to do? We're going to raise animals, the kind of competitors who cut the throat of their neighbour and everybody else in order to survive, because there is no sensitivity in this system the way it is. I think it's a shame.

[3:15]

It's a shame that in that throne speech there was no sincere recognition of the youth of this province, no sincere commitment to them and no initiative. We have a government that gives gratuitous statements to the federal House about how we're all for it, we support you, we believe that you're going the right way, and you have all of our sympathy, but we have no money. Now there is a government, if there ever was one, that knows the value of a dollar. What dollars are we spending on the youth?

The Minister of State for Youth, the Hon. Andree Champagne, was in the province recently, and she said that of our national budget of $24 million that had been set aside in a special program for youth during the Year of Youth, $12 million had been siphoned off in various ministries, so we only have $12 million left; but of that, $4 million was needed for administration and for projects that took place across Canada. Of the $8 million that was remaining, British Columbia received $302,150. Now you say: "What's the point? It's not our fault; that's the feds." The point is, have you made a protest? Have any of those ministers gone to Ottawa and said: "What's the idea of insulting us like this? What's going on?"

This article states that "...and that, going by the 1981 census, adds up to $1.62 for each of the 490,610 British Columbia residents between the ages of 15 and 24, just about enough to buy them a doughnut and a cup of coffee." That was in the Vancouver Sun, February 9, 1985. It's pretty obvious where the government's priorities are.

We're talking about cooperation, consultation in the sense of commonness, a common purpose despite our political differences, Mr. Speaker. You know, it's about time. As an MLA I'm tired of being offended by the public when they say: "All you politicians are the same." I don't like that. I didn't go through university to be insulted for the rest of my life, trying to do my job for the system. But they're right: we have a great deal of energy when it comes to attacking one another, but when it comes to dealing with the problems of the people in this province.... When we try to sit down and talk, try to find some room to play politics outside of direct service to the people so that we can get on with helping the province, all we get are stalls. "Well, we'll take a look at it. You're not really serious. We can't quite do it." We're the same people who would stand up and say: "We hope the peace talks are going to be successful." We can't even talk to our youth. Listen to what the youth have to say. I've got a long list of concerns that youth have. Everyone knows what that list is.

There is a paragraph here that I think might help to focus on the kinds of concerns that the youth have. It's called "The transition period in life," a period that I suggest is critical. The statistics are very revealing for the young people in the age range between 15 and 24. One of the problems identified by studies is that in Canada the transition from school to work has not been dealt with. Formal education, training and work experience have been kept separate. Young people attending school receive little or no practical employment experience and relatively little vocational training. There is a growing awareness in some European countries of the need to combine theoretical instruction with practical experience to smooth the transition from school to work. It mentions countries like Germany and Denmark where experiments are going on to try to rationalize these massive expenditures of moneys in the school system which are not yielding the kinds of results we need because of a lack of vision, of not recognizing the need for planning in getting off this horse that we've been riding into the ground called "free enterprise," "laissez-faire," "do your own thing," "we cannot afford it." Every intelligent person knows we cannot afford it. Let's forget about who had the wisdom to see it.

We need to plan. We need to know where we're going. No one who is serious spends capital in a business without getting feasibility studies, without some kind of prospectus and consultation, without investing a large amount of money to find out what is going on before they invest, including advertising, sampling or surveying. But what do we do? You bring in a budget. Who have you talked to? Your political friends. You're telling us about this budget that's going to come in. Will you be able to say that before you brought it in, several standing committees went around the province and talked to the people on a non-partisan basis, the basis upon which we should be getting our information, or will you be restricted to the Fraser Institute? You're not kidding anyone.

We know what can and should be done, and what must be done if we're going to get anywhere. The people of British Columbia turn their backs on this process, because we have not had the courage to face what we all know we've got to do. There's no reason why British Columbia cannot be the leader in the Pacific Rim. There's no reason why we can't lead the world in all kinds of ways: culturally, in our economic system, in the happiness that people have in their lives because of their access to the amenities, the so-called good life. There's no reason why not, but we'll have to have a little more confidence in the human spirit.

I have here the labours of some very good researchers who have outlined the problems that youth face. These are all documented. They're in the library, and we can all go and read them. We talk about poverty, the statistics on the people in that age range who are hard done by. We know who they are. The thing is, those are the people who can least defend themselves, who are least articulate as far as the political system is concerned, and the ones we're least concerned about electorally; so they get short shrift. It's as simple as that. But when they begin to mobilize, when we begin to

[ Page 5155 ]

equip them and they begin to understand that they are relevant, that there is something to this democratic idea about everyone's vote counting, then I think the politicians will be much more useful to them and we'll have a lot more honesty and resolve. We have the intelligence, the experience and ability, but we do not always apply it the way we should.

The people of British Columbia need us. Why don't we resolve to follow the example of the Leader of the Opposition, who said: "I am going to cooperate with the government if we have to drag them all the way." The people of British Columbia are demanding it, and we need it.

I can see, Mr. Speaker, that you're giving me the high sign. I will be voting against the throne speech. Although it's high on rhetoric, it's short on specifics.

HON. MR. PELTON: Before I start, I would like to compliment the first member for Vancouver Centre on his speech. I always enjoy listening to what he has to say and the way he says it, so I'm not going to go through the usual routine and take exception to anything that he said, but I have one or two things that I would like to say myself.

It's with very great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Speech from the Throne. British Columbians today have confidence and optimism in the future of their province. The initiatives outlined in the throne speech will further boost that optimism. I am fully confident that our government is helping to lead our province as we stand on the right track to economic renewal. The growing spirit of partnership and cooperation between our provincial government and the federal government, as exemplified by the recently signed ERDA agreement, is bringing together not only our municipal and provincial governments in productive initiatives but also British Columbia's employers and employees. We all must work together, putting aside our differences, to advance our opportunities for increased prosperity. The opposition has a responsibility to propose concrete, specific measures to meet the challenges our province faces. We welcome their commitment to abandoning personal attacks in favour of positive, cooperative dialogue. This, Mr. Speaker, is a responsibility of each member of this House.

There are many positive and optimistic developments taking place throughout our province. A number of my colleagues on the government side have already talked about the initiatives contributing to the economic growth in their own constituencies. They have illustrated vividly the new economic activity, new businesses, new jobs and individual expressions of confidence by our people in our province and its promise. Yet our full potential has not yet been reached, and it never can be until all British Columbians seeking jobs find productive, meaningful work. It is government's job to create the right economic climate in which individuals and businesses can thrive and grow. Each burst of growth brings another, with its new economic activities and new jobs.

Confidence builds on confidence. Renewed confidence is active today. There are investors both in and out of the province putting money to work in British Columbia right now. Many will come and look at our province before, during and after Expo. Through initiatives outlined in the throne speech and other positive initiatives yet to come, those looking to beautiful British Columbia will find a government that listens and understands the needs of small business people and investors, a government looking for ways to encourage and attract job creation and economic development. The government views investors as entrepreneurs who are coming forward to risk their money to create jobs, and to better their own lives and those of their employees and their customers.

A profitable business means jobs for British Columbians. It means economic growth. It means tax revenues for governments. Economic success does not compete with our social programs. It sustains and improves the quality of our health care, our education and of our social assistance programs. The best goal of government is to raise the living standard of all citizens — those in need and those supporting themselves and their families.

Jobs are created by both large and small businesses. Both foster economic activity and consumer spending in complement to each other. The jobs created by large industries aren't just at the plant itself. You inevitably find a wide variety of small businesses springing up all around most large projects or industrial operations. This spinoff effect feeds on our optimism and confidence, Mr. Speaker. The only limit to our economic growth in large and small business is our creativity and faith in ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point to five examples of cooperation turning into a success story in my own constituency of Dewdney. We have a new and exciting industry in Maple Ridge which will certainly bring long-term benefits not only for Maple Ridge but for the Fraser Valley and all of the province. Our new industry is Moli Energy Ltd., which will produce a revolutionary new type of battery. The development of these new batteries resulted from research work done right here in our province by a team of University of British Columbia scientists. Our provincial Social Credit government provided financing through the B.C. Development Corporation and the Science Council of British Columbia in support of this research. Because of the dedication and ultimate success of that team of scientists and because of the support of the government, Moli now has a two-year jump over its multinational competitors and rivals in Japan and the United States.

Approximately 250 new jobs and hundreds of spinoff jobs will be created. Moli will generate a $5 million annual payroll with the product's multimillion dollar potential. The spinoff benefits will be extensive. One of the first spinoff benefits will be going to Kamloops, where a related processing plant will be located.

[3:30]

We have seen the spirit of partnership bring success with the Moli Energy discovery. Recently our Premier spoke of the signing of the ten-year economic and regional development agreement with Ottawa. That agreement will greatly serve in the new economic growth of British Columbia, in the development of job-creating investment in our industries, in forestry, in mining, tourism, agriculture and science and technology. ERDA will contribute in visible and positive ways.

In my constituency of Dewdney there are many other positive examples of cooperation. Work has started on a new courthouse and police station complex in Maple Ridge. While work on construction of the police station is well underway and should be completed this summer, it is hoped the courthouse construction will begin shortly. I should point out that most of the people working on the $2 million police building are Maple Ridge residents.

Even though there are limited funds for capital spending in education, we have seen the construction of the Hillside

[ Page 5156 ]

Elementary School in Mission, for which I presented the community's case of a demonstrable need. I and the Ministry of Education totally agree that schools service the people, and that the demand for schooling should determine the supply rather than the supply of schooling itself determining our education policies.

Among our business communities in both Maple Ridge and Mission we have the downtown revitalization programs. The city of Mission had the official opening last fall. The Maple Ridge revitalization should be completed by this spring. It is initiatives such as these, Mr. Speaker, that show what cooperation between the provincial government and the municipal government and the business community can bring.

In the Maple Ridge project, there are some 119 merchants participating; some 15,000 man-hours of work are involved. The total cost of the project is about $300,000. In the spirit of partnership with the municipality of Maple Ridge the provincial government has provided a $225,000 low-interest loan on this downtown revitalization program. In Mission 106 merchants participated, with very many person hours of work involved; it was a $302,000 project. Once again the provincial government provided a $237,000 low-interest loan. I'm sure the revitalization of the downtown areas will benefit the citizens of both Maple Ridge and Mission as new businesses open and the existing downtown merchants attract new customers.

The constituency of Dewdney is growing. Many new subdivisions have opened up in the past two years, and in several cases they have been completely filled. Our local developers and builders are now looking for new areas to develop to keep up with the demand.

This growth is also reflected in what is happening to our Maple Ridge Community Credit Union. In the 1983-84 fiscal year they spent some $450,000 on capital projects in Maple Ridge, and some $50,000 in the community of Pitt Meadows. The credit union doubled the size of the Maple Ridge office, with the expanded premises officially opening in October 1983. To better serve Pitt Meadows customers the credit union opened a branch there in January 1984. That year was a good one for the credit union, as they increased their assets by more than $11 million, and gained 1,666 new members for a total of more than 13,000. With six employees at Pitt Meadows and 40 at Maple Ridge the credit union is now involved in business loans and again increasing staff. They have increased by 15 percent their loans to businesses and individuals. As well, deposits by their members have increased by 16 percent.

Mr. Speaker, we're hearing many examples of the entrepreneurial spirit. An individual sees an opportunity and risks his or her own dollars to fill that need, and in so doing creates employment. There are numerous examples, and one involves an outfit called Mr. Sparks, an electrical automotive repairman. In April 1982, in the midst of the recession, Mr. Sparks moved from a small outlet on the Lougheed Highway to larger premises on 227th Street in Maple Ridge. By early 1984 the business had grown not only from doing more service work but also from building parts. Mr. Sparks now plans to update machinery, add a computer system and open a second shop.

There is other good news. The Mary Hill bypass will soon be completed, thus providing Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows with better access to and from work and home. When I was the mayor of Maple Ridge, I actively supported completion of the bypass. As a result of further community involvement, my own efforts and those of my colleague, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks), we were able to announce last month that the hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) will include construction of two bridges connecting the bypass in his annual budget. If the Treasury Board approves the expenditure, possibly around $10 million, the structures could go to tender within a month or so, and barring any delays, the bridges could be completed by the year's end. Being the optimist that I am, I believe the project could prove very important in attracting industry and business people to the Dewdney area.

I am also pleased that our hon. Highways minister has worked with those of us in Dewdney to get the Albion ferry service schedule revised. This ferry will be, you might be interested to know, the first ferry on the continent to run on natural gas.

Other good news for Dewdney came when our hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) informed me last summer that the Assessment Authority office in Maple Ridge would remain in operation as before,

Mr. Speaker, the spirit of cooperation brings the people of British Columbia together to face our common challenges — the good result of reasoned, respectful debate, which we as Canadians can rightfully claim as one of our best traits. This was clearly illustrated last year when I had the pleasure of speaking on behalf of the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) at the British Columbia School Trustees' Association annual general meeting. I would like to share with you just a portion of a letter that I received from Bill Lefeaux-Valentine, the president of the BCSTA:

"You have taken the time to discover the issues, and you offered a perspective on them that was very useful. Let me say that I particularly appreciate and agree with your call for an end to confrontation. We are trying to contribute to unified effort and cooperation in the field of education with our 1986 World Congress on Education and Technology. Your government's agreement with the venture and its generous support was deeply appreciated. The spontaneous applause that your announcement received is echoed by all members of the association. Thank you."

Mr. Speaker, I've taken great pride today in pointing out how cooperation and partnership between the provincial and municipal governments, government and private enterprise and employers and employees has benefited the province and, in particular, the people of my constituency. The throne speech which, as a member of the government side of the House I also take pride in, further advances that spirit which we have seen at work throughout the province. It leads the way for increased communication and cooperation, especially between the provincial government and municipal governments. That partnership I firmly hold to be the most crucial one in bettering our economy and our people's quality of life. Local issues may not be very glamorous, but leadership and vision in our communities provides the bread-and-butter progress that all of us — individuals, families, neighbours — share in common. Our government has shown in the throne speech a strong commitment to working in partnership with our local communities to attract and develop business opportunities, to create jobs, and to supply the expertise and support to advance special projects.

[ Page 5157 ]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleagues to know that the government's efforts are believed in and appreciated by the people of Dewdney.

MR. STRACHAN: I would ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN: In our galleries today are Mr. Peter Forrest from Prince George and, from the great community of Bednesti Lake, Mr. Jim Gibson. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I see a bright future for B.C. I really do, despite what my good old friend was talking about a few minutes ago. I see a bright future for B.C. Let me outline what that future is. At long last the Socreds are entirely without credibility. The province can look forward to an NDP government for sure next time. And if anything tells us that, it has to be this throne speech that we have just had visited upon us. There are some deathbed repentance statements in there — there's no question about it. But Mr. Speaker, you go across this province.... I have often said that New Westminster is a microcosm of B.C., and I've been around that town and many other towns, particularly over the last few months, watching the Socreds' credibility crumble slowly but surely, even in the most unexpected places. Places that I have known for years to be the forefront of the Socred support are no longer in that particular category, and that happens to apply in every constituency in this province.

Nothing that has happened to date has given any kind of confidence to the people in this province in that government over there. That government has put us into the most unusual position in this province of being the last province in Canada in terms of any way of calculating just what that might mean economically.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the people can look forward to B.C. getting back on the rails. They can look forward to that because we have a constitution that says there must be an election within a five-year period. So the people don't have to live with them any longer than another two-odd years. Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, we're assured of that now.

Let me outline a few criticisms I have. One could take almost every word of this throne speech and criticize it. They talk about economic renewal on the second page of this throne speech. They say something along the lines that British Columbians having shared the adversity of the international recession.... We shared it? We had a monopoly on it. It's been over in most jurisdictions across North America, but here we are, not only sharing it but having it all to ourselves. Now that's leadership. That's monumental leadership. Sharing an international recession indeed!

[3:45]

What we should have done in this province.... The minister who just left suggested that there should be statements outlining our direction from time to time from the opposition. We had that this morning from the Leader of the Opposition. He spelled it out better, I believe, than I have heard it spelled out for years in this House from anybody. But in any event, had this government been thoughtful when the recession really got going, instead of that monumental speech on, I believe, February 18, 1982, that told us the direction we were going to go and all that restraint and belt-tightening that was going to happen....  We should have embarked upon a way to defeat the recession then instead of pouring gasoline on the flames, which is precisely what we have done.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, because where are we? At that point in history we had an unemployment of 8.4 percent, and now we're over 16 percent. Marvellous track record now that we're in line with poor old Newfoundland, which has never gotten out of their first recession.

Mr. Speaker, this province doesn't deserve what it has undergone. I go back to the throne speech: "Having restrained public sector costs and thus preventing the buildup of massive debt...." and on and on it goes. Well, we didn't. By pulling in that belt so tight, we incurred larger debts than we would have otherwise done. We impoverished people in this province like no other government has ever done. We impoverished them to the extent that they couldn't pay taxes and so couldn't pay the debts of the province. To indicate even lightly that we haven't incurred massive debts is beyond reason. I won't go back to 1975 when we had no public debt whatsoever in terms of our operating budget. But just go back to the outset of this "restraint" time, and we'll find that we've more than doubled our debt since then, including Crown corporations.

Then we get to the next part and talk about new challenges. This is an impressive document if you just read the titles. Go from one page to another: New Challenges, Renewal Initiatives, The Forest Picture, and so forth. But the context of the speech doesn't give us anything to rejoice about. Under "New Challenges" we say: "As British Columbia continues to adjust and position itself within the next global economy...." Let's analyze that for a second. We understand that the recession was over some time ago in other jurisdictions, particularly in the United States. Now we're told by a lot of economists that our expectation in this "global economy" might be another recession. Are we to be in a position where we don't recover from one before we get into another? We should have been on the road to recovery at the outset, rather than after it's over and waiting for the next to occur.

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we do have a tremendous potential in this province. As the throne speech indicates, it's limitless, and it's because of our people and our natural resources — fresh water and energy. What have we been doing with these resources? We have been limiting their use by virtue of the fact that the government has pulled in that belt so tightly there is no possible way to harness them. They talk about harnessing the skills and talents of our people. Again this word "partnership." In terms of harnessing the skills and talents of our people, we heard today that the president of the University of British Columbia has resigned. That man turned down the presidency of the University of Toronto to come here. He could have gone from SFU to the University of Toronto, and a British Columbian at that. He could have gone to that major university in Toronto, yet turned them down because of the opportunity to go to UBC. Now, because of.... I've no doubt that his reason for leaving is the constant barrage of cuts that has hit that university, and we're talking here about harnessing skills and talents? I understand that he's going to a smaller university — Western. That's

[ Page 5158 ]

quite a comedown from the University of Ontario. I bet he's wondering now whether or not he made a mistake. I don't think he's wondering at all.

It goes on with renewal initiatives in the next paragraph, talking about training "our young people for new opportunities." If you turn to page 9 — just a little bit at the end of page 8 — what do we find? "Excellence in higher education." That really says an awful lot. The title's good enough, because it gives absolutely no words that one can use as comfort or with confidence that there is actually going to be any improvement in that particular area. It talks about a scholarship program. Isn't that marvellous? They cancelled all the student loans and grants, and now they're talking about a scholarship program. That might appeal to an elitist like the minister of science and technology, but what about the ordinary people who have to go to university, and that's their only way of getting in and proceeding with their education so that they can in fact be those young people to look after the opportunities of the future? We're denying them that. My colleague says: "That's leadership." It's the kind of government that this province needs to get away from, and will get away from very shortly. When they call the election, this government will be finished — not only finished, but finished forever. Once the Socreds go down in flames the next time, they will be gone forever, and with justification. They will go back to their original reserves — the Liberals and the Conservatives. They will never fly again as Socreds. They've ruined that name. What little image they did have is gone now.

Mr. Speaker, this goes on on page 9 to talk about employment training. We've heard all about employment training; we've heard that employment training is just not happening. All we have to do is look at BCIT, which is the heart of technological training in this province — cut, cut, cut, program after program. Are there a few MLAs around here? If there are, I imagine you get some letters; and if you get some letters, I imagine you're getting some letters from BCIT outlining the cuts in that important program. You know we get them from time to time, from day to day, but those cuts have been going on for some time — to the point that BCIT has been very badly damaged.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What program? The whole health program there has been absolutely mired into the ground. The lab program there, as you perfectly well know, has been badly hurt. Every program at BCIT has to suffer because of the budget cuts. When that member wants to get up and make a few presentations about how great it is.... He might even make his presentation about PVI, and that's as shameful as anything I've ever seen. Talk about irrelevant education in terms of job training!

This is the kind of throne speech which, if one were to read it carefully, would tend to spoil one's supper. Under the forest picture I see that I'm advised our important forest industry continues to face increasingly competitive markets, blah, blah, blah. Let me tell you what some of those things have done. I listened to the member for Dewdney (Hon. Mr. Pelton) tell us about 250 jobs. I've heard it described as 40 and 80 and 250, whatever it is — nice new industry. All those folks are going to be employed in Dewdney. I hope they take the 150 employees from Lamford Cedar in New Westminster that just closed down. I hope they take the people from Timberland — 200 jobs that are going down the drain on June 1. That's 350 jobs in a matter of just a few months. And that's just the larger ones. We see in this province a bankruptcy rate which is 300 percent higher than that of any other province.

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of throne speech that should have been written by a government that really had a new direction. Unfortunately it wasn't. But there will be an NDP throne speech read in this House in the not too distant future. That throne speech will give the first direction this province has seen for years.

I'm embarrassed when I go home and I have to face the people and tell them Lamford Cedar may never see the light of day again, and those 150 jobs with it. Timberland as well — another 200 jobs. Yet I hear them talking over there about harnessing this marvellous human resource of ours. Where will those people go for retraining? Will they go to PVI, or will they go to BCIT, or will they go on unemployment insurance and ultimately social welfare?

[4:00]

I'm not going to deal very much with that coal export business. It's just been a great big embarrassment. Why would the government even put that in a throne speech — anything about coal? Surely coal is one of the biggest embarrassments of this province. Debt, debt, and for what? To compete with ourselves so that the Japanese have us whipsawed. They can say: "Well, look, we're not going to pay this for that when we can get it cheaper down there" — and back and forth. It's bad enough that we have to compete with the rest of the world, but now we've decided we want to compete with ourselves. Mr. Speaker, I think they should have left that out entirely.

Now I get to this marvellous commissioner of critical industries. I'll give you a suggestion for that commissioner: give it to Ed Peck. He's underemployed; he's got nothing to do. He never did have anything to do. He shouldn't have had anything to do in this province, where we believe in freedom in labour negotiations. In other jurisdictions in this country, where they haven't had an Ed Peck, they've been getting the same kinds of agreements that we've got here — with better economics, the same kinds of agreements. The member over there shakes his head.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not true.

MR. COCKE: Take a look at the facts. It's absolutely true. As an aside, it was lucky that they canned him off the transit board. Finally the transit commissioners signed a contract. It took them a long time, but they got it back on the track.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He derailed it.

This new czar, I gather, will be the person who will report to our new traveling salesman. Probably all of us have seen the B.C. Business Bulletin for the month of March. It has reported on the grassroots businessman. There's a picture of the hon. member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the new minister of gigantic industry and selling B.C. all over the place. There are two pictures here that are appropriate. He's standing under a "for sale" sign. "B.C. is for sale," he's telling the world. We've always known that. It's ironic that this grassroots businessman is carrying parsley. He's doesn't even know grass from parsley, and he goes over to

[ Page 5159 ]

Japan, Europe or someplace else to try to sell parsley instead of grass.

It could be that he could get us into a good deal of trouble. Let me tell you why he can get us into a good deal of trouble. This is the kind of thing that he is quoted as saying: "The other provinces all criticized us when we were the first ones to begin the restraint programs. Now they're doing it. Well, we've got our spending in order." Would you listen to that! The other provinces saw the error in the way.... Look at Manitoba and the difference between Manitoba and B.C., where their unemployment rate is down at the bottom of the country.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member over there says the government of Manitoba may be going down the tube. I can guarantee that for this government. I can guarantee that the Socreds are finished as a party and as a group governing the province forever. They will all go burrowing back to their old happy hunting grounds. There will be Liberals, and there will be Conservatives, but the Socreds will be dead and gone forever. Thankfully for the people of B.C., this party, the NDP, will finally be able to reconstruct the province for the good of the people.

They want us to talk about our federal role here. They tell us what a marvellous thing it was that they got the amendments to the Foreign Investment Review Act and the changes in the national energy program. Let me tell you what they are saying: they agree with those giveaways. They say to themselves: "Well, heck, we've always been handmaidens to the United States of America. Why not let's go back to that? Why not let's just give them everything we've got?" That's exactly the direction of the Socreds — and, with a little hesitancy, I must admit, of the federal Conservatives. While the federal Conservatives have their heads in the same kind of unrealistic economic world that these people do, at least they have the political sense to realize that you don't wreck a country in order to prove some theories. These people, the Socreds, have wrecked this province in order to prove that what the Fraser Institute said was right. What they've proven for ever and a day is that the Fraser Institute was wrong.

One thing I love to see is when Brian Mulroney is asked a question about B.C. He does the fastest shuffle, the sweetest dance, of anybody I've ever seen. He distances himself so quickly from this Social Credit government that you'd think he was in a 100-yard dash. Not arm's length — no, he runs as fast as his legs can carry him away from any kind of stigma that he might get from being associated in any way, shape or form with this government.

The Vancouver Island pipeline. We've got that announcement again in this throne speech. Aren't we all thrilled?

MR. VEITCH: Have some faith.

MR. COCKE: "Have some faith, " the member says. How many times have we seen this announcement — always contingent, however, upon something. Mr. Speaker, it's stalled and will continue to be stalled. I think what the Leader of the Opposition did this morning was very useful. He was talking about alternatives to this pipeline that may or may not happen within our lifetime or within our children's lifetime. In any event, Vancouver Island needs inexpensive energy now. They don't need to wait for the next 10, 20, or 50 years. They need it now.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to go very much further in this speech, because I'm going to let some of my colleagues do some of the rest of it. But I'd just like to say that it would be nice if we could conserve jobs. Again we've got this new technology and talking about Moli Energy and so on and so forth, but I just say, wouldn't it have been nice if we could have conserved jobs rather than creating those new jobs? I like the idea of creating the new jobs, but wouldn't it be nice if we could keep our people working rather than letting them go down the tube?

I would just like to say one or two words about ICBC while I've got a second. Selling off general insurance was one of the worse things that could have been done by this government — absolutely a stupid move. It was a paying proposition, it keeps the rest of the industry honest in terms of rates and so on, and it provides coverage for formerly uncovered areas; people in the north and in the outlying areas know that as well as I do. There were days when they couldn't get coverage and there will be those days again. It's a good adjunct to auto insurance because you use personnel to the best advantage. What a stupid business mistake to make!

WCB. I'm going to spend some more time on that in the budget. I think that rehab cuts of 15 percent were crazy.

I'd just like to say one word about New Westminster. Our waterfront has been under development as long as that new Social Credit government has been in existence — ever since 1976 — and it has been a disaster. Jimmy Pattison is coming along to help bail them out. I hope it works. He's announced a market down there — a building and one thing and another. I really hope it works. You've got a long way to go.

Another thing I'd like to say just before I'm finished: the ALRT has disrupted a lot of small business along lower Columbia and downtown. I hope that ALRT will at least reimburse those small businesses rather than drive them to the brink of bankruptcy, for the amount of economic pain and suffering that they've had to bear.

I see that the light has gone red. I'll have to do the rest under the budget or somewhere else. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your patience, and I hope everybody recognizes that I'm not going to vote for this particular motion that's before this House.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the member for New Westminster, speaking for the official opposition, faces us with a frightening prospect. Big government, he says, is inevitable, and in the form of the NDP it would indeed be frightening. Led by a welfare statist with a state socialist as his principal lieutenant — I'm referring to the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) — it would drive business out of the province. It certainly would lend to our problem of unemployment. It would increase the number of people without jobs. It would be the opposite to growth. It would remove the engine which basically provides the income from which our social services are financed.

Traditionally in the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, as you know, the members rise and congratulate the Speaker. I want to congratulate you for your election as Deputy Speaker and congratulate also my colleague from North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) on his election as chairman of the Committee of the Whole House.

It also gives me an opportunity to get a concern of mine off my chest. I am concerned about big government. I am

[ Page 5160 ]

concerned about big businesses that are unregulated monopolies. I am concerned about big labour that tends to run roughshod over the interests of the majority of the population. And so bigness concerns me — and big government most of all.

I'm concerned, to be explicit, about the growth of the executive in this chamber. I think the executive is too large. We have one master — that is, most of us — and that master is our constituents, those who voted for us, those whom we serve. But those who are members of the executive serve two masters. The members of the executive — and I'm talking about the Premier and members of the cabinet and, currently, by extension, parliamentary secretaries, who have to observe secrecy in respect to at least some areas of government — have another master.

[4:15]

1 think it is unfortunate in any Legislature when the members of the executive — who serve two masters, not just one — make up 50 percent or more of the membership of the House. I think that is fundamentally wrong. I have said that before in this chamber, and I repeat it.

Presumably when the number of seats in this House increases to 66, the executive on its present scale will not make up 50 percent of the House. But it today can not only dictate to the House, in the sense of bringing in bills which no one sees until they're prepared, but it has the power within its own membership to pass that legislation, and I think that's wrong. I don't know of another chamber in the parliamentary tradition, at least, where the combined membership of the executive is larger than the remnant of independent MLAs or Members of Parliament in the chamber. I think that's fundamentally wrong and it concerns me.

I have spoken in favor of a smaller cabinet, and I think that in the context of this chamber a smaller cabinet makes eminent sense. When I was first a member of the federal cabinet, we had 21 members — there are 21 members of the cabinet in this chamber — and yet we had a House of 265. We had a backbench of 120. Clearly the executive, including the parliamentary secretaries — and that executive incidentally had ten parliamentary secretaries — could not outvote the rest of the House. It couldn't come close. In fact, it was made up of the order of 10 percent of the membership of the Legislature or Parliament — House of Commons, in that case.

I think, therefore, that we've recently witnessed a development in this chamber which I hope will be reversed. I believe the executive must be small. I include as part of the executive, obviously, in my comments, parliamentary secretaries, who I see can take questions, can attend cabinet committee meetings, and can deliver speeches for ministers as required. Their travel and secretarial needs can be assumed through the minister's budget, and they can make no statements to the press on ministry business. Indeed they can make no statements in the House on ministry business. Therefore I include parliamentary secretaries as pseudo-ministers, as part of the executive and as part of my concern. I think I've expressed again — and, I hope, clearly — what that concern is; and I hope that that trend, which has recently developed, will be reversed in British Columbia, and certainly in this Legislature.

Now I want to go on to talk about interventionism in its other forms. Obviously the opposition, were it to form the government, would be interventionist. The Leader of the Opposition, speaking today, talked about a blueprint, a plan a longer-term plan as well as short-term plans.

Those who take the opposite point of view.... And I certainly do; I regard small as beautiful, and big government-owned corporations, big corporations regulated by government and supported by big unions, as anathema. The hon. member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), in the early part of his address, talked about individualism. The basic philosophy which has been endorsed time and again in this country and generally in the United States, and certainly in this province, is individualistic. We should contain big government, regulate big companies and keep large unions under control. I think that's the opinion of most people in this province.

I'm for non-intervention by government. In the interests of protecting the freedoms of the individual, I would regulate, restrict some of the freedoms of large monopolies, private and public. I would certainly limit, in a similar fashion, the activities of large unions, which generally speaking are not concerned about the interests of people who are not members of the union; and generally speaking, nonmembers of the union are the majority of the population.

There is a reference in the Speech from the Throne to a commissioner of critical industries. We'll undoubtedly hear more about that person, that function. That's interventionist, in my view, and I'm concerned. I'm concerned that a single individual, presumably non-elected, would have powers which I would have preferred to be powers solely in the hands of ministers, or a minister, if we have to have one person; but a person who nevertheless has to be elected from time to time, who has to get the support of his or her constituents. So I'm concerned about a czar of industry, a czar who presumably overlooks not just the responsibilities of one minister but that of several: the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and, of course, the Ministry of Industry and Small Business. It certainly concerns me.

I would much rather that the government create an environment. I know that in this speech and in other statements the government has said that it wishes to create an environment which is favourable to more economic activity, certainly to individual initiative, to the growth of small business. That can be done by lowering taxes in some areas in this province. We have, generally speaking, the highest level of taxes on economic activity of any of the provinces in Canada today, and we must concern ourselves about that. We can — I believe we must — reduce the level of taxation as it impinges on small business. I think we should give consideration to a step recently taken by Ontario: a tax-free period for brand new firms, in Ontario's case three years. I think too that instead of giving large grants to a few firms, or preferential tax treatment to a few companies in particular circumstances, we should give assistance, if indeed assistance is desirable.... I would prefer that government stay right out of the marketplace, but if assistance is indeed desirable, give it uniformly to all firms — for instance, a grant. I'll call it a grant; it's really paying a part of the salary or wage of an engineer or an accountant, people of particular competence, so that a firm of any size could employ one of those kinds of people for new development. Let the firm worry about whether the person is properly employed; let that firm provide the housing, the equipment and so on. So the firm would have a stake in the best utilization of that individual's time. But spread it around.

[ Page 5161 ]

High tech, generally speaking.... Certainly the experience in the United States is that between two-thirds and three-quarters of the new ideas, the inventions, the developments which are characterized as high tech originate with small and medium-sized firms. Some of those firms may eventually become large firms, or they may be swallowed up by larger firms; but the initiative, the incentive and certainly the relevance of high-tech development is often determined by small firms close to the people, close to the marketplace. If we have to give assistance, that's the kind of assistance I would give.

It isn't generally realized, but one of the reasons for a high level of unemployment in this province, particularly in the construction trades — the hardhat endeavours — is the fact that B.C. Hydro, still by far the biggest corporation in western Canada, has virtually folded its tents. It has stopped investing; it has stopped building. A few years ago B.C. Hydro employed as many as 12,000 British Columbians, and through contracts many more. Now its employee membership is down to under 8,000 and still declining. It has not only been laying off thousands of people who are highly trained with unique skills, but many of the companies which it formally contracted are no longer finding any work building dams, transmission lines, access roads or distribution systems in this province. B.C. Hydro has stopped being a force. Hopefully we'll have some developments to take its place, preferably, in my view, from the private sector. From the public and private sector we do have the railway, with big plans. The joint plans of the CNR and CPR over the next few years total about $6 billion, several times the scale of northeast coal. I hope nothing holds up those plans so that those big corporations can at least employ more British Columbians, many of them of the kind formerly employed by B.C. Hydro, and more particularly in the private sector.

The export of natural gas in liquefied form across the Pacific Ocean. Hopefully we'll have a large project get underway, with a major pipeline from the Peace River area to Prince Rupert, largely supplied with B.C. gas; liquefaction plants installed in the Prince Rupert area, a major development in the order of $3 billion. The government of the province should be doing everything in its power to encourage a development of that kind.

Alcan. The aluminium markets are off. Alcan isn't as keen to proceed in British Columbia as it was a couple of years ago, but it will be back because it has a unique arrangement relative to the use of British Columbia water in the Tweedsmuir Park area. I hope the government does everything it can to make sure that Alcan goes ahead and builds a smelter and fabricating plants in Terrace, Smithers and other communities — another $3 billion or $4 billion. Those are projects that can take the place of, and indeed may eventually exceed, the impact that B.C. Hydro has. Of course, longer term demand for electricity may revive and Hydro will begin to get going again.

We need some of these big corporations. When they have to compete in international markets, regulation is more or less automatic, but when they're big and supply only our own needs, as B.C. Hydro does — and particularly when they are owned by the government — we must watch them carefully.

I, for one, would break up B.C. Hydro into its components. I'd have an electrical operation, a gas operation and perhaps meld its freight operations with those of B.C. Rail. Break it up. Don't have all the decisions made in one place. Don't have one or two executives deciding whether to price natural gas at one level so as to foster the electrical service, or to price electricity at a different level to foster natural gas. Let the consumer decide, or if it's possible, let the market help make the decisions. Let more people make these fundamental decisions for us.

While I'm on gas, I want to make a passing reference to the gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. One of the problems is that we the people, through B.C. Hydro, have invested close to $1 billion already to bring mainland energy, namely hydroelectric power, across the Strait of Georgia to Vancouver Island. That link is barely utilized. It's newly built but barely utilized. We have all sorts of surplus power on the mainland. Until there's some prospect of that publicly financed investment being usefully employed and employed at something approaching its capacity, to put large sums of federal or provincial public money into a development of the nature of a natural gas pipeline is, I think, obviously uneconomic. I believe it's at least premature.

A gas line may eventually be built to Vancouver Island. But to argue on the basis of the reports of a couple of years ago, when oil prices seemed to be going through the ceiling, that now the findings of that day make economic sense, I think, calls for review. But someday it'll come. I don't blame the B.C. government from trying to get from Ottawa a deal comparable to that which Quebec got a few years ago — and, indeed, the Maritimes may get someday. So my comments on the Vancouver Island gas pipeline have to be qualified to that extent.

[4:30]

Mr. Speaker, there are only one or two other points I'd like to make in the limited time I have. I see reference in the speech to the combined purchasing power of the municipalities and our Crown corporations to the order of $2 billion to $3 billion a year — for purchases of goods and services. The inference in the Speech from the Throne is really that more of those purchases should be made at home in British Columbia, that we shouldn't be buying outside the province — Alberta or Ontario — if we can possibly avoid it. We should be more self-sufficient if we possibly can, and if we use these government agencies to discriminate, we will be protectionist to some extent, at least.

[Mr. Michael in the chair.]

British Columbia has had a policy — certainly B.C. Hydro has had a policy for some years — of buying from a British Columbian source if it is within 10 percent of the lowest bidder from elsewhere. Certainly that was the policy with light rapid transit, although I must say that in most cases the lowest bidder was either in British Columbia or there was no B.C. bid available and the lowest-cost outside source that could produce or deliver the service or goods was chosen. Nevertheless, there is a policy of 10 percent preference for British Columbia source goods and services. Ontario claims to have no preferences, but I wonder about that. Alberta claims to have no preferences. Quebec, at the other extreme, is highly preferential. It never employs engineering firms based outside Quebec. I don't think we should copy Quebec. I think we should look around and be part of Canada, at least, and, indeed, we should buy the lowest-cost source internationally if world prices plus our tariffs deliver the goods or services more cheaply here.

I'm essentially arguing for freer trade, if not for free trade. I'm all for free enterprise, but free enterprise isn't free

[ Page 5162 ]

when a few or a single large corporation dominate the field. So I have to qualify my stipulations in that regard.

Finally, social services. Unless we have a dynamic economy, unless we have a growing economy, there's no way we can avoid restraint. Indeed, I believe we should always be showing some restraint in some areas, because otherwise we have no priorities whatsoever.

If restraint causes us to do things more efficiently, we have more finances to go around, and we can purchase more of other things — more goods and services. Two-thirds of the budget of this Legislature goes for health, education and human resources. It's a proportion which has been rising. Everything else costs less than a third.

Obviously, if the revenues, taxes and other revenues flowing into the government are levelling off or, worse still, as they've done in recent years, declining, everything is compromised. Social services are under limits; they face strictures. Health care expenditures have continued to rise, but more slowly over the last few years. Education costs have been contained — indeed, reduced — in some areas because of a declining school population. But human resources costs, because of high unemployment particularly, have risen along with health care.

I think the government has done a good job in spreading its limited tax revenue around to cover those social services and, in the main, to improve their quality month by month right through the present and into the future.

So, Mr. Speaker, we've been through a period of restraint. I think we'll have some continuing measures of restraint. There is the prospect of recovery: first, obviously, in the United States, but as Western Europe and the Asiatic countries begin to expand once more, then I believe — and it's happened time and time throughout history — our economy will revive and boom again.

So I'm not at all pessimistic. But I must say that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) worried me a little bit when he talked about that horrible prospect of big government coming back again, if only for a very brief period.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, I always look forward to hearing the hon. member who just took his seat, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, because he is one of the members of this House who is usually reasonable, rational and does his research. I must say, though, that I thought his reaction to the throne speech today was rather sparse and dry, and he really didn't have too much to say about it. I think that's understandable, Mr. Speaker. We are all in a bit of a spot here in trying to debate a Speech from the Throne which is one of the most vacuous I've ever seen. I was here, I think, before you were born, Mr. Speaker — maybe not quite that long ago!

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am really concerned that we are being asked today, in 1985, to debate a speech that.... I think people out there were hoping, somehow or other, that the Social Credit government of British Columbia would finally have come to their senses and would openly repudiate the policies which they have been following for the last several years, particularly the so-called restraint type of policies which have brought nothing but more doom, gloom and terrible tragedy to many of the people of this province, through increased unemployment and no hope whatsoever.

So it is difficult for us, and I think that is why the speaker who just took his seat had very little to say. The only time he strayed a little bit and showed a little bit of spark and life was when he reacted to our speakers. Once again, he shows no reason or rationality when he refers to the old myth about the NDP being unable to come forward with any concrete policies. We are the party of welfare — I believe he implied that utter nonsense today, Mr. Speaker. All we have to do is look at the figures, and we can see that it's the governments which advocate the kind of policies which the Social Credit government of B.C. does which are indeed creating more people on welfare.

We just have to compare the province of Manitoba and their way of handling the economy with British Columbia, and we see more jobs, not less. We see less people on welfare and not more, the complete reverse of what we have in British Columbia. So I was disappointed that that usually rational member, I think in desperation, had to let loose with a brief little spark, and it only was when he was alluding to the NDP.

As far as his own government is concerned, what can one say?

MR. MACDONALD: He's against the natural gas pipeline, but he doesn't blame the government.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, it was interesting, wasn't it? As my colleague has just said to me.... I don't want to take credit for what he said, although I agree with him. The first member for Vancouver East has just made the point that the member who just took his seat, who is a Social Credit back-bencher — the one and only Social Credit back-bencher — has said that he's against the pipeline. Yet he's in no way really going to blame the government for what they're doing with it. With his engineering background and all his involvement as a federal minister, I know he could have dissected it in a very reasonable way, but it is unfortunate that he did not choose to do so.

I think our leader, this morning, did something which is all that's left to the NDP to do with this speech, and that is to propose an alternative to what is there and what is given to us. It's difficult to pose an alternative to something that's so vapid and empty, but the Leader of the Opposition did prepare for the consideration of the people of British Columbia — because I'm afraid it may fall on deaf ears in the Legislature.... Although the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is listening. He may listen, and he may have listened this morning, and maybe he'll take to his cabinet some of our concrete suggestions. After all, Mr. Speaker, we're all here together in this Legislature. It's difficult to put aside partisan politics, I realize, but at this time I think that we really should be working together to help the people out there who are not in the position we are in of being able to count on security — at least, until the next election we can count on food and shelter.

The tragedies that are out there, I know, are not the kinds of tragedies that any member of this House would wish to inflict upon anyone. But unfortunately the government, which is the collective voice of the people over there, is inflicting policies on the people of British Columbia which are indeed causing tragedies.

I noticed yesterday that the newly appointed federal Minister of Fisheries did something rather unusual, which I don't think we've seen from a politician in many years — especially a cabinet minister — when he was asked about the tragedy of the family in which a murder-suicide took four lives in the lower mainland the other day. One of the reasons suggested for that tragedy — although no one will ever know, I suppose — is depression resulting from the loss of a job. As

[ Page 5163 ]

I say, none of us can ever prove that was so. But the point is that this federal cabinet minister actually had the courage to stand up and say publicly: "I feel terrible. I was the one who ordered those cutbacks." You have to give him credit for saying this. Some people may say: "My, he was politically stupid to make that admission." I say he was politically honest and courageous.

This is something that we're waiting to hear from the members of the Social Credit cabinet. Every day they are making decisions that are affecting the day-by-day lives of the people of British Columbia. Some of those decisions made by the Social Credit cabinet, and abetted and agreed to, I presume, by the rest of the members, are having some very tragic effects on the people of this province. I think it's time that the Social Credit government stood up and admitted this. At least admit it. If you're going to continue in this stubborn, obstinate way which you have of carrying on with the same old policies which are going to create more tragedy, I think it's about time you stood up and accepted the responsibility for many of them.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, which I consistently hear in this Legislature from the members of the Social Credit government in debate is reference to toughness. We hear about their tough leader. We hear about making tough decisions. I think that most of the members on that side of the House are enamoured with the word "tough." Perhaps the polls have shown that the people of British Columbia respect and admire tough leaders. Well, I look at another very tough leader in the world, Margaret Thatcher, whom some people admire very much. Even though I'm very pleased that we have a woman Prime Minister, I do not admire any of her policies. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker: there is a woman who is considered tough. What we should do is analyze what these so-called tough leaders and tough policies really do create. The myth of toughness has to be analyzed.

Let us look at what's happened in England — and I want to relate it to exactly what is happening here in British Columbia. Let's take the youth in England. In the age bracket from 14 to 25, they have the highest unemployment figures that they've had in years in England. We have the same parallel in British Columbia. That is the real tragic zone: the young people of that age who are out of work in this province and in England. The tragedy is that in England, Mrs. Thatcher started her policies of restraint and cutbacks on people services many years before the Social Credit started, but the Social Credit have followed along exactly the same — although certainly on a much smaller scale, of course, when you consider our population differences. But the policies are the same.

[4:45]

What has happened in England? It has been said now that many of those young people who left school at 15 or 16, perhaps, have not had any work. Some of them who are now 25 or 26 have never done a day's work in their lives. They have lived on welfare from the day they came out. The tragedy is that if Thatcher continues with those policies, their future will continue to be that bleak. As a matter of fact, the psychological prognosis is that many of these young people, having been on welfare for years and never having had a decent job, will simply never be able to enter the workforce again, even though it's provided to them.

I say to Social Credit that you are embarked on the same policies. You may call them tough policies, but I call them tragic and negative policies. I cannot understand, with the facts in front of you and seeing what has happened to other governments who have taken the same line, why you cannot see that it's time to back up and do a complete reverse. This is what the NDP is trying to suggest.

When I go through the throne speech — brief as it is — the thing I regret is that there is very little talk about prevention. It seems to me that a lot of attention should be paid by this government, which is so cost-conscious, to developing the whole area of preventive services. The irony is that never before have so many people services been needed, and that is because of the policies of the Social Credit government. Their policies of creating unemployment and cutting back on many services have in themselves created a need for more of these services. We find that this government, instead of creating more to pick up the slack, is cutting back in vital areas.

Yesterday morning on CBC I heard a woman speaking about another tragedy in this province: the death of a teenage prostitute, who was cruelly put to death by someone. This woman was making the following point: "I was particularly upset about that death, because a few years ago I was actually working in a group funded by the government to help young teenagers in difficulty." She said that this young teenager who was recently murdered was in that group, and when the government cutbacks came, that program went down the tube. She said: "I never saw the young girl again." There's no way I hold any individual in this government responsible for that kind of thing, because no one in this room would want this to happen. But unless you reverse your policies we are going to have increased tragedies like that. Prevention is something that should be done by this government in all areas, particularly in the area that I'm mostly concerned with now as debate leader — that is, the area of health.

Every day we hear complaints from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and other members of the government about the terrible costs of health, saying that something dreadful is going to have to be done about health costs. Yet all we see in the throne speech is a reference to how many billions of dollars the Social Credit government puts aside for health. I think it's one-third of the budget, and that sounds pretty good. But the point is: why does this government not make a close analysis of the costs in health? Why doesn't it say: "Can we not find areas where money is now being spent needlessly?" The NDP is not encouraging more and more spending. We say that spending has to be done in the right place at the right time. We feel that there are many areas in health where this government could be dealing with prevention and where they are not doing so, and that they are costing the taxpayers millions of dollars because of it.

One area where the government is, I believe, remiss is the whole area of alcoholism prevention for people who need help. The government, as we'll see when the new budget comes down — I don't want to move on to that now — will be listing for us how much revenue they are taking in from the sale of alcohol. If it follows the course of what we've seen in past years, we will find that there is no connection between the money that has been taken in and the amount that this government is willing to spend on people who are alcoholics or on education against alcoholism and other drugs. Alcoholism has proved to be one of our most serious problems in British Columbia. The government talks about it being a problem, but as with most cases of prevention, it does not put forward to the public some much-needed programs to assist people who are having problems in that area.

[ Page 5164 ]

For example, I don't know if you know, Mr. Speaker, but the percentage of B.C. drinkers is one of the highest in all of Canada. Among the ten provinces, B.C. has the highest percentage of current drinkers: 73 percent, some 18 percent higher than even the Atlantic provinces. What I'm trying to say is, I can understand why people would be driven to drink by the policies of this government. So if the government is responsible, in more ways than one, for some of the increased drinking, the government has a responsibility to do something about this tragedy. I regret to say that I don't see, throughout the past year, much being done about the prevention and treatment of alcoholism. I'm particularly concerned that that is becoming an increasing burden on the people of B.C. — the spinoff effects from drinking and alcoholism. As far as I can see, the throne speech does not relate to any areas of prevention here.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We talk about the need to put people to work, and yet the people who were doing some of the most-needed work for us in this province, prior to the so-called restraint program, which was just a harsh, ideological cutback program, in my opinion.... It certainly didn't show restraint where restraint should have been done, and that's probably at the level of cabinet ministers' expenses. But out of all of this have come tragedies in homes, more sexual abuse and more family abuse of all kinds. This has been a direct result of policies brought in by the government. On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, there is nothing before us, and if you follow the past policies of the Socred government there will not be any new increase in or re-establishment of counsellors who are badly needed in the areas of alcoholism counselling and family violence. All these areas are being cut, with the result that more and more jails are going to have to be built and the people of B.C. are going to have to pick up more and more health costs. All this is because the government has very short-sightedly cut back on prevention programs.

Another problem area having to do with education and health is the increased number of teenage pregnancies. But I don't want to stray too far from the throne speech itself. I'd rather talk about that and keep you suspended in anticipation, Mr. Speaker, until the education or the health debates arise, because I do think that increased teenage pregnancies are also a result of very short-sighted policies of the Social Credit government in the whole area of sex education. We will be pleased to talk about that at the right time.

Mr. Speaker, I was getting back to my concern about the Social Credit policies, which are not helping us in any way to come out of this morass that the people of British Columbia find themselves in. The government cannot continue to blame the economy of the world for its problems. It was pointed out this morning by one of our members, the critic for finance, that over $5 billion has been committed for megaprojects in this province. Wouldn't you think that out of that $5 billion we would be able to get a great number of permanent jobs at least? And yet, from all the figures we can see, the number of permanent jobs to come out of that is not nearly as great as you would get if you had put some of those megaproject tax moneys into smaller, locally developed work programs within the municipalities, for example; programs that would be needed, that the people of the community would be asking for and that would produce longer-lasting jobs. But on top of the $5 billion, the devastating thing.... I don't have in front of me the figures he also used to point out the interest on the debt, which the people of British Columbia are going to have to carry on their backs for many years to come, from some megaprojects which we must see now are questionable in their final benefit to all the citizens.

At the time these megaprojects were presented to us I don't recall anything given to the opposition but an opportunity to debate a policy which the Social Credit government had already made up its mind to have, in cabinet, in spite of the fact that many of our critics at the time — on this side — asked the government: "Could we not sit down with you in committees to discuss the pros and cons, for example, of the northeast coal project?" At no time were the members of the opposition given a chance to discuss it before the fact. We were presented with the policy and the bill. I think many of our concerns at that time about the economic spinoff benefits of northeast coal were expressed here, and it's too bad that the government had not given the opposition a chance to work with them on those matters. Perhaps together, out of it would have come a more positive type of project instead of what we're now faced with — something that could turn out to be a burden on the taxpayers with very little payoff.

These are the things that I find rather discouraging. As I said earlier, we would like to try to work together in these critical times to solve the problems. But unless the government gives us some vehicle where the two major parties and the United Party can sit down together and work through these problems, I cannot say that we can expect any great improvement in the tone of the House or in the results. That does not stop me from talking, even now, when everyone is listening with such great attention.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am, hon. member, and I would advise other members that if they wish to stay in the House, would they please show the member for Burnaby North and the legislative assembly some courtesy.

[5:00]

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you. At least you were listening, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate that.

I mentioned earlier that the matter of the economy of British Columbia is questionable — the manner in which the Social Credit government thinks that they can improve it. They have indulged in megaprojects — something highly visible — and many of those are now questionable as far as their long-term effects are concerned. They have indulged themselves in developing a new structure of government. One of the cabinet ministers is now going to be permanently traveling around the world, and we simply do not see the payoff from these decisions. That's our concern. If we could really see something concrete coming from it — other than I know that the minister must exhaust himself with all the traveling — our concern would be to see something very specific being worked out together between the parties, in committees involving the people of the province.

I think when you travel around this province you find that everyone is concerned about the state of our economy. And why not? It's one of the worst in Canada. Day by day more and more of our young people are ending up on welfare or hanging around the street comer wondering what to do with themselves. We want to stop this, Mr. Speaker, but we cannot do it if we have a government that is ideologically committed to following this same path which they committed themselves to four or five years ago. They talk about subsidies to

[ Page 5165 ]

encourage.... Everything is to do with the private sector. The NDP knows the importance of the public sector, but all we can say to you is that that's all we hear from this government: more and more, we're going to get the economy spinning by the private sector helping us. The private sector has suffered so much itself from the Social Credit policies that it too has been unable to spur on the economy. All the talk about expecting the private sector alone to pull us out of this mess is not working, and the government doesn't seem to address that fact whatsoever. In fact, once again in the throne speech we see the emphasis more on leaving it to the private sector.

I know the government is promising some great incentives and subsidies; we will have to wait until the budget comes. All I can say is that I hope that when those incentives are presented to us the private sector will have a responsibility and certain guidelines to meet so that we can be sure that wherever the money goes, there will be money to benefit the people of this province too through increased employment, not just money for the sake of increased profits. I think this is a concern until we see it. Again, as I say, how would we in the NDP have any idea what it is going to be about? We have not been involved at any time in the discussion on it.

The other area of concern to me with the whole thrust of this government's policies — and I mentioned this earlier — is the fact of the increased human misery in all areas. That even goes into education today, Mr. Speaker, and much has been said about that. I know, having been involved myself in that area, that it is not an easy job. Everyone is an expert in education; it is difficult. However, what this government has done is really unforgivable. They have failed to see the importance of investing in education to the degree where the results will bring far more back economically than some very questionable investments in fancy megaprojects.

I see my time is just about up, Mr. Speaker, and I've only scratched the surface in general terms. I haven't gone into any real detail. But I would like to end on the note of education, because what more positive thing could we do than to ensure that all the children of this province, from day care right through the educational system, are never denied their potential? As long as you start cutting back on services to children in school, cutting back and making larger class sizes.... I know people question their value, but as a former teacher I can tell you that a smaller class gave me the opportunity to give more attention to all the children. When you can give that individual attention, you prevent many educational accidents.

This is the tragedy of what I find today, Mr. Speaker. Many of the things I am having to say to this government today, I said almost 20 years ago when I first arrived here. I find it indeed tragic that the clock has been turned back by this government, which seems to be bereft of any ideas to move ahead and not take us backwards.

I hope the government will listen to the positive suggestions of the opposition. We want to try and move ourselves out of this mess, all of us, but we must work together to do it.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, once again it is a privilege to rise in debate and support yet another throne speech. We on this side of the House support the Speech from the Throne in its positive sense of direction, which complements, I believe, the resolute determination of all British Columbians.

The opposition has a responsibility to propose concrete and specific measures to meet the challenges our province faces. We welcome their commitment to abandon personal attacks in favor of positive, cooperative dialogue. This is a responsibility, I believe, of all members of this House. In this sense I herald the new sense of cooperation we have seen so far in this chamber during this session.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of this debate my colleagues have attempted to provide positive examples of the economic recovery that is underway in our province. We have heard numerous examples of the private sector regaining its confidence and embarking on courses of action that are resulting in increases in job creation, productivity and growth. It is in large part due to the wisdom and fiscal policies being practised that this period of growth occurring in British Columbia at the present time is as it is. In many other jurisdictions around this world of ours, administrations have failed to respond responsibly to the consequences of global recession. This is not the case in British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: We created our own.

MR. KEMPF: I remember what you created, Mr. Member, when the NDP was government in this province. I see you are continuing along that vein of cooperation in this House.

Mr. Speaker, long after we in British Columbia have reduced our public debt, others will continue to pay for the short-sightedness and lack of courage of their political leaders. Although these past several months have challenged many, if not all, British Columbians, they have faced the challenge with a hope for the future because of prudent decision-making by government.

Essential programs have been maintained, and progress is being made through careful husbanding of tax dollars. Government has also been able to initiate projects that have resulted in the creation of meaningful employment — and I'm going to give examples — and real long-term benefits to the people of British Columbia. We remember a government of not too many years ago that during good times, during a time when dollars were pouring into the coffers like there was no tomorrow, ran a deficit.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, these projects not only create employment today but they'll provide economic benefits for many decades to come for future generations of British Columbians. Many of these projects are in the area of transportation. That's what I want to talk about here today: bridges, railways, highways, airports and other types of transportation so necessary to the future growth of this province of ours, and investment in the future through increasing access to our valuable natural resources and lowering the cost of moving raw materials, manufactured products and other goods to the international marketplace.

We live in an area of vast geographical proportions. Sometimes it's difficult for those living in the southwestern comer of British Columbia to grasp the immensity of this great province of ours. British Columbia is comprised of 366,255 square miles of rugged, spectacular terrain — an area larger than the states of California, Oregon and Washington, although our population is only one-tenth of theirs. Our province is larger in area than the Pacific Rim nations of Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the Philippines put together, although our population is only one-eightieth of theirs.

[ Page 5166 ]

If British Columbia is to compete with these countries and states for international trade, it will not be on the basis of population. It will rely on our ability to produce and manufacture the natural resources awaiting development throughout the expanse of this province.

Over 200 years ago the man referred to as the father of economics, Adam Smith, wrote that by lowering the cost...

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Listen to this, Mr. Member, you might learn something.

...of goods and increasing access to the remote parts of the country, an investment in transportation was the greatest of all improvements.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I'll talk about northeast coal, Mr. Member. You just be quiet and be patient, and we'll talk about northeast coal.

Mr. Speaker, we are making those improvements, both for the economic benefits we receive today through job creation and increased economics of trade and for the future well-being of British Columbians.

The Annacis Island crossing of the Fraser River is one such investment — an investment in transportation that will create benefits for British Columbians today and for many years to come. This $275 million project is providing direct employment for 1,000 British Columbians during the construction phase. The Annacis Island crossing will be an economic boom to the residents of Surrey, Delta, Langley and other areas of the lower mainland.

[5:15]

Mr. Speaker, $375 million will be spent on the Coquihalla Highway — a project which will provide a vital link in our nation's second Trans-Canada Highway, the Yellowhead route, which we're very proud of in the north. Over 1,700 people are employed in the construction phase of this important step in the development of our province's interior. Again, as with all transportation projects, the total economic benefits will be very real but very difficult to measure. Reduced traveling time for motorists, both truckers and vacationers, will bring great cost-savings to British Columbians. This new route will open up very the valuable resources of the rich interior, the bread-basket of our province.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the new member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) read the editorial of September 28, 1984, in the Vernon Daily News, describing the Coquihalla construction as "sending a shudder of expectation and excitement" through that community.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said that?

MR. KEMPF: Those are not my words, Mr. Member; they're the words of an editor in the Vernon newspaper. That sort of investor and consumer confidence is hard to measure, but provides tangible economic benefits in our province.

The upgrading of the Squamish highway is a ten-year project by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and will cost some $137 million. Hundreds of British Columbians will be employed in the improvement and construction taking place on that highway. The real benefits will result by reducing the cost of goods trucked into and out of B.C.'s interior and by increasing the number of tourists visiting our province's many vacation destinations.

Last year the Ministry of Transportation and Highways also constructed the Desan Lake access road to assist the private sector in exploration efforts in the oil and gas fields of northeastern British Columbia. The project is providing construction and exploration jobs now, and will enable many British Columbians to have meaningful employment in the future. Improvements of this nature are a necessary function of government.

I believe that government must be congratulated for recognizing the value of improving B.C.'s transportation network for future economic development and continued prosperity. Indeed, the development of the interior of the province is in a large measure due to the expansion of our British Columbia Railway undertaken by successive far-sighted Social Credit governments. The British Columbia Railway provides a vital economic link from the lower mainland to Fort Nelson, allowing communities such as Fort Nelson, Fort St. James, Quesnel and many others to send natural resources and manufactured products to the international marketplace.

Last year, Mr. Speaker — and we've heard a lot of doom and gloom from the other side of the floor during this throne speech debate — the BCR recorded its highest-ever net income, $42 million. Let us not forget that 1983 was also a record year for the railway, when its net income rose 115 percent over 1982, to $39.9 million.

Perhaps the most significant figure to analyze is that of revenue per main-track kilometre. Those figures show an increase from $79 in 1982 to $92 in 1983 — a rise of 16.5 percent.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, it is marvellous, after the record of what you people did to the BCR from 1972 to 1975.

It can be truly said that the BCR is not only a valuable and integral part of British Columbia's economy and of our economic growth, but under a Social Credit government, it is a well-managed and efficient transportation resource. That certainly wasn't true during times that I can remember in the past.

Because of the economic renewal underway in British Columbia today, other railways are also making investments to improve the quality of their service and to expand the range of their operations in British Columbia. The Canadian National Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, between 1984 and 1988, will be making total investments of $1.7 billion to upgrade and expand their operations in our province. The CPR is currently working on a $600 million project to increase mainline capacity between Calgary and Vancouver, in an effort to meet growing traffic demands. The Rogers Pass construction is the biggest single project undertaken by CP Rail since the driving of the last spike in 1885.

In May of last year two British Columbia companies, Selkirk Tunnel Constructors and Manning-Kumagai Joint Venture of Vancouver, were awarded a contract to build the longest tunnel ever constructed in North America: the Mount Macdonald tunnel, which will be 14.7 kilometres, or nine miles, in length.

The members opposite say that nothing's happening in British Columbia, that no new jobs are being created in

[ Page 5167 ]

British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, those members must be sitting in the lower mainland and not looking around this province as other members are, finding out what is really going on in British Columbia.

CP's upgrading project involves some 34 kilometres of new main line, including a 1.7-kilometre tunnel under the Trans-Canada Highway, as well as the Macdonald tunnel. One section alone will require the construction of six new bridges. Completion of this major project will increase capacity on the westbound main line, thus opening the door to ever increasing rail traffic between Calgary and port facilities in B.C.'s lower mainland. Hundreds of British Columbians are currently employed on the project, and many more will be hired before completion in 1988. A further $140 million is being spent by CPR on improvements to their operations in B.C., in addition to the Rogers Pass project. This too will create new jobs in British Columbia.

Canadian National's investment program for its B.C. operations is estimated to be worth $850 million. A large part of this expenditure will be made on the northern line from Redpass in the Rocky Mountains through to Prince Rupert, in an effort to handle the fourfold increase in rail traffic expected by 1986.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: This increased traffic, Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), is a direct result of B.C.'s northeast coal and grain shipments to the new terminal at Ridley Island.

Part of CN's development will be in the installation of a $30 million centralized traffic control signaling system to coordinate increased traffic on the new double-tracked rail line. Nineteen wooden trestles will be replaced by steel and concrete structures at a cost of $8.5 million, and $27 million will be spent on expanding the switching yard in Prince George.

Traffic on the CN south line is expected to increase 50 percent by 1990, and the railway is initiating a major upgrading program for that route. Many sections will be double tracked. The yards at Kamloops will receive $3 million worth of expansion, and the terminals at the Thornton and Lynn Creek yards in Vancouver will also be expanded.

Much of the job creation of these projects undertaken by CN and CP will be during the construction phases for the next three or four years, but many permanent jobs will also be created. For example, permanent employment will be available in providing maintenance shops to ensure that locomotives and rolling stock operate efficiently. Work began last year on CP's $50 million car repair shop in Golden. The facility will mean 200 permanent jobs and could cause Golden's population to grow by as much as 1,200 when it opens in 1986.

Just a few months ago CN officially opened their new $5 million work equipment shop in Prince George. This depot will eliminate the need to move machinery used in upgrading projects and requiring repair to Edmonton, and will employ 23 people. In 1985 the British Columbia Railway opens a diesel maintenance building valued at $5.3 million, also in Prince George. It will mean 30 permanent jobs for the residents of that city.

[5:30]

Mr. Speaker, it should be obvious to all — but apparently it isn't, from the remarks that I hear across the floor — that our province's prosperity is due to both the rich natural resources that we possess and the vital transportation network that successive Social Credit governments have either constructed or caused to be constructed through the establishment of a healthy economic climate. It is that resource, wealth and transportation infrastructure that provides hundreds of thousands of jobs and the degree of prosperity which British Columbians have grown to enjoy. British Columbia exports more than 50 percent of the total goods produced in our province. Under sound leadership B.C.'s exports grew from $486 million in 1952 to $2.7 billion in 1972, and in 1983 they were worth $9.9 billion.

Our location on the Pacific Rim places us in an advantageous position to export natural resources, agricultural goods and manufactured products produced by British Columbia and the rest of Canada to one of the largest markets in the world. British Columbia's coastline measures 7,000 kilometres and supports a large international and coastal shipping industry, operating through ice-free deep-water ports. Over 60 million metric tonnes are exported annually from B.C. ports located at Campbell River, Victoria, Nanaimo, New Westminster, Port Alberni, Powell River, Prince Rupert and Vancouver. Figures released in February 1985 indicated that the total tonnage through the port of Vancouver alone in 1984 increased by 14.8 percent over 1983 to 59.3 million metric tonnes, an all-time high. And all we hear from the members opposite is doom and gloom.

MR. COCKE: Where's the port of New Westminster?

MR. KEMPF: You should know where it is. You represent it — or do you, Mr. Member?

Cooperative programs between the provincial and federal governments have resulted in the construction of superports in Prince Rupert, at Ridley Island, and at Roberts Bank. Growth in our international trade is assured with the completion last year of the $300 million coal terminal and the $275 million grain terminal at Ridley Island to handle exports from our northeast coalfields and our prairie provinces. Continued expansion is occurring at Roberts Bank, where capacity will be doubled, in part to handle increased shipments from southeast coalfields.

Mr. Speaker, the new economic and regional development agreement, ERDA, signed by the former Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — the now Minister of International Trade and Investment — and his federal counterpart ensures that these joint initiatives will continue between our respective governments to develop B.C.'s role as a Canadian gateway to the Pacific Rim markets. I think we should congratulate that minister for negotiating such advantageous agreements.

The coastal region of our province provides yet another example of the prudent and responsible managerial practices of this government. The B.C. Ferry Corporation, as measured by traffic carried and routes serviced, is one of the largest ferry systems in the world, and it is of vital importance to those living and working on our coast. Last year the net loss recorded by the Ferry Corporation decreased from $35.9 million in 1983 to $15 million — a reduction of 47 percent. The improvement in the financial operations of the Ferry Corporation resulted from sound management policies, an increase in the number of passengers, an increase in operating revenue and a sharp decline in operating expenditures.

[ Page 5168 ]

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: You wouldn't understand that, Mr. Member; that's not your kind of economics.

I think we should note, Mr. Speaker, that the Ferry Corporation has never been in a better position to provide the best possible service for British Colombians.

Individual initiative also demonstrated its ability to be productive in the field of air transportation when residents in the interior of the province organized volunteer work parties to start construction of the Cache Creek airport. The new airport started service in November 1983 and will certainly be appreciated by the residents of Cache Creek, who worked so hard to ensure that it was built. Many other projects under the airport assistance program are underway in the province to expand and construct new airports. This program, since its inception in 1978, has been a marvellous tool in promoting air transportation, as well as, Mr. Speaker — and possibly more importantly — in getting our air ambulances into the more remote areas of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member....

MR. KEMPF: Entrepreneurs are a vital component of the transportation industry....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member for Omineca please....

MR. KEMPF: ...and the opportunity to provide better service to British Columbians has seen....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member for Omineca, I draw to your attention the light.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I'm almost finished, and I would beg leave of the House to finish this address in the throne speech debate.

Leave granted.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Investment has been made in air transportation in our province. Inter City Air will be flying from Kamloops to various communities throughout the province. Chilliwack Aviation has received approval from the Canadian Transport Commission to commence service to Kamloops, Merritt, Princeton, Chilliwack, Whistler Mountain, Kelowna and Penticton. In addition, Mr. Speaker, Pacific Western Airlines will maintain its operations, with new connecting flights from Kamloops to Calgary, Vancouver and other B.C. cities. Residents of Salmon Arm have received a new airport control tower, and lighting to permit night flying is currently being installed. International Aviation Terminals have opened a unique new 127,000 square foot air cargo marketing and distribution centre at Vancouver International Airport, a distribution centre that will not only create 100 new jobs but also will greatly enhance the status of Canada's western gateway to the transportation of goods, specifically to the Pacific Rim.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my remarks today have caused those in this House to reflect on the enormous achievements that have been made in building our province's transportation capacity and on the vital economic importance of transportation in British Columbia. Our natural resources have no value until we extract and sell them to foreign markets. I know that thought is foreign to the people on the other side of the floor. I remember very distinctly the phrase "leave them in the ground." B.C.'s manufactured products have no value until they are delivered to their purchasers. For this process to occur, highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, seaports, rail lines and more must be constructed and maintained. It is a responsibility shared by government and the private sector.

Despite the global recession that slowed growth in many sectors of the economy, our provincial government's commitment to transportation has not lessened, and valuable construction is now being carried out. Meaningful jobs were and are now being created by transportation development projects initiated by government and private industry, and this infrastructure is assisting in the economic renewal underway in British Columbia today. Mr. Speaker, it is for this and a number of other reasons that I, on behalf of my constituents in Omineca, assume my new duties as the ministerial assistant to our great and almost legendary Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). I look forward to working with him, to the challenge, and to the further giving of my time and effort in building an even better British Columbia. I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House. All in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So be it.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I didn't hear the nays being asked for — perhaps there are some opposed. And in any event, has the motion been declared passed?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion was declared passed, but I appreciate and agree with you that the nays were not asked for. I would ask, then, on the motion again.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tabled the report on participation in post-secondary education.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:44 p.m.