[ Page 5189 ]

CONTENTS

Forest Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 3). Hon. Mr. Waterland.

Introduction and first reading –– 5189

Oral Questions

Public opinion polls. Mr. Hanson –– 5189

Summer youth employment program. Mr. Gabelmann –– 5190

Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. Mr. Skelly –– 5190

Education financing. Mr. Rose –– 5190

Tabling Documents –– 5191

Provincial fisheries. Hon. Mr. Pelton –– 5191

Throne speech debate

Mr. R. Fraser –– 5192

Mr. Howard –– 5195

On the amendment

Mr. Williams –– 5198

Mr. Mowat –– 5201

Mr. Cocke –– 5203

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5206

Mr. Nicolson –– 5208

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 5210

Division –– 5211

MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1985

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it's with great pleasure that I introduce two prominent people from Surrey in the chamber today: Mr. Ken Schaeffers and Mr. Paul Rust.

MR. SKELLY: I would ask the House to welcome a hardworking member of the NDP from Vancouver East, Mr. George Lawson.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, Fort Babine is a very small and remote community at the outflow of Babine Lake in the constituency of Skeena. Although I don't see them in the gallery, a number of students from the school at Fort Babine are certainly visiting the House today, and they will be in the gallery later on, along with their teacher Ellen Stanley and the principal of that school, Mr. McSween. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them to Victoria.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the public accounts for the fiscal year 1983-84 be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, just for the information of the members, may I indicate that copies are being distributed forthwith.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Waterland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act, 1985.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the amendments are minor ones primarily for administrative purposes. However, there are three amendments of significance. One will establish a fund to provide a way of financing roads under our Ministry's small business enterprise program. Another will provide that scaling may be carried out by official scalers appointed by the Forest Service, which will provide some efficiencies and cost-effectiveness to our scaling activities. The third will provide that when bid proposals are called, forest tenures may be broken down so that a number of smaller tenures may be issued rather than one large tenure.

These are the significant points in the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 3 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. NIELSEN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to draw to the attention of the House that the statement made by the Minister of Forests upon introduction of his bill is consistent with practice recommendation No. 5, and I would commend members to familiarize themselves with what is now a new routine.

Oral Questions

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

MR. HANSON: I have a question that I wish to direct to the Premier. On December 14, 1984, I wrote to the Premier asking for information about a number of public opinion polls referred to by his former principal secretary, Patrick Kinsella, in a speech at Simon Fraser University. Were any of the polls that were cited by Mr. Kinsella paid for using taxpayers' money, including off-budget funds controlled by cabinet?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of Mr. Kinsella's remarks, or the polls he was referring to, so I have no idea what information the member is talking about. However, if they were polls of a political nature they would have been done by the Social Credit Party.

MR. HANSON: A supplementary question. Mr. Kinsella referred to a massive sample of voters that was launched about two weeks after he assumed the office of deputy minister to the Premier. Is the Premier aware if any of these polls were paid for by tax money?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, I would suggest, if you want to talk about government research, that you direct your question to the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who would take responsibility for coordinating any government research that's done.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I am directing these questions to the Premier because the questions refer to a person formerly residing in the Premier's office with certain responsibilities.

A question to the Premier. Has the government entered into any relationship with Mr. Kinsella, Progressive Strategies Ltd., or any other company involving Mr. Kinsella, since he left the Premier's office in March 1984?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Not to my knowledge and certainly not at my direction.

MR. HANSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Premier was aware, no doubt, that the political polling carried out extensively in the United States by the Republican Party is paid for by the Republican Party and not by, say, the Reagan administration.

Similarly, in Ontario if polls are conducted with tax dollars, those polling documents and the data and results are released and made public. In view of the public interest in this matter, and the practice in Ontario, as I've referred to, and in the United States, will the Premier now release to the public copies of all reports on public opinion research studies conducted by the government since October 1, 1981?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would take that question as notice, to consider what research is still relevant to current government policy, and will reply to the rest of the question at some time in the future, if and when a determination has been made.

[ Page 5190 ]

[2:15]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, one final supplementary. To aid the Premier in his determination of what companies may be involved, I would appreciate his bringing back to the House information with respect to polling services performed by Decima Research, Public Affairs International, Goldfarb Consultants, Canadian Gallup Poll and/or Canadian Facts, from that period — October 1, 1981 — to the present. Would he undertake to bring that back and table it with the House?

SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Before asking the question, may I offer the new minister my congratulations on his appointment to that very important post.

The question is this. The minister's predecessor negotiated a total B.C. contribution to the 1985 summer youth employment program of just over half of Ottawa's contribution, compared with Ontario, which is contributing nearly twice as much as Ottawa. Has the new minister succeeded in raising B.C.'s share of the funding to a more realistic level, matching our need?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, and would be pleased to take the question as notice and report back to the House.

MR. GABELMANN: I take it that the minister doesn't know whether he's succeeded in raising that amount. May I ask the minister then: has he entered into negotiations in an effort to raise that minimal amount?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to take the question as notice and report back to the House.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I thought I'd start with the easy questions. B.C. has put its small share — $10 million, which is the primary chunk of the funding — into the private sector wage subsidies, cutting out entirely the contributions in public sector and community. What guarantees has the minister secured from the private sector that this amount will be spent, keeping in mind that last year's allocation for youth jobs was underspent?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I will continue to take the question as notice and report back to the assembly.

MR. GABELMANN: I give up.

VANCOUVER ISLAND NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

MR. SKELLY: This question is to the Minister of Energy. The federal Minister of Energy stated on Friday that she had notified the provincial government last September that there is no federal money for the Vancouver Island gas pipeline this fiscal year or next fiscal year. To quote the minister: "I have said that there never has been any money." Will the Minister of Energy explain why he continues to announce and re-announce that the pipeline will be built with federal money, when he knows the reverse is true?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to maybe clarify a few things. As the member will perhaps remember, when the federal government introduced the national energy program for Canada, which each and every year takes $100 million out of the energy revenue of this province, the commitment of the federal government of the day — in those days it was the Liberal government; I'm sure you can remember back that far — was that the Trans-Quebec and Maritime Pipeline would be built out of existing funds, and that at such time as the province of British Columbia was able to determine which of the two routes the gas pipeline would take to Vancouver Island, they would consider that. That tax is still being removed from the people of British Columbia. They have taken over $800 million out of this province in terms of revenue as part of the national energy program.

In my role as the minister, I will continue to be persistent and rather a nuisance at times with Ottawa, asking them to honour their commitment, because they continue to take that amount of tax dollars out of this province each and every year. That is the whole basis under which the national energy program was built. It was built on that basis, and it's on that basis that I've had discussions. The federal Minister of Energy wants to conduct the negotiations through the press. I have done the best I can to ensure that we don't do that through the press, and we have had a whole host of communications.

MR. SKELLY: You keep announcing; she keeps negotiating.

HON. MR. ROGERS: You show me the announcements; I'll show you the negotiations.

MR. SKELLY: I understand that the federal government has taken a great deal of money from the province of B.C. In their energy taxes. Perhaps the minister is deducting the cost of unemployment insurance and welfare in British Columbia from the amount she's collected.

My next question to the Minister of Energy is: has the minister decided, while he's announcing these pipeline projects, in the meantime to reduce electrical prices on Vancouver Island until the Vancouver Island gas pipeline gets built? That way, the people on Vancouver Island will have some equity in terms of heating costs on the Island until that pipeline is built — if it's ever built.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. On the contrary, the people of Vancouver Island are currently blessed with subsidized electricity from the people on the mainland.

EDUCATION FINANCING

MR. ROSE: I have a number of related questions dealing with educational finances which I would like to direct to the Minister of Education. First of all, apparently Delta's revised estimate is about $168,000, as far as their deficit is concerned, which I think is both punitive and vindictive. Because the government failed to say that ministerial approval was needed before the deficit was incurred, and because the ground rules kept changing — the goalposts kept changing — I want to ask the minister whether as a gesture of good faith and in the spirit of cooperation or reconciliation — to

[ Page 5191 ]

say nothing about partnership — the government has decided to eliminate this fine against Delta, which penalizes, ultimately, the children of Delta.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received a statement from the school district, although I understand one is on its way.

It's rather interesting that we started off somewhere in the neighbourhood of $634,000, and according to my colleague across the way it's now something in the order of $160,000. It's just amazing how this should all come to pass. My point is that I believe that the amount that they are now talking about may be related to sick leave. In the matter of sick leave, I understand that the Ministry of Education and the government, for a number of years, have acknowledged that type of indebtedness as a deficit.

I think it's only fair that I get an opportunity to review material which Delta will be submitting. If it's in transit, fine. If they have communicated certain information to you as a member of the opposition, fine. But I don't intend to make any statements one way or another until I have all the information available to me.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, one is sorely tantalized and tempted to respond to the faulty bookkeeping of the minister that something that can start out as $600,000 and end up....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: They're not my books.

MR. ROSE: You were the one who.... Your ministry was the group....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, if we address the Chair, then possibly we circumvent the personalities.

MR. ROSE: I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that the minister can get out of the fact that he has changed the goalposts and the fine on at least two occasions. But I'd like to go on to a related question.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: You'll answer it anyway, whether I've asked it or not.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Another question, hon. member?

MR. ROSE: I'd like to ask a question about the conflict between the School Act and the interim finance act and the Compensation Stabilization Act. If there is an arbitration award and it's granted by Mr. Peck of the Compensation Stabilization Commission, then what is the minister prepared to do to assist these boards in meeting the extra costs granted by Mr. Peck, for which there is no financial provision or formula, since the minister controls the global budgets of boards?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I do not know, as of this moment, any decision which has yet been made by the CSP office.... Yes, we know one. There was one mediated in Alberni School District for 5.2 percent covering 18 months. I'm sure that Alberni School District won't be coming looking for more money after mediating a settlement.

Now the other item that the member is making reference to is this. In both the Howe Sound case....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Does that make you nervous? Well, if it bothers you that much, I'll put my hands behind my back. Is that what you'd like as an ex-school teacher?

Mr. Speaker, there are only two decisions....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I loved that headline from Alberni.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, not that one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, there have been two decisions rendered by the CSP office: one on Howe Sound, the other on Surrey. One involved a negotiated settlement, the other an arbitrated settlement. Both were referred back to the parties. No decision has been made by the CSP office. I recognize that school districts are in a difficult position, but so is everybody else. I think it's incumbent on us to wait until we have a decision from the CSP office. Both of those decisions will be somewhere between April 20 and May 1.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for the year ending March 31, 1984.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to respond to a question taken on notice.

Leave granted.

PROVINCIAL FISHERIES

HON. MR. PELTON: Last Thursday the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) posed two questions with respect to the salmonid enhancement program, particularly as far as the rationale used as the basis for signing the treaty with the U.S.A. and the actual dollars involved were concerned. I would like to respond to those two questions.

In respect to the first one, the two major principles in the recently negotiated Canada-U.S.A. salmon treaty are (1) that both countries shall give the highest priority to conservation of stocks; and (2) that the fish in the ocean belong to the country in which they spawn. The province of British Columbia has been involved in the treaty negotiations from the outset and was represented during the recent sessions. The province's major concerns were to ensure that the people of this province benefited from the economic value of the Pacific fishery and to ensure a fair representation of both sports and commercial interests. My ministry will be working

[ Page 5192 ]

closely and cooperatively with the federal government to ensure that these principles and objectives are maintained during the implementation of the treaty.

As for the dollars involved, Mr. Speaker, I have with me extracts from the 1985-86 estimates of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I would assure the hon. members that the federal government intends to meet fully its commitments regarding fisheries management and enhancement on the Pacific coast. We have, as a matter of fact, confirmed with the federal department that the aforementioned estimates are correct and that the federal government's commitment to salmon stock enhancement is stronger than ever.

There's just one other thing, Mr. Speaker, that I might add: that is, that the hon. member has not only this day received a response from me but also that in Friday's edition of the Sun newspaper, he also received a response from the federal Minister of Fisheries.

[2:30]

MR. HANSON: I seek guidance from you, Mr. Speaker...

MR. SPEAKER: The answer is no, hon. member. If it's a response that the member is looking for to a ministerial statement or....

MR. HANSON: …for the $25 million that was promised by Mr. Mulroney, and in fact only....

MR. SPEAKER: No.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds adjourned the debate.

MS. BROWN: I stated my case: I'm not supporting the Speech from the Throne.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Speech from the Throne because it recognizes the economic realities facing us today and proposes realistic measures to assist the process of economic renewal we are now experiencing. As a matter of fact, I did welcome the opposition's new era, for it has the responsibility to propose concrete measures to meet the challenge our province faces. I welcome their commitment to abandon personal attacks in favour of positive cooperative dialogue. That is the responsibility of each member of this House. However, I was disappointed in the presentation of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), but then there are some differences between us. I am inclined to be more positive about the opportunities we have here in British Columbia.

It seems that the NDP continues to see government as the primary source of new jobs. I really question how realistic that ever was in our economy, let alone in today's world. Secondly, the idea that somehow some minor tinkering with provincially fostered demand will fully restore an economy which is as export-based as ours displays a rather pathetic ignorance of the elementary facts of our economy. I regret that the opposition either has such a limited understanding or is still stuck in the old socialist rut.

Members of the Legislative Assembly can accomplish a great deal when they're working in their constituencies. Often I feel we accomplish more by listening to our constituents and acting on their behalf than we do by sitting here listening to each other. Having committed myself to constituency work in the past months has given me an opportunity to witness firsthand the economic renewal currently underway. Indeed, communities throughout B.C. are experiencing renewed economic activity and investment, construction and development. Consumers are once again starting to make their purchases that put people in the service, retail and manufacturing industries back to work.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are?

MR. R. FRASER: They are — slowly but surely.

The great economist, Alfred Marshall, once described economics as "the study of mankind in the ordinary business of life." Business and economics are not just million-dollar investments or corporate mergers; they are jobs. They are created through the purchase of the essential goods and services we use every day: houses, haircuts, food, cars, rides on the bus, whatever. Our economic climate is now in the process of regaining health and buoyancy. Economic activity is taking place throughout B.C. at an increasing pace, and that indicates that renewal and regeneration is indeed underway in our province.

The president of the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada is quoted in the February 22 edition of the Victoria Times-Colonist as saying: "The provincial government is providing prudent fiscal management in a difficult economic environment." That means jobs, Mr. Speaker. It is reassuring to hear such praise of our government's thrust in budgetary policies by this prestigious organization. It echoes what members on this side of the House have been saying for the last two and one-half years.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not very enthusiastic.

MR. R. FRASER: Oh, I am indeed enthusiastic, Madam Member. Yes, I've seen it happening in that great riding of Vancouver South.

We have made difficult choices. I suppose that sometimes people think we are consciously out to damage the economy. Far from it, Mr. Speaker. What we're doing is trying to make people realize that the good days we enjoyed are no longer with us, and we all have to tighten our belts and make it work. When we work together, we can make it work, Mr. Speaker. The time will come when people will see that these policies have been correct, and are still correct. We are not the only elected representatives to have recognized the reduced ability of the taxpayer to pay. Thoughtful municipal governments in our province have also shown fiscal responsibility and are now in a strengthened position to participate in our recovery. More will see the value of such prudence.

Some examples, Mr. Speaker. The city of Prince George has managed to hold tax increases to an average of 1.5 percent in each of the last three years, yet has been able to maintain essential service levels. In the words of the member, city council there has been first rate. In Kelowna, 62 senior staff members voluntarily accepted salary cuts in 1982 in an effort to help cover a $1 million cut in the city's budget. This

[ Page 5193 ]

year in Armstrong, the local school board recorded a surplus of $30,000 and did not lay off any teachers. One school principal said words to the effect that when difficulties arise, the residents of Armstrong don't sit around and complain; they do something. That's nice to see. Real leadership has come to the fore, and perhaps none better than the following example.

Elected officials in Trail recently passed a motion that said, in part: "Recognizing the economic situation our community is facing, Trail council is committed to an in-depth review of all city budgets, a review of all capital projects and a review of the city's user-fee policy." That is leadership. Trail has been fully supportive of the modernization programs underway at Cominco and has pledged to the federal government that city council is prepared to reduce the level of taxation on the mining company smelters. They realize that to manacle the biggest employer in the city is to harm themselves. They do not choose to do this, obviously.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It is the fiscal responsibility shown by the communities throughout the province, as well as by this Legislature, that is now enabling B.C. to recapture the economic vigour of past years and to take bold initiatives for future growth. Many communities are working on downtown revitalization programs in an exciting effort to redevelop business areas so that they may take advantage of coming better times. A unique cooperative program developed in 1980 by the Minister of Municipal Affairs to promote the revitalization of downtown business areas is taking place. The process brings together local city councils, downtown merchants and individual communities, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

The key participants are the merchants who have the greatest investment and incentive in improving the viability of their businesses, and this they are doing. Once an initial startup grant of $5,000 has been made, the merchants can study available options and develop a concept plan. Moneys provided by the provincial government by way of low-cost loans are repaid by the merchants two years after the completion of the revitalization project. During the construction phase, Ministry of Municipal Affairs makes available a facade improvement grant to improve storefronts, and after completion, offers a promotion-aid grant to offset costs incurred in promoting the downtown area through various media and advertising campaigns.

This program is especially intriguing for its reliance on the dynamic private sector to develop merchant associations for representation purposes, the establishment of a positive working relationship between merchants and their municipal council, and cooperation through working together on plans for the long-range future of their downtown areas. The low-cost loans provided by the government must be repaid, and the merchants are doing this; but what a great opportunity to generate jobs through increased business activity. Since 1980-81, 40 agreements have been signed with 37 municipalities, resulting in over $12 million in actual and committed investments. The program administrator describes the initiative as not just beautification but regeneration of the entrepreneurial spirit of B.C. merchants.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) has also shown his high regard for the entrepreneurial flair of our province's young people by ensuring that high school business students are given the opportunity of participating in revitalization efforts in their communities. With the minister's assistance, students in Armstrong recently worked with the promotion subcommittee of the Armstrong and Spallumcheen Chamber of Commerce to promote the opening of that community's revitalization program.

One of the most interesting downtown revitalization schemes is happening in North Vancouver's Edgemont Village, where $365,000 provided by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has enabled merchants to install new sidewalks, wiring, lamp posts and awnings. A 25-year-old shopping centre has thrown off its rustic old worn image and replaced it with a new look and a new attitude.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs has described Kimberley's downtown revitalization as one of the best in the province. His ministry provided a 12-year low-interest loan with no principal or interest payments for the first two years. Sixty percent of the $380,000 cost will be borne by the Kimberley retail merchants association, while a grant of $30,000 was made on behalf of the merchants of the Bavarian Society. The city of Kimberley has agreed to pay 40 percent of the total cost.

In all, 15 municipalities signed agreements in 1984 for the downtown revitalization program, and grand openings were held in Enderby, Mission and Armstrong, among others. Approvals for loans in 1985 have already been given to Grand Forks, Langley, Nelson, Sidney and approximately 20 other communities undertaking concept plans in anticipation of proceeding this year. This is a vivid example of the economic renewal taking place in B.C. Not only is the provincial government assisting these communities in a constructive and positive manner, but the merchants and municipal councils are working together in a joint effort to take advantage of increased economic activity. Most important, it is showing the vitality and entrepreneurship of B.C.'s small business sector.

According to figures supplied by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, small businesses represent 98 percent of all registered businesses in the province and employ one-half of the labour force. B.C. small business produces 32 percent of the gross provincial product. Even though we comprise only 11 percent of Canada's population, the Federal Business Development Bank does 25 percent of its loans in our province. We have a dynamic private sector, and it is they who are leading our economic renewal. Our government is seeking to assist the private sector and individual citizens in their efforts to stimulate our recovery in these difficult days.

The Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing operates the rental conversion loan program, which provides loans to individuals, groups or corporations in B.C. who want to convert existing homes or commercial or industrial buildings to produce rental accommodation. In this regard, it was interesting to note the story in the February issue of the Victoria Times-Colonist that reports a study by the Community Council of Greater Victoria claiming that the removal of rental controls almost two years ago did not have an adverse impact on tenants. That proves what members on the government's side of the House were saying at the time legislation restoring market sensitivity to the rental accommodation market was introduced: that it would merely balance the forces of supply and demand, bringing equality to the relationship between landlords and tenants. We have been proven right once again, Mr. Speaker — a normal, everyday opportunity.

[ Page 5194 ]

The Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications, through the discovery enterprise program, is encouraging high-technology industries to locate in municipalities throughout the province. In its first year the discovery....

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: I'll give you individual help later, if you need it.

In its first year the discovery enterprise program invested $3.4 million in 22 projects, stimulating an additional $30 million in outside investment and creating 270 jobs.

MS. SANFORD: Who told you all this?

MR. R. FRASER: Well, I'm telling you this. I've learned it before, Madam Member, but I'm trying to help you. Just pay attention and you'll be all right.

Many communities are benefiting from renewal and used the recession as an opportunity to put into place imaginative programs to stimulate economic activity. Port Alberni — and the leader of your party might wish to hear this — completed a $2.5 million construction program, the Alberni Harbour Quay. It is a multipurpose facility, including a public market, crafts, workshops, pier and float as well as tourist attractions. New Westminster's quay development site is presently going to tender as that community's waterfront undergoes revitalization, while Prince Rupert is working with the port authority and CN Rail to develop an overall waterfront strategy. That's leadership, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: You have to have long-range plans in this world, Mr. Member.

North Vancouver is the site of an $82 million waterfront improvement project, the Lonsdale Quay, while Nanaimo's harbour is undergoing new development. It's happening everywhere.

This would be a propitious time to congratulate Oliver, which was recently awarded an environmental development award in the public sector category by the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton) in recognition of the community's action in building a new sewage effluent disposal system. Rather than being discharged into the Okanagan River, treated effluent is now pumped into a large reservoir and is later used to water a community-owned golf course. That's progress, Mr. Speaker.

The economic renewal underway in our province is most evident in communities throughout British Columbia. There is a renewed sense of purpose and an increased effort at developing innovative programs to attract investment, and that means jobs. I never like to talk of management in capital investment; I always like to talk of job creation, because that is what it really boils down to.

[2:45]

Seventy-one Expo committees have been established throughout the province. Volunteers in the committees are devising unique and imaginative schemes to attract Expo visitors to their communities, which is the main function of Expo. They encourage local artists, musicians and others to participate in B.C.'s world exposition. It's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the community I live in — principally the city of Vancouver — is more and more becoming involved in, committed to, interested in, and supportive of Expo, which has received a lot of criticism in the past month. I even notice our local mayor, who has normally been opposed to everything until it appears to be popular, is now trying to go overseas at taxpayers' expense — this seems to be incredible, but it was described by someone as the mayor leaping on someone else's horse, and that's normal for him to do. However, he's not too harmful — can't be all bad.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: No, sir, not our local mayor. Gosh, he's an interesting guy. He's a great campaigner and a very nice guy. I just can't wait for the first day he makes a decision on his own.

Smithers, Mr. Speaker, is preparing for a 1986 northern B.C. Winter Games to be held next winter, just as Kitimat was winding down from festivities held in that community this past February 1, 2 and 3. Residents and businesses in Smithers are also undertaking a campaign to raise money needed by the Hudson Bay ski hill, which is mainly owned by the community. As of February 18, they had raised $140,000 of the needed $200,000.

It is efforts such as these that illustrate the extent to which economic renewal has taken hold in B.C. In example after example, communities are creating, stimulating or benefiting from burgeoning economic activity. In the city of Vancouver alone, projects which have been on hold for at least two years are now nearly complete, in many instances. All the activity which our local council wishes to take credit for has in fact no relationship whatever to their effort; it is the effort of this government — Expo, light rapid transit, B.C. Place and a number of other things. This government has been the leader in this province by such a wide margin it's unbelievable.

I had a very interesting meeting recently with some representatives of the labour movement who were asking me what our government has done, and it was no trouble whatsoever to relate a number of projects which are creating thousands and thousands of jobs which are benefiting everyone. So let there be no doubt about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'd say that's cabinet material.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wants to be the new leader.

MR. R. FRASER: Well, you might be right on both counts, actually, but we'll wait until the future.

I want to add my support to those who have expressed support for the pursuit of excellence in education referred to in the Speech from the Throne. I have taken a great personal interest in this subject and have spent a number of hours, days, weeks — whatever — not only in my own riding but outside the riding as well. It distresses me that there are people in the community who will make every effort — endless efforts — to destroy the good system that we have. It disturbs me that there are people in the community who are paid to organize meetings, and who come prepared with resolutions that seem to lead our good citizens and our good parents down the garden path.

In fact, as we all know, school activity depends to no small extent on the vision and perception that the principal of that particular school might happen to have. I can see differences from school to school within the riding that I represent, Vancouver South. It's quite incredible the opportunities

[ Page 5195 ]

that our kids have these days. It's also quite incredible that those who are benefiting from the system most — who should be the students, in fact — are not always the students. Some pressure and self-interest groups have spared no effort whatsoever to suggest to the parents that their children's education is being undermined. I suggest to you, as was said earlier by the minister responsible for universities, that there are times when we all have to work a little harder to produce the effort that will result in the opportunity going to the children and not just to the administration.

I have said many times in this House that I'm completely supportive of the public school system. There are obviously thousands and thousands of teachers who are completely dedicated to their profession. There are some in it, however, who are more dedicated to themselves. And using the students as an excuse is no alibi, as far as I'm concerned.

I want to congratulate the government on all the new initiatives to make our community go better.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, that won't take long.

MR. R. FRASER: I'll carry on for hours if you wish, Madam Member.

The hard decisions that we've made had to be made. The decisions that have not been taken by other governments will have to be taken by other governments. Let there be no doubt about that.

Back to education. In the community cultural heritage that comes out of Vancouver South, I can tell you that in the city of Vancouver, which has a budget of approximately $150 million annually, some $30 million goes into English-as-a-second-language training. I quite frankly wish that the title of that program was not English as a second language, for there are people here who have English as a second language — who are fluent in English, and many other languages. But I can tell you that out of the approximately 47,000 students in the Vancouver School Board system, some 9,000 have communication difficulties and some 1,100 have real communication problems, which suggests to me and should suggest to you that that $30 million out of about $150 million is a significant contribution to the people who wish to emigrate to Canada, who when they came did not speak English well. I wonder how many other jurisdictions made a commitment that significant, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that those of you who believe that there's not enough money spent on this program should do a little research work on the subject and check what other jurisdictions do.

The people of Vancouver and the people of this province have made no small effort to welcome immigrants to this country. We expect them to become Canadians when they get here.

The course of action this government will be taking in this legislative session, as read by His Honour, will enable our growing economy to gain strength and resilience as the year progresses. We are gaining new industries and new jobs through joint efforts of the private sector, municipal councils and our provincial government. As we approach 1986, economic renewal and the dynamic character of the individual British Columbian will continue to attract foreign investment and expand exports of our natural resources and manufactured products.

The recession is behind us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. FRASER: The future is bright, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

There is a saying: "When the going gets tough, the tough get going." We can now add another chapter: "When the going gets tough, some just leave town, because they can't handle it." That's what happens to some of those guys. It's incredible. I wish those who can't handle it well. But there are lots of people out there who can handle it. Thousands of people working in our community have had to face realities that no one would wish to face — realities not caused by us. All the problems cannot be solved by any government, whether it includes every member of this House or not. But we will not solve any problems if we keep fighting against the facts of life, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome this new throne speech. I welcome the new opportunity that we all will have, and I welcome a new willingness to work the problems out together.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to say how much I attentively listened to the third member for Vancouver South congratulate those wordsmiths in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for preparing such a document that lent itself to being read with such ease — monosyllabic words and things of that nature.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I think that did quite all right.

There are a number of similarities between the current government opposite and its Premier and the federal Liberals and former Prime Minister Trudeau. They are very great similarities. Both Prime Minister Trudeau and the current Premier were aloof from their advisers, took very little counsel but that of their own and operated to a great extent in secrecy in terms of coming to conclusions about how to deal with things. I think secretly our Premier was envious of Prime Minister Trudeau, because Trudeau seemed to be able to get away with attacking people, whereas this Premier can't. The Prime Minister seemed to be able to get away with ridiculing groups in society. He had the flair for it. He had the intellectual capacity to put it across. This Premier doesn't seem to be able to do that.

In the last months of their reign in power the Liberals in Ottawa lost touch with society. They lost touch with the common, ordinary people. They lost touch with the circumstances in communities. They lost touch with economic realities — exactly the same pattern of events and activities that this government has been engaging in in the past few months — the last number of months of its last reign in office.

The Liberals under Trudeau blindly followed high interest-rate policies as a goal and as an objective in the absence of any concern about what those did to our economy. They followed a high interest-rate policy endorsed by this Premier in written form, applauding the activity of the federal government and the Bank of Canada to move interest rates up a few years ago. He said that that was the wonderful device to deal with the economy. Our Premier supported it blindly. Draw the comparison within this province of the current government's activity with respect to the way it approached the economy a couple of years ago, blindly following the concept of its narrow, and restraint program and saying that was the solution. That was going to solve all our problems and all our ills, and that would lead to economic recovery and get people

[ Page 5196 ]

back to work again. That policy failed just as miserably as did the high-interest rate policy of Trudeau's.

[3:00]

The result of the Liberal government's activities in Ottawa under Trudeau was the highest unemployment that we've seen in this nation since the time that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) refers to as "the Great Depression." There was the highest continuous rate of bankruptcies, a lessening of disposable income on the part of our citizens, and a lessening of capital investment — everything was on the way down economically because of the policies followed by the Liberal government.

When we look at this province, our province, we see precisely the same pattern, because we have a government that has blindly followed a narrow concept in trying to deal with the economy. We see in this province the highest unemployment rate since what the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications calls "the Great Depression." He said it the other day almost as if he loved the term and loved the activity. It was almost as if he was proud of the fact that we have 15 percent of the people in this province unemployed. That's the way the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications dealt with the matter.

Bankruptcies are running rampant, particularly in small businesses. There's a shortage of capital investment money, a shortage of equity money and a shortage of disposable income on the part of our citizens. I'm inclined to think that Gorde Hunter, in the Times-Colonist at the end of last week, was quite accurate when he said that this will be the Premier's last stand — that the Premier will not lead the Social Credit Party into the next election. We have again a comparison with the Trudeau Liberals: they got into such a miserable bit of discontent internally and recognized that they couldn't possibly deal with the economy in any positive, rational, helpful sense. Finally Prime Minister Trudeau decided that was it he threw in the towel and resigned.

That's why this is happening. And there's a Liberal standing up right now; that's the only thing that's caught his attention all afternoon. When I talk about the Liberal Party, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) stands up, a light gleams in his eyes, he says, "Oh, where's my card?" and he looks in his pocket to see whether his dues are paid up. The fellow that sits just in front of him — the Premier — both because of the dissent within the Social Credit Party and because of the revelations in the Speech from the Throne, has, like Prime Minister Trudeau, admitted defeat, admitted that it's not possible for him or his government to be able to deal effectively with the economic situation in this province.

I agree with Gorde Hunter in that I think the Premier is on his way out, by his own determination. I tend to disagree with Mr. Hunter when he goes through the catalogue of potential successors.

MR. SKELLY: There's no potential there.

MR. HOWARD: Well, the only potential successor to the current leader of the Social Credit Party is the third member for Vancouver South, who just sat down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HOWARD: It's true. He wants it, and his supporters in that central, cliquish, secret group want him to have it as well. He's waiting in the wings. So I say to Gorde Hunter, through you, Mr. Speaker: write another article, but get the players correct this time and point to the third member for Vancouver South as being the alternative....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, hon. member. Although we are allowed a great deal of latitude during the throne speech debate, improper or incorrect reference to a member in the riding he represents is unparliamentary. There is a list of members who sit here and the ridings they represent, and the member might refer to that when referring to other members.

MR. HOWARD: I'll look at that list then, Mr. Speaker; I certainly will. Where does he come from?

Let's deal with unemployment and job creation, and ask ourselves whether there are possibilities within the economic situation as it exists right now and the alterations in corporate activity and their structure…whether those alterations and the situation are amenable to the creation of jobs. I think not — certainly not to the extent that it was the case not too many years ago. What are the corporate objectives? Now they're simple, they're always there, and they are consistent. And they probably come more to the fore and more noticeably to the attention of corporate managers and the general public in tough times than they do at other times. But they're simple and uncomplicated. One of them is not the creation of jobs as an initial activity — as an ancillary activity perhaps.

The primary corporate objectives are to serve the balance sheet; to try to make the profit-and-loss statement come out on the profit side rather than the loss side; to manage their affairs so that cash flow comes in all the time, so they've got money to spend; to arrange their deferred taxes — in other words, unlike the rest of us, who have to pay taxes on a payroll-deduction basis, they defer the payment of taxes so that they can have that cash ready to spend — and to arrange their depreciation. They keep one set of books — and I don't say this in a disparaging way — for tax-reporting purposes and another set of books for shareholder-reporting purposes. There's nothing illegal about that. I'm not saying that they're hiding anything; it's just that they report one thing on one side and something else on the other. That's in order to manage their cash flow. That's what their purpose is.

In the last few years corporations, in serving those objectives, have determined that they need fewer employees. When fewer employees are required in any particular plant or operation, they're out of a job for that operation and they have to look elsewhere. They're unable to find anything elsewhere and they swell the ranks of the unemployed. With fewer workers, and even the same production, they can identify that as higher productivity. That serves the balance sheet and the profit-and-loss statements. If they can increase the productivity beyond that and reduce the cost of producing a unit of whatever is being produced, all the better for the corporation. That activity is fairly well ingrained now. We see quite a few references to that by corporations in the lumber industry.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: In sawmills. With fewer workers we've got increased productivity, and it will stay that way.

This throne speech, barren of any reference to that question, indicates that the government has a barrenness of mentality about dealing with it as well. We've got to take the

[ Page 5197 ]

question of the tens of thousands — hundreds of thousands is perhaps the more appropriate phrase — of people who are out of work, who are unemployed employables, unemployed people who are on welfare — unemployable in many instances and for a variety of reasons.... I don't say that disparagingly; it's just a fact of life. We've got to have some recognition of that. The throne speech doesn't. Nor does anything I have heard from any of the members in the current government pay any attention to that.

We've got to identify as much as we can the area in which to operate. It is the promotion and encouragement of small businesses. That's the answer to the otherwise unanswerable question of providing employment opportunities for people. If they cannot fit into the wage economy and become wage earners in a production unit or a service unit, then their alternative is to live on unemployment insurance until that is exhausted and then move onto the welfare rolls, unless some encouragement is offered. That's where small business comes in.

There is in the throne speech — and I say this before somebody corrects me — a reference to small business. Did you notice where it was, Mr. Speaker? It was almost as if by accident, as if somebody had put the whole throne speech into the word processor and said: "My god, we'd better put something in about small business." So they inserted it with hyphens on either side of it, just as you would insert something with a word processor. It's an accidental reference, not anything reflecting cognizance of the problem.

Small businesses employ more people per dollar invested than do large corporations. They always have and probably always will, especially those that are family-owned and family-operated. Take northeast coal: a million dollars capital investment per job; one million bucks to create one job, Even with a high level of imagination and $50,000 for a small or small-to-medium business to create one job.... Use that comparison, and take the $1 million and make it available to small businesses, and you create 20 times the number of jobs that were created in northeast coal. That's what small business does — and not a word in here about that.

Small businesses, as I know from my own experience in the small town I live in, buy locally all their commodities, all the materials that they require. They buy them locally if they're available. They don't have foreign-located head offices to maintain. They don't have a corporate bureaucracy to give sustenance to. They are involved in the community in a local and social sense, and contribute more to local community viable life than does a large corporation — always did and always will. That's where the encouragement needs to come. That's where it would come when we talk about that and as we have talked about it.

There are some job-creation references in the throne speech. Let me just mention one of them. It's almost apropos of what the member who sat down a while ago said. It's on page seven; in fact, it's got a title here called job creation. Under the job creation title in the throne speech, there are two sentences. One sentence is identifying what the job creation projects are, and the other is expanding and saying what a good thing it is; so you can basically say there's one sentence under job creation. What is it? Expo 86, the new Annacis bridge — I thought we built that four or five years ago, or the member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson) built it, anyway and the Coquihalla Highway.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: No, I haven't driven over it yet, and I'm sure the minister, who sometimes gets to Langley, hasn't driven over it either. No, he spends most of his time other places than in Langley, that's why, and never gets there.

Expo 86, the Annacis Bridge and the Coquihalla Highway — that's the job creation concept of this government. That is recycling the same taxpayers' money. That's not the creation of wealth. That's not the foundation that we need in this economy and this society to provide income to people, just recycling the same tax money over and over again. That's like the downtown revitalization program. That transferred money from one pocket to another, but it didn't create any wealth.

[3:15]

Mr. Speaker, we need to encourage small businesses, not stifle them. Our people who are unemployed have got the imagination, the initiative, the desire, the skills and the temperament to contribute something to this province. They are people, along with thousands of others in our province, who deserve a government better than this one. They are people that are better than this current government in themselves and by themselves; and we can do better, if the government would just get out of the way and stop impeding progress towards small businesses doing something in this nation. Stop impeding the hopes and aspirations of people.

Maybe what the government has to do — in the kind of clichéd sense — is pull up your socks. For heaven's sakes, if you haven't got the imagination to do something, at least give people the impression that you're a little better than Trudeau and the Liberals are. But this throne speech doesn't do that, Mr. Speaker. It's negative. It reflects the one thing that characterizes this government throughout its history of office: confrontation, contrariness, attacking people in society and condemning them. If this government disagrees with something, they don't sit down and rationally debate the area of disagreement; no, they go on the attack. They don't debate on merit. They even went so far in 1979, because of a refusal or inability to debate subject matters on their merit, to classify us as Nazis. Now that's confrontational tactics, and that's the hallmark of this government's activity. No debate, just attack.

There is confrontation with the public service. The theme was: "Let's restrain everybody, and the cost of government will go down." You know that's a hoax, Mr. Speaker. The cost of government didn't go down; it went up, and it's gone up every single year since this Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has been the Minister of Finance. Every single year the cost of government has increased, not gone down. If the news reports are correct, Thursday's budget will be a $9 billion budget. If that is accurate, that's a 7 percent increase over what it was last year, and that's a total since 1979 of a 60 percent increase in the cost of government.

So confrontation is where it's at. Even Dr. Pedersen, in his resignation from UBC, wasn't subjected to what I thought a gentlemanly Minister of Universities would do: namely, express appreciation for Dr. Pedersen's contribution, express respect for the idea that they can have differing opinions, or something of that sort. No, he went on the attack. It was negative and confrontational, and basically called Dr. Pedersen a liar. And he did it within the sanctity and safety of the House, which is the worst kind of confrontation.

Mr. Speaker, the misery facing this province today is the absolute direct result of this current government's policies. It's nobody else's fault. There is nobody else to blame. It's the

[ Page 5198 ]

direct result of the sorrowful political goal of this government — wanting to hang on to office by any and every means, except honourable debate about the issues or an examination of issues on their merits. It's not a question of being in power but of being in authority that is the attraction for the current government. Basically, power is respected and admired by the great populace; but as we all know, power in the hands of a despot becomes authority, and authoritarianism is feared and despised, not respected. I think that's probably what has occurred.

In my opinion, there's no better way to describe the public view of the current government than to identify it as a loathing and despising on the part of the populace against the government because it has misused the question of power. Power shouldn't have a personality. The use of power should play no favourites. It should dispense justice in an evenhanded way. Then it's admired, respected and appreciated, and the benefits of society and government are enjoyed by the population. But when people in positions of power are shallow and crass, and exhibit brutalizing tendencies, then power does take on a personality. If there is a symbol anywhere of this government's personality, it's one of confrontation. The sadness in the Speech from the Throne is that it still reflects that personality trait of this government. It still gives negative messages to the people of British Columbia.

As I said earlier, we've got hundreds of thousands of people out of work and looking for jobs, and others on welfare and social assistance, many of whom have come to the conclusion themselves, regretfully, that there are no jobs available. Despondency sets in, and demoralization, and family discord is the result. Social and family upheaval, and all of the miserable things that are visited upon people, come as a result of that mood of depression. Not a word in the throne speech to even recognize that that exists. Not a sentence to say: "We are sorry, as a government, that there are people out of work." Not a whisper to say: "We have regrets that tens of thousands of people can't find work." It's completely ignored. That in itself is confrontational. That is in effect saying to those poor souls, who can hardly keep body and soul together in many instances: "We don't care."

Isn't it sad that we come to meet here at the opening of a new session, and the Speech from the Throne can't take a moment to recognize the misery that this government has inflicted upon this province? That's why the amendment says what it does. That's why we want to append this motion, and I so do, seconded by my colleague from Vancouver East, as follows: That the motion, in reply to the opening speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, be amended by adding the words: "But this House regrets" — and I personally regret, too, Mr. Speaker, having to do this — "that the speech of His Honour fails to indicate measures necessary for the reconstruction of the economy of our province, and that it continues to send negative signals to our people, thus undermining confidence in our resource-blessed province."

On the amendment.

MR. WILLIAMS: First, I must express my thanks to the people of Vancouver East who have returned me to this Legislature again to represent them. Vancouver East is one of the great ridings in this country. They are special people, and they've been sending special people to this Legislature and the Parliament in Ottawa for many decades: people like

Harold Winch, Arthur Turner, Angus MacInnis, Grace MacInnis, Arnold Webster, and others. They're people who've had a great impact on the quality of life in this country, and all of us are proud to be part of the movement that they helped build. The people of Vancouver East and the people of Okanagan North decided on November 8 that a message should be sent to the people who have abandoned those seats over there on the other side of this House. In my own riding, the message was very clear, in terms of the choice between the current government and the alternative. The vote was something like this: 12,857 votes for our side of the House; a poor third — 3,743 votes — for the other side of the House. That's a pretty clear message in terms of the kind of performance we've had from Bill Bennett.

At this stage, as we move into the decade under this man and this administration, we should reflect about Bill Bennett's ten years in power. Isn't it time we reflected on the results of his work in this part of the world, in terms of his impact on the magnificent landscape of British Columbia, our comer of the province? I can't help but wonder if the earlier premier, W.A.C. Bennett, might well reflect in a similar manner to some of us over here today. I suspect he might agree with us that in many ways the decade of Bill Bennett has been a lost decade.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, it might be appropriate to refer to members by their office or their riding but not by their given names in speeches, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: His decade — this man from Kelowna, Mr. Speaker — has been a lost decade, because he's generally made the wrong choices, he has generally made the wrong expenditures, he's generally picked and promoted the wrong people, and he has certainly set the wrong priorities. Strangely, in recent years he's taken an urban focus, on the city of Vancouver. It's been a costly one. It doesn't really make a lot of sense in terms of looking at the province as a whole, I know that W.A.C. Bennett wouldn't have agreed with that. The reason I know is that when I first came to this Legislature, coming as a young alderman from the city of Vancouver, as a young city planner, I talked a lot about that city that I'd grown up in. My first speeches were about the city and things that should and could be done there. The former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, listened, and he responded. He responded in a way, in those days, that I thought was a little strange. He said: "Well, young fella, I see it this way. It's like a pretty girl sitting on the veranda, and there's a lot of young men coming along and they are attracted by that one pretty girl. The world just isn't that way, Mr. Member. It's a world where only one of those lucky young men will join with that young girl. So they will have to carry on and look for other girls elsewhere. Well, a city's much the same. We should be looking at the small towns of British Columbia. That big city doesn't need our help — not that kind of help. It's the small towns of British Columbia that we can work on."

At the time I was kind of offended by that. After all, coming out of university and everything, that didn't sound very sophisticated to me. But you know, I've reflected on that since, and it seems to me that if we had developed the regions of British Columbia, and the hinterland, in a more sound and sensitive way in this last decade, then we'd all be better off.

[ Page 5199 ]

And the city of Vancouver would be better off as well, because it would reflect on the city of Vancouver. Anything that's done for the benefit of the hinterland in this province benefits the big city as well.

[3:30]

It seems to me that that message from W.A.C. Bennett was not learned by the person who was at his feet. W.A.C. Bennett wouldn't ever have spent $125 million on a stadium in downtown Vancouver and ended grants to recreation complexes and community facilities in every small town in British Columbia. W.A.C. Bennett wouldn't have done that.

W.A.C. Bennett would never have spent $1 billion on an untried ALRT system in the big city and, at the same time, close down acute hospital wards. W.A.C. Bennett would never have spent $1 billion on a one-shot fair in the big city, a six-month extravaganza, when he could have carried out smaller projects of lasting benefit in every town of British Columbia.

W.A.C. Bennett would have known that it didn't make any business sense to spend a dollar and get fifty cents back. He was a better businessman than that. That is what Expo represents. W.A.C. Bennett wouldn't have let Mr. Vander Zalm and others run after glitter projects in greater Vancouver, in the big city. He wouldn't have let them do that.

He would have seen those projects for what they were, and he would have seen the kinds of programs that we've seen in this last decade for what they are. I think the word that he might have applied to them, Mr. Speaker, is that we've been chasing fool's gold for a decade. We've been chasing fool's gold under this administration for a decade. I think that's the kind of term that W.A.C. Bennett might have used.

He knew the real thing, and he knew fool's gold as well. The glitter projects in the big city are fool's gold compared to what we might have done.

What have been the major thrusts in this decade under this man from Kelowna? Northeast coal has clearly been the one new major departure in terms of public policy. If anything has been the thrust of this administration, other than the big city programs, it's been northeast coal. At this point it's very clear: it's the wrong project in the wrong place at the wrong time. It required infrastructure that the southeast never required. It cost far more to mine than the southeast has required, and it's come in at a time when there are declining markets for coal as well.

It's in place now and there are 3,000 jobs there. As the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said, that's a cost of $1 million a job in terms of the jobs in the coalfields.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they got the wrong hole.

MR. WILLIAMS: And they've also located the hole in the wrong place, but that's the mining operation itself.

Think about it. If we were going to employ the 228,000 — the 16.4 percent — that we presently have unemployed in this province, under this administration's methods with northeast coal, we'd be talking about $228 billion, some 30 times last year's budget alone, to employ our population. I think we all know, as W.A. C. Bennett would know, that that just won't work at all.

What about the other programs in this decade, Mr. Speaker? Well, there was BCRIC, of course, and it's trading today for $2.57, so I think the market is telling us what BCRIC is worth. That's another one of the major projects of this new man from Kelowna. So once again we've had classic errors in BCRIC, in terms of appointing the wrong people — department store millionaires, urban land developers, people with no background in the field — and the result is there in terms of the prices for shares right now.

Restraint has already been gone into. Conservative economists have estimated that restraint of the last three years of this man's decade has added up to a minus quantity in terms of 50,000 more unemployed than would have otherwise been the case had restraint not been pursued. So clearly that's the result of restraint.

We get other ideas that come off the wall from the think tank for this man from Kelowna. There are new buzzwords — special economic zone. But those aren't quite half-developed yet, and we still wait for some agreement from Ottawa. But they're new buzzwords, new ideas that clearly don't do the job in terms of employment. In a sense that, too, is part of the fool's gold. It's the classic problem, I suggest, of the prodigal son searching the world for an answer — a program, a policy, a goal or a fortune, and, of course, the answer is always right here at home.

We've been chasing fool's gold, and the answers to our problems are really right here around us on the hillsides throughout the province of British Columbia. What's available in terms of employing our people is very clear. It's what we've always worked at through the years, through the century. It's really the green gold that's on every hillside of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

But the man from Kelowna chooses to ignore it. Our future in this province is still tied to our land and our people, and it's as simple as that. If you ignore the land and you abuse it, as we've been doing, and if you do not replenish it, as we don't with our forests, then we truly are the prodigal people, and this is the prodigal son. As David Suzuki says, this is not a planet for the taking. The land is the base of a life chain that we're only a minuscule part of. We have a moral and an ethical obligation to husband the land and nurture it, because we're only here for a short time. But that kind of bond has been broken under this administration, and we're all losers as a result. Ironically, that kind of effort would create jobs and build the economy as well as meeting our moral and ethical obligations to this part of the planet we share.

If we look at our forest lands a little more carefully, we've got 1.5 million acres of what the foresters call not satisfactorily restocked land. Those are lands that have been logged, that we've done nothing with, and they've come up in bush or scrub. In addition, we've got over half a million acres that we've put new conifers in, but on which the conifers will be lost if we don't deal with the brush that's taking over. That's two million acres related to old logging areas. But we've already got, in total across the province, about three million hectares of bush land instead of forest land. That's a legacy of weeds that we're being given from this administration — an area of some seven million acres. That's almost the area of Switzerland which has been allowed to go to weed in British Columbia. That's economic loss, and that's jobs lost as well in this province of ours. It's $50 million a year in stumpage alone, if we were handling the lands right. Of course, in this province we don't charge much in stumpage. We need to tackle those weeds, Mr. Speaker, and and we need to intensively manage those forest lands.

One of the outstanding foresters in our province is Prof. John Walters. He's done most of the original research in terms of land management. He runs the UBC Research Forest at Maple Ridge. He spoke to the professional foresters last year

[ Page 5200 ]

about this problem, and he said that we should spend at least $660 million a year. That's twice what you still haven't achieved in terms of a five-year agreement with the federal government, an agreement that the Premier and the former Minister of Industry have constantly tried to derail. Even that pitiful amount of $60 million a year they have tried to derail. Yet the most thoughtful, experienced man in the business says that we could and should be spending $660 million a year. And what does he say that will do? He says that will transform our forests. He says we can create far more lumber, logs — results — out of a quarter of our forest land through intensive management than we do out of 100 percent of our land right now.

He says that amount of money expended in the province would mean 100,000 new jobs. The dimension of our unemployment problem in this province is so great that these are the kinds of terms we have to talk in. There have been no goals, no numbers from this administration, no attempt to say, "We're going to create 50,000 jobs this year, " because you obviously don't intend to do that. But out there in Maple Ridge there's a professor working away who says: "This is the way you can create 100,000 jobs." That means moving 100,000 families off welfare, 100,000 families out of unemployment, and that is what has got to be done.

The unemployment rate right now is 16.4 percent. That's the official rate. It's the highest since records were kept. In North Okanagan alone there are 28.5 percent, as the member said last week, and that's a diversified local economy. When you get into the forest towns you're looking at 40 percent unemployment. It's clearly the forest communities that need the work. And these are the same people who have the skills to do the job that Prof. Walters is saying we should be doing. It's immoral to let these two things remain the way they are when there's a job that needs to be done and people are out of work on a scale we've never seen in our generation. Yet the job does not get done. It doesn't make any sense. There is $2.6 billion being spent by these people on pogey — unemployment and welfare — and people are idle.

We should compare ourselves with the Scandinavian model. They've never entertained anything over a few percent unemployed; they are upset if it's 3 percent; consistently throughout this century they've not had double-digit unemployment. We should look at Denmark, Sweden and Finland: these are countries that could be the models for British Columbia. Let's look at little Finland. It's twice our population and much smaller in land area. What do they do in terms of looking after their smaller forests? This is what they do. They actually harvest about the same land area in their smaller country that we do. They harvest 160,000 hectares a year; we harvest 150,000 hectares a year — less in terms of area harvest. They can do that because they manage their lands carefully and well, and they put their people to work. It's as simple as that. They're involved in things like this — these are words the foresters use: scarification, site preparation, planting, seeding, spacing, thinning, fertilizing and draining. I toured that country, and it's most impressive. It's like walking hundreds of miles through a park, because they manage their forests differently than us. Has anybody walked through a clearcut in British Columbia? Is that like walking through a park? They do that kind of work — clearing, fertilizing and planting on 800,000 hectares annually. We do it on only a quarter of that. They do four times what we do, on a smaller forest base. No wonder they don't have any unemployment.

What about little Denmark? We don't even think of Denmark as a forest country. They have about a million acres of forest land in little Denmark. That's one one-hundredth of what we have in British Columbia, and out of that they harvest two million cubic metres a year. If we met their standards, we would be harvesting three times the amount we do now. We presently are held down at 70 million cubic metres; we would be harvesting 200 million cubic metres if we met the forest standards of Denmark. There would be nobody unemployed in British Columbia if we followed the Scandinavian model.

At the same time, the direction that we should be taking in terms of husbanding the land.... We should be husbanding the resources in terms of young minds. They have to grow as well. We already have a university professor resigning because he doesn't think young minds can grow satisfactorily in your climate in British Columbia.

[3:45]

It's our land and our people that are the questions before us, Mr. Speaker, and it's the prodigal from Kelowna over there who sees neither. He builds the $30,000 escape hatch from his office so he can avoid the press, and he surrounds himself with his $3,000 or $6,000 parliamentary secretaries — whichever it is; after today's performance I can understand the reduction in the fee. He doesn't participate with the people out there in the community. I wonder if the man from Kelowna has ever talked to the people in the food bank lineup in the lane behind Christ Church Cathedral at Georgia and Burrard. I think not. Like the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) said: "It's interesting that the food bank is Mr. Bennett's contribution, and his father's was the Bank of British Columbia."

Always we get, from the member from Kelowna, the short-term play. It's the focus of all his activities. It's always the short-term play; it's always the minor point against your opponents....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, please, for a moment. The member for South Okanagan, I believe, is the correct term, or the office that the person holds, if you would, rather than personal names.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's the current member for Okanagan South, Mr. Speaker, and even Okanagan South may crumble before long, and we'll have some different representation from all of the Okanagan Valley after the next election.

The long-term good of the province is not served by that kind of attitude, the kind of approach that we get from the member for Okanagan South. It's no wonder. If it's always one-upmanship, if it's always gamesmanship, then there's never going to be any kind of long-term economic plan. We're all the victims of that.

We have here a Premier who's isolated. He speaks to a few downtown business groups in Vancouver. He speaks to that handful of people in the business community who are happy with the big-ticket items — projects that his father wouldn't have entertained in a thousand years. Yet the green gold is there right across the province. It's land waiting to be replenished. It's a way of employing our people. It's not a make-work project but real, necessary work — work with a payback in the short term in terms of people planting and working in the forests, and in the long term in terms of harvesting and new industrial jobs as well. It's a genuine

[ Page 5201 ]

investment in our future. It's the best kind of work, Mr. Speaker.

It's work that links man with the land, and work in that sense that I believe has a spiritual basis. That's important in terms of fulfilling, worthwhile work — work that will benefit us and our children. In a sense, if we see our forests rather as agriculture in British Columbia, and if we see our children as the assets they are, then culture and agriculture can go hand in hand. This would be a very different land indeed than it presently is.

There's no evidence in terms of change in this throne speech. It's clearly going to be more fool's gold from the people on the other side, and the prodigal son, it's abundantly clear, is no nearer redemption than ever. That's his loss, and it's certainly British Columbia's loss.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I speak against the amendment and in support of the Speech from the Throne, a document that conveys a theme of hope and confidence in the future of our province. The past several years have been difficult for nations in the western world. Indeed, it may be argued that all nations are facing difficulties, some more perilous than others.

One of my colleagues previously mentioned a recent study that concluded that Canadians have the second-highest standard of living in the world, yet many in our country are dissatisfied and many are without employment. It is obvious that our economy is undergoing a transformation. Employment is growing most rapidly in the service industries, communications and tourism. The object today is to broaden our economic base into new areas of manufacturing and processing. This transition will not be without difficulty, and many people are finding it extremely trying.

Given the problems that we are facing, I believe our government has acted in a responsible manner to ensure that hardships have been kept to a minimum, while at the same time encouraging the creative and entrepreneurial spirit of British Columbians. The Speech from the Throne illustrates the positive initiatives that our government is taking to meet these changing conditions. Now the opposition has the responsibility to propose concrete, specific measures to meet the challenges that our province faces. We welcome their commitment to abandon personal attacks in favour of positive, cooperative dialogue. This is the responsibility of every member of this House. Solutions have not yet been found to all the demands placed upon the changing economy, but we can be hopeful that the worst is over. We must ensure that our province remains in a position to adapt and adjust to the external forces so that the benefit which change brings will be ours rather than our competitors.

Unemployment in most nations remains unacceptably high, but we in British Columbia should not make the mistake of believing that it is a problem we cannot rectify or reduce ourselves. While we are limited in our ability to influence world demand for our natural resources and manufactured goods, we can work to remain competitive and productive. Unfortunately, many of those who are proposing measures to put people to work repeat old solutions that have been proven failures in the past and/or are so costly that we would only succeed in digging British Columbia further into the quagmire of debt for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to get calls from young people who say to us: "Please don't continue to increase the debt. Don't mortgage our future. I don't want to get out of my educational facility or institution only to find that when I go to work I have to pay off a debt that has been incurred by you people."

Make-work projects that do not challenge or develop people's initiative, talents or productive skills are more damaging than remedying, as well as being a costly imposition on those who are employed. We must examine positive courses of action, not shop-worn platitudes whose only product is political rhetoric. I believe that we must examine the causes of unemployment in our province and find a means of increasing jobs for people.

Much of the difficulty we face today is due to the structural changes in our society. Because of our province's resource wealth and growing economy, during the 1970s B.C.'s population grew at a rate almost twice the national average, and as part of the trend that was evident across Canada, our labour force grew at an even faster rate than did our population. Much of this can be attributed to the greater number of women entering the job market. Between 1973 and 1983 the female labour force in British Columbia grew by 68 percent, while the male force grew by 30 percent. This is noticeably larger than the Canadian average, which in the same time period increased by 54 percent for men and 19 percent for women respectively.

At the same time as this phenomenal growth in the labour force was taking place, our resource industries were economically being less intensive. Last year low record production levels were reached in forestry and mining, and both these industries required fewer employees than in previous years. Despite the fact that these developments are minimally influenced by government actions, government can be a positive force to encourage positive growth in our economy by accommodating change and assisting progress. This is especially so in the area of labour relations. At a time when unemployment is unacceptably high, it would be folly to allow those presently working to be made unnecessarily idle by work disputes and other stoppages. In January of this year, only 4,292 worker-days were lost in labour disputes involving 319 workers. This is a positive start to 1985, one which I hope can be maintained with the support of the throne speech and the budget initiatives.

I believe the labour situation is improving in British Columbia. I anticipate that the actions of the government will be seen as positive in this regard and that our province's reputation as a hotbed of labour unrest or an unreliable supplier of goods will be replaced by an image of harmonious and cooperative labour relations.

In fact, in an average year in British Columbia approximately 1,500 collective agreements covering 225,000 workers expire. Most new agreements are reached without any kind of work stoppage. Over the past five years the annual average number of work stoppages has been 98. This means that about 94 percent of all collective agreements are settled without a minute's time of work being lost. Compared to the rest of Canada.... Other provinces hold the dubious distinction of having the highest percentage of working time lost due to work stoppages in the last four or five years. In 1983 and in 1984 only 0.3 percent of the estimated working time in B.C. was lost due to work stoppage.

The amendments to the Labour Code passed by this Legislature last year were the first major overhaul since it was introduced over a decade ago. Given the enormous socioeconomic changes that have taken place since that time, some of which I mentioned earlier, these amendments were a much

[ Page 5202 ]

needed effort to bring the Code up to date and to deal with the new reality. The changes themselves are not responsible for economic renewal taking place in this province, but have been integral in improving our labour-management climate, which is crucial to the continued recovery.

Our Labour Code amendments made workers' representation more democratic than it was previously, an important consideration when change affects so many individuals. A more democratic approach was introduced in the areas of certification and decertification by making representation votes by workers mandatory in both cases. I think it is important to note that despite the dire predictions by some, both inside and outside this Legislature, that the increased number of votes would result in significant delays, the ministry, in cooperation with the Labour Relations Board and organized labour, have made procedural arrangements satisfactory to all parties. Since the amendments were passed last September, 107 certification votes have been held in response to the workers' desire to be represented by a collective bargaining unit.

We believe that the Labour Code amendments did not favour one side of the labour-management relationship over the other and that they were fair to all concerned. And that includes the public. Members of the general public, as well as uninvolved and unaffiliated workers, are often brought into disputes by secondary picketing. The amendments limited secondary picketing sites to places where the employer was carrying on the business of the primary site and only after the Labour Relations Board had granted approval for this action. This has benefited the public and other workers without unduly restricting the right of labour to carry on legal picketing. The amendments also reinforced the democratic rights of union members to dissent from illegal action or political protest ordered by the union, without fear of being punished unfairly. I believe this is a positive development for all British Columbians.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, as the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain I am extremely proud of the celebration that will be taking place in the city of Vancouver: our one-hundredth birthday. Expo 86 also will be taking place in the city of Vancouver — and in the province. It is a once-in-a-lifetime event that will provide all British Columbians with an opportunity to participate in our province's heritage, culture and achievements.

The United Nations, as well as 33 countries, have already made firm commitments to participate in this prestigious world exposition. Those countries, from virtually every corner of the globe, include Britain, the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, Kuwait, Kenya, Senegal, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Peru. Canada will of course be represented by its own pavilion, and the provinces and territories will also be represented. So far commitments have been made by the provinces of Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta, the Northwest Territories, the Yukon Territory and, of course, British Columbia with her B.C. Expo pavilion. Ontario announced today it will be spending $11 million on its pavilion and an additional $11 million on what goes into the pavilion. Manitoba is presently suffering from some economic uncertainty, but we sincerely hope that they will honour their initial commitment and return to the fold. Also, in the true spirit of detente and good will we have the People's Republic of China, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics coming together at the same fair right here in British Columbia. As well, we welcome the commitments from Mexico, France, Ivory Coast, Australia, Spain, Thailand, Iraq, the Republic of Korea, Colombia, Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany, Pakistan and Czechoslovakia. Numerous other countries are waiting to be signed. Fourteen corporate sponsors have signed commitments, and these include: Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, Telecom Canada, Air Canada, Via Rail, Royal Bank, CP Air, Pacific Western Airlines, Dairyland, Rothmans of Pall Mall Canada, the wine industries of B.C., Scott Paper and Imperial Oil. At least ten more are waiting to announce their participation and sponsorship.

It is also giving thousands of British Columbians employment. An even greater number of our residents will participate in both on- and off-site activities in 1986. I think it is interesting to note that more British Columbians will be working off-site on jobs created by Expo 86 than the 21,000 that will be working on-site during the fair. I repeat: there will be more citizens of British Columbia working off the Expo site than the 21,000 that will be working on the site during the fair. Expo 86 is creating jobs for British Columbians today and will continue to create jobs throughout the fair.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

During the construction phase alone, 18,000 person-years of employment have been created in British Columbia. During Expo, 34,800 person-years of employment will be created within British Columbia. To me, this indicates that many opportunities exist for entrepreneurial-minded British Columbians to provide unique products and services for the millions of people who will be visiting this celebration.

I believe it bodes well for the future of labour relations that both union and non-union workers have been able to construct Expo side by side. In fact union firms and employees have been awarded 85 percent of the dollar value of all construction contracts awarded by Expo. Clearly this demonstrates the competitiveness and the skill offered by the union workers of British Columbia.

One of the first measures the newly elected Social Credit government took in 1976 was to remove the distasteful legislation brought in by the previous government which prevented some British Columbians from working on projects paid for by their tax dollars. As of January 1, 1983, there were a total of 480,239 workers in British Columbia who were members of trade unions. This represented 46.1 percent of the total paid workers in British Columbia. It would be extremely wrong to say that over 50 percent of the working population could not work on projects of government support.

As a former human rights commissioner, I am pleased that I will have the opportunity in my new position as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour to closely follow the actions and policies of the Council of Human Rights. I have stated on earlier occasions in the House that I fully support the provisions within the improved human rights legislation that was passed last year. I believe that the council is doing a commendable job, despite criticism that emanates from those who are misinformed or merely opposed to anything that our government does.

The council is fulfilling its educational responsibility in a constructive manner and has embarked on an extensive public speaking program to promote the principles of human

[ Page 5203 ]

rights within our province. Specific target areas are the business community, small employers, community groups and schools. The Human Rights Act safeguards equal rights and equal opportunities that are fundamental to the freedoms we enjoy in British Columbia. As the former Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) said when introducing the new legislation, it provides British Columbians the freedom to live without harassment or discrimination based on hatred, prejudice, bigotry, ignorance or fear. Mr. Speaker, it should be obvious to all in this Legislature that the Human Rights Act and the Council of Human Rights are doing an admirable job of protecting the rights and freedoms of all British Columbians.

I think it is imperative that the top priority of the Workers' Compensation Board should continue to be in the provision of services and protection for workers in British Columbia. I am pleased to note, from my information, that the Workers' Compensation Board has increasingly been focusing its attention on activities of the more serious industrial hazards, and the minimum penalty for deliberate violation of safety regulations has been raised substantially. At the same time, I'm sure that the board's strengthened emphasis on education and consultation with industry will encourage a greater degree of voluntary compliance and greatly help to improve the working environment.

Another positive step is the current review of the industrial health and safety regulations. This process is aimed at making regulation less complex and more useful for labour and management to jointly cooperate in reviewing workplace hazards. Considerable improvements have also been made in efforts to reduce the Workers' Compensation Board unfunded liability during the last two years. I believe that both management and financial operations at the board have become more effective under the new chairman.

I hope also to be able to make a contribution in the vocational rehabilitation services, which was transferred in late 1982 from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Labour, in its efforts to assist those with mental handicaps and physical disabilities to become more capable in pursuing suitable and productive employment and take their rightful place in our community. The ministry works in conjunction with other government agencies and organizations representing disabled persons. I hope that my experience may be of use in assisting these valuable efforts.

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne is an encouraging signal to British Columbians and indeed to other jurisdictions in Canada and the world. It indicates that our province is looking forward to a future that will bring continued improvement to all British Columbians, economically, socially and spiritually.

The solutions to difficulties we commonly face are not to be found in quick-fix panaceas or by blaming others. We must work together to improve our economic climate, and we must have confidence in the abilities of all individuals.

The economic renewal of this prerequisite to the future is now underway in British Columbia. I am confident the government's course of action will assist in encouraging this state of affairs, and I strongly support the Speech from the Throne.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can stay a little closer to the amendment than the last speaker. The only time he mentioned the amendment was when he opened his remarks, and he indicated he wasn't particularly partial to the amendment and then went on and made the speech prepared for him in the Ministry of Labour. I know that this parliamentary secretary business is a marvellous new opportunity that has been afforded some of the members in this House, but you can sure see some sterile stuff coming out of those bureaucracies that is even worse than the renditions that we heard here before.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the amendment. He defended a document that's before this House right now. He defended the document by indicating that it was full of.... Let me read it to you. "There is hope and confidence.... Hope and confidence exudes from this document, Mr. Speaker."

Well, I'll be kind to the member. You know, there's no hope or confidence in this document. There seldom is in a throne speech. So let's not kid ourselves. A throne speech is a PR job done by a government. But this one is even more empty than most. I said before that this is a throne speech that is rather nice to follow because it has these beautiful little titles. But once you get beyond the title and read what it has to say about what it has to say, it says nothing — zilch.

Mr. Speaker, what our amendment says is "that this House regrets that the Speech of His Honor fails" — and I say fails — "to indicate measures necessary for the reconstruction of the economy of our province and that it continues to send negative signals to our people and undermine the confidence in our resource-blessed province."

Mr. Speaker, the member says that out of this Speech from the Throne comes hope and confidence. Where does he get that hope and confidence from the speech? Where is it in this whole speech? I don't see anything, Mr. Speaker, but a lot of words. He talked to us about the marvels of Expo in his speech. He talked about the marvels of great labour-management accord of recent months due to something that the government has done in the past. He talked about a letter that he got from somebody, or maybe it was a personal contact from a number of students. And you know what those number of students said, Mr. Speaker? They said: "Don't increase the debt." Is that what they said, Mr. Member? "Don't increase the debt. Don't mortgage our future." Well, I'll be darned. They talked to him a little bit too late. The total debt in this province in 1975, including all Crown corporations — there was no operating debt at that time; none at all — was $4 billion. From the dawn of time until then, we had accumulated a debt — and Hydro was as voracious then as they are now; loved to go into debt — of $4 billion. We are now in excess of $16 billion in debt.

[4:15]

Those students said to that member: "Don't go into debt." Well, Mr. Speaker, what's he going to say if he is to be honest with those students? Without really providing any kind of an economic upsurge, without really doing anything for the economy of this province, which has suffered worse than any other jurisdiction in the country through this recession and continues to suffer.... That member can take a look at the food lines if he doesn't think so. What did we get for this additional $12 billion? The very thing that those students were talking about — a future that is mortgaged to the hilt and with not a thing to show for it. That government, which is supposed to be so management-oriented, has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag; they couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag. It's the most disgraceful display of management that this province has ever seen, and, Mr. Speaker, this province has seen some pretty disgraceful displays in the

[ Page 5204 ]

past. I go back down to the old coalition, a similar coalition to what you've got now: corrupt, stupid, but nothing like this present government.

We're asking for some hope for the future. We're looking forward to seeing what the government has to say definitively on budget day. But nothing in this speech gives us hope or confidence. It's a description that would be afforded by a PR man. We should have been working with the total community a long time ago. One of the things that I have found in the past few months, in asking questions — as I'm sure most of my colleagues in this House on both sides of the floor must do from time to time; that is, talking to different people in different areas of the economy — is that there is no confidence. A province that has a 300 percent increase in bankruptcies must be in dire shape, in terms of confidence. Go to our sister provinces and find out what theirs are — a low of around a 7 percent increase; the highs are around 15 to 17 percent increases. Yet here we are, all by ourselves, with this 300 percent increase. Something has to be done about it.

I predicted, and I will predict again, that this government will not survive — nor should they survive — this particular effort that they've put forward in the last few years. They may have fooled the people in '79 and in '83, but they will not fool the people the next time they go to the polls. This province has been badly mauled. It's been mauled by a government that doesn't know up from down. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to say that they did it on purpose, because I don't think they did it on purpose. But I do think they are completely off track. You know, they went to bed with the Fraser Institute and they came out of that bed, and who suffered? Not them — for some reason or another — but the people of the province of British Columbia suffered as a result of those discussions that they had with the Fraser Institute. They were totally on the wrong track.

Now why should they have been able to predict that they were on the wrong track in the first place? They could have predicted it if they had read a little history, because exactly the same kind of methods that they used were used by R.B. Bennett — no relation to the present Premier — a prime minister of this country in the thirties. And what did he do with the country? He shot it to death.

AN HON. MEMBER: He ignored Harry Stevens.

MR. COCKE: That's right. He ignored one of his own kind, H.H. Stevens. And they sent the economy into a downspin then, as this government has done this time. I'm not going to suggest that there hasn't been a recession that hasn't affected the globe. Yes, it has. But it's to the extent that it has affected us that we're complaining. It's an extent that hasn't been enjoyed — if that's the word to use — by people in Manitoba. It hasn't been visited on people in Ontario. No, we are unique in the Canadian experience. When we went into this recession, and when the Premier got up and made those profound remarks on February 18 a couple of years ago — going on three, I guess — we had an unemployment rate of 8.5 percent. Now we're up around the 16 percent mark. Holy fiddle! Haven't we shown good management? Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of management that this government has provided, and it's an absolute failure — demonstrably in every way an absolute failure, a failure that even those members must recognize. They must recognize it, because everybody in the province does. Nobody in British Columbia is running around extolling the virtues of this government. The way they have done business....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, there are lots of people.

MR. COCKE: Oh, your daughter and who else?

MRS. JOHNSTON: My mother.

MR. COCKE: Okay, so there are two or three people in the province who are extolling the virtues of this government, but they are few and far between.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen to date has been a bit of a sad show in this House. For instance, I was waiting with bated breath to hear what the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) would have to say about anything. It was an absolute marvel to hear that maverick, who was criticizing this government right out of their shoes until suddenly he became a parliamentary secretary....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Listen to him. He said: "Would I sell myself for $3,000?" I don't know what your price is, Mr. Member for Omineca, but obviously the price was right, because I listened to a speech that was a monumental difference from all the speeches that I've ever heard him make around here.

MS. BROWN: They sure know how to shut you up.

MR. COCKE: They shut him up all right.

Let's talk for a few moments about one or two aspects of how this speech relates to the amendment. What we're calling for here is the amendment, and what that amendment says is, yes, let's restore confidence. Yes, Mr. Speaker, tell us what you are going to do. What are you going to do for reconstruction?

"In broadening the partnership, my government will harness the $2 billion a year purchasing power of municipalities and other public sector bodies, including Crown corporations, to create new opportunities for business and new jobs for British Columbians."

One of the most frequent criticisms that I get.... I'll bet you that when the members of this government's support get up they will agree that one of the most frequent reports that we get vis-à-vis this whole question of supporting B.C. business is that B.C. is continually buying elsewhere. I've talked to bridge contractors, structural steel people, all sorts of people — people making those insulators, remember, that went elsewhere. They don't buy B.C.; they haven't bought B.C.

Tumbler Ridge was a good experience for anybody that wanted to take a good look at it. So much of that work was done out of province; so much of that work was imported from out of province that it was not even funny. If you went up to Tumbler Ridge, you saw nothing but Alberta car licences everywhere.

One of the problems that this government has is that they don't talk to business, labour or anybody. I understand there is a big deal coming up on budget day. They're going to bring all the aldermen and mayors and everybody down to give

[ Page 5205 ]

them the message. You know what that message is going to be, Mr. Speaker? I know it as I know my own name. They're going to dump on the municipalities. They're going to say: "You do it. You get the province back on the rails." And the reason they're going to say that, Mr. Speaker, is because they can't.

AN HON. MEMBER: Friendly partnerships.

MR. COCKE: Friendly partnerships is right. We've had so many friendly partnerships.

The residential taxpayer in this province is being hammered to death by this government. I hate to think of what's going to happen to the residents in the metropolitan areas once they decide how they're going to pay for ALRT.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to offer a few words along the same line with respect to this speech and the fact that it does not provide the confidence. I want to take you to the point in the speech where it talks about volunteers. Do you remember local volunteers — almost the last section of the speech? It says there are thousands of local volunteers in host communities, and the government wants to thank them for their assistance — the Winter Games, the Summer Games and all the rest of those volunteers. That's great, but when this government came to power, they talked about volunteers in the community and the development of more. Do you know what they did? They took every volunteer service in the last three years and just put the squeeze on them to the extent that they just can't function.

Let me give you an indication of what volunteers do. The Senior Citizens Service Bureau in New Westminster serves all the seniors in that town that need help. We have as high an incidence of seniors in New Westminster as they have in Victoria, believe it or not. The government cancelled every cent of funding to that bureau. The bureau is now running around spending most of its time trying to get a few dollars out of the community — or anywhere — in order to keep up their service. The amount we're talking about is $50,000 or $60,000. But that was the money that was used to provide the people who were the catalysts who would then provide the backdrop for the volunteers. It's a tragic waste of human endeavour, because now there is nobody to provide that leadership, if in fact it keeps on going the way it's going.

[4:30]

All through this speech we see the same kind of thing: words and no substance. Look at the speech and the way it talks about public education, the way it talks about employment training, and so on, when we know the exact opposite is true. There is the biggest squeeze on education that we've ever seen in the history of this province.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What is that member muttering about? I couldn't make sense out of your speech, and I can't make any sense out of what you're saying across the floor.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: It doesn't make very much sense to me, Mr. Speaker, but anyway he's had his chance. Maybe he can speak on the amendment.

They talk about excellence in higher education. We need this in order to get people ready for the jobs, when and if jobs ever come up. As long as the Socreds are around, I'm a little bit worried about that. We had a president leave the University of British Columbia. He left for sunnier climes. I've never noticed much that is sunny about Ontario — that is, vis-à-vis B.C. I understand that's a possibility. In any event, he left with a great many criticisms in his lee. I think that, plus the job that the member for Prince George is doing on the public schools and colleges, puts us in jeopardy. Even if we do recover, we're going to have to be sending out for our help, and that's just nothing to really look forward to.

I believe that the speech indicated to me that there's still as much of a problem in that government as there was when they first announced their restraint package. They don't really understand what one should do in order to bring recovery.

The member for Vancouver East did a splendid job in talking about forestation, indicating what other jurisdictions, other nations and other countries do with respect to their resource in the forests. We neglect it. I have a brother who loves to travel around the world, and does a lot of it. Every year he goes away somewhere. I have a little bit different desire: I travel a lot around B.C., so I know pretty well every inch of this province, with the exception of one of the two high points in Atlin. I find that the way that this province has handled its most precious resource — other than human resource — the forests, is absolutely reprehensible. What could we have been doing? We in the opposition have been crying out, saying: "For heaven's sake, while we're in the doldrums, let's at least do some work that needed to be done years ago in the forests. Let's get on with it." But we just can't get around to it. We're busy building a monumental loser up in Tumbler Ridge called northeast coal. We're busy building all sorts of edifices, all sorts of grand looking things to aggrandize this government, but they're not working. What could have been working is reforestation: working in those woods to bring about the most marvellous harvest for future generations and meanwhile, as the member points out, to create many many thousands of jobs. As I recall, he said 100,000 jobs just from this one particular area.

But I happen to agree with those who say that if we're to succeed, small business has to be assisted, has to be led, has to be helped. I'm not talking about throwing money after them but at least getting in there and working together to plan a better economy. They're obviously being ignored — with a 300 percent increase in bankruptcies, something's happening wrong.

They must — any government must — sit down with the important sectors of the economy. There was a day when the largest sector in British Columbia was harvesting our resources, and that day is probably drawing to a close in terms of the major aspect of the economy. I think secondary industry, service industry, will grow and continue to grow if we're to be a healthy economy, but you don't make it grow when you don't even know what one another thinks.

What is the government going to do about it? Well, I'll tell you. They're going to send out some splendid people from the executive council on a trip around the province to find out what people are thinking. "In the weeks and months ahead, led by my first minister, members of my government will travel across our province to communicate directly with ordinary British Columbians" — he stole that from Ed Broadbent, incidentally — "our private sector, labour and management groups and local governments to put in place a program of partnership for economic renewal." I know who

[ Page 5206 ]

comes off the worst on those partnerships that this government pushes forward. In any event, they're going to go around the province. Was there one mention there that they're going to structure some of the standing committees of this House in these particular areas so that one would have that kind of all-party understanding of what's happening? Not on your life; no sir. We've got the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) this fall running all over the province on his own. We had the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) going out and saying: "Let's talk about schools." I would say he should say, "Let's talk about fools, " and then look in the mirror, because anybody who says "Let's talk about schools" in our particular climate is asking for trouble, and nothing but trouble.

If this government doesn't wake up shortly, we're going to be in a worse mess than we're already in. I would like to say this too, and the throne speech and this amendment afford me the opportunity. I would just like to say, bye-bye Socreds. You're finished. You're all washed up. You'll never be back again — maybe as Liberals and Conservatives, but you're finished in this province once and for all, and you deserve it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Once more we've had from the New Democratic Party opposite a prediction of the demise of the government, and....

AN HON. MEMBER: Better give speech No. 4, Pat.

HON. MR. McGEER: Oh, be patient. If there are some familiar phrases in speeches I might make to the members opposite, it's only because of the slow learning over there, and it's done in the best of spirit with the best of intentions.

While the member opposite once more predicts, as his colleagues have done, the demise of the government, the reasons they give for it once again are precisely wrong. It's uncanny the way the New Democratic Party opposite can come up with the wrong answers to the right questions. If you were to advise them that the way to get accommodation and a meal was in the Empress Hotel in that direction, the New Democratic Party without fail would march in precisely the opposite direction, because that's their instinct.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: But it would be the same if it were the direction to an oasis in the desert; they would turn around and march off into the sand and the sunset, as their party has been doing.

Here is their amendment: "but this House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to indicate measures necessary for the reconstruction of the economy." But that was what the throne speech was all about. That's precisely what the throne speech did, and the members opposite have been unable to recognize it. They further go on to say: "It continues to send negative signals to the people…" when what the throne speech does is send positive signals to the people — the precise opposite of what that amendment says. "…undermining confidence in our resource-blessed province…" when it's building confidence. So you see in every aspect of this amendment, they are recommending precisely the opposite of what took place.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, reading the platform of the New Democratic Party in the last election. This was the party that was for the common people. That's what they said. Every single plank in their platform, without exception, was against the economy and would have done harm to the very people they were pledged to support. Why is it that the NDP cannot understand that it is impossible to picket your way to prosperity when the unions demand more? It is impossible to spend your way to prosperity when there aren't jobs in the economy and the spending only costs more in taxes.

I think the best way to get this simple message across and I hope and pray that this time I'm successful with our NDP colleagues opposite.... We have in our province many ghost towns. We could have picketed in those ghost towns; we could have tried to have public works in those ghost towns; we could have tried to tax the people more in those ghost towns in order to support some public works project — perhaps another school, perhaps another highway, perhaps another bridge. But without the fundamental production that was the reason for that town's existence in the first place, it doesn't matter how much you spend or how much you tax or what service industries you have. The basic reason for existence has gone.

It's so easy to confuse, in a large metropolis or at a NDP convention, the image from the reality. The reality is that in any society, including our own, you have to have fundamental production. It's so easy to recognize in a small town where that town only has a mine and that mine closes. Everybody gets that relationship right away. It's not so easy, apparently, when we're here on the floor of the Legislature. We say: "By golly, if we don't spend more on the schools and the hospitals" — and all the other things that the members opposite, who are against restraint, say we should spend on — "then the sky is going to fall in on the province." But that's not what the message is in this particular throne speech. It goes back to the necessity of having some fundamental production in the province that will support the schools and the hospitals, and all the other activities that we desperately — just as much as the NDP, even more than the NDP — want to see prosper.

But wait a minute. What are the NDP against? They are against northeast coal. No, sir, they want that money spent on social projects. They don't want to see a railroad built so we can get the coal out. That's wrong.

I can remember when Stu Leggatt was a member. He stood up day after day. He was against the fundamental production in the province. No, he wanted to take that money now, and he wanted to spend it on all the great projects that the NDP had for using tax money.

Somewhere along the line there has to be a little....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, there are many ways.

Mr. Speaker, how easy and fundamental it really is. If a business is having difficulty in selling its production and the government goes and says, "We're going to tax you more, " suddenly the business isn't producing anything. Then the people become unemployed, and you say: "Create jobs. Retrain them." So what do we do? We spend more tax money training people to do some other jobs, but who is going to employ them? Is somebody going to come along who can afford more taxes than the fellow who went out of business? Is that the way we're going to have success — we'll guess at what the retraining should be, not really knowing where the industry is going to come from that can pay more taxes? Suddenly, what we're doing is spending more on unemployment insurance, retraining and public works because that's

[ Page 5207 ]

supposed to create jobs, and all the time we're building up our tax bill.

Somewhere along the line somebody's got to come and say: "I can carry the burden of those taxes and start to employ people." If only we had that kind of situation, why, there would be no unemployment in Canada today; all the people would be able to pay the taxes that you've demanded, and provide jobs as well. But wait a second. What do we do if they don't exist? Maybe we say that somewhere along the line there were a few mistakes made. People can't pay these kinds of taxes and still have that mine or lumber mill or high technology industry to make it competitive with someplace else that didn't load all these taxes and didn't have all these big spending plans that destroy the jobs.

I can recall a time when everybody thought it was possible to tax business more and more and more. People thought the way to get more wages was to picket, and the holy grail was wage parity with the United States. In those days there was full employment, there wasn't inflation, and there was a dollar that was equal. But somewhere along the line we began running up $35 billion deficits. We began having 15 percent unemployment, and our dollar wasn't worth $1.06 or $1, or 90 cents or 75 cents; it was equal to 72 cents and going down. Maybe if we'd had a federal government in those days with some of the attitudes that you see in the throne speech, we'd have a dollar that's worth a dollar. We wouldn't have a debt. We wouldn't have inflation, and we'd have full unemployment and lots of money for universities and schools, lots of money for all the spending that these people are asking for.

[4:45]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, maybe now is the time to say that our country went off the track when they thought taxes could be put up to any amount, when they thought it didn't matter if there was a debt, when they thought it was quite all right to try to picket your way to prosperity. Productivity and restraint were something for the other fellow, and there was no need to respect the public dollar. Maybe we should have thought of those things in the 1960s and the 1970s. Maybe if we'd done those things we'd have a lot of people at work in British Columbia who are unemployed today. And maybe if we do these things today those British Columbians will be at work tomorrow, whereas if they were following the policies of the NDP they ought to move out of this province, because there would never be a job for them. The fundamental direction of the members opposite has always been in the wrong direction. Everything you have ever stood for is against economic prosperity. All of your policies will run down the production of the country — all of them. But if there is one that somehow has escaped our attention, please tell us. But no.

The member who just finished speaking, and who has now left to make his telephone calls to the press, has said that the government is going to disappear because they finally got the answer. Well, Mr. Speaker, they thought they had the answer in 1933. They thought they had the answer in 1937. They thought they had the answer in 1941 and 1945 and 1949 and 1952 and 1953 and 1956 and 1960 and 1963 and 1966 and 1969; and then, woe betide, in 1972 the people thought they had the answer, and that's when the trouble really started. As the former Liberal in this House, Gordon Gibson, said, when the New Democratic Party was government, they did the impossible: they produced despair in the mining industry at a time of record prices. How is it possible to turn ore into rock?

MR. WILLIAMS: Take it out in Tumbler Ridge.

HON. MR. McGEER: No. You know how you turn ore into rock? You tax it, and that's what they did. Not only did they tax ore until it became rock; they then brought forth a policy to tax the rock in the ground. You remember that? Hart Horn and the brilliant policy that destroyed the mining industry in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's nonsense.

HON. MR. McGEER: That's nonsense? We were here. I'll tell you what it did. It reunited the free enterprise parties of British Columbia faster than anything else that could have been done. The member opposite knows that. My colleague the Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips) spoke for hours and hours and hours in this House, trying to get just a few simple things across to the government about all the damage that they were doing. No, sir, it wasn't possible during the first 40 years of their existence when they were in opposition; it wasn't possible during the three years that they were government. It wasn't possible in 1975, 1979 and 1983, and it doesn't look like it's going to be possible in 1986, 1990, 1994, 1998 or through to the turn of the century.

This New Democratic Party is a disaster for the economy of British Columbia. Their policies are a disaster because they are fundamentally wrong. They have never recognized before, they do not recognize now, nor will they ever recognize in the future the contribution that somebody who works and produces makes to everyone. When you start taxing the person who produces to the point where he can no longer work on behalf of everyone, that's when you're in trouble.

We are in trouble in Canada today because we haven't obeyed that fundamental maxim that has been part of all successful government thinking since the dawn of history. If we start to discover now the kinds of policies that must be applied to restore....

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: What this member opposite would have us do, and would do if he were in government, is to try to outspend the federal government. That's what we're invited to do: match what they are spending. If they've got a $35 billion deficit, you run up the debt too. That's how we'll bring prosperity. That's the kind of thinking we get from the people opposite. Is there no way, no speech, no method by which some insight can be transmitted to that New Democratic Party, so that they will reform their ways and become a useful opposition in this province — so that they can be part of the progress and prosperity in British Columbia instead of being the perpetual sand in the gears?

I don't know, Mr. Speaker. I simply cannot find words to express my disappointment at the New Democratic Party, under new leadership, pledging itself to cooperation; instead, it comes up with the same old ideas that have characterized all of the failures of the New Democratic Party in the past. I say, more in sadness than in anger, that once more the New Democratic Party are wrong, and I shall be supporting this amendment.

[ Page 5208 ]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to hear.... I've always had the feeling somewhere in the back of my mind that there was some decency in that member. I've always had a soft spot for him. I always thought that somewhere deep down inside there was a humane person whose heart was as big as all outdoors, but like Judd in Oklahoma he just never let on. I'm glad to see that that little bit of faith of mine has been rekindled and that he agrees that the speech of His Honour fails to indicate measures necessary for he reconstruction of the economy of our province and that it continues to send negative signals to our people, thus undermining confidence in our resource-blessed province.

I think that if we keep talking about this amendment, maybe a few more will get up and see the light. I think there's some potential for the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton), for instance; there's a possible chance.

[5:00]

The member did get up and say a few things that I thought might bear some comment. He talked about the ghost towns of British Columbia, and he said that the basic reason for them becoming ghost towns was that their existence is gone. That is the thing that Social Credit fails to realize about economies. While we are mining raw resources, whether they be out of the mines or out of the forests of this province, we should be converting our economy into a secondary and tertiary economy so we do not create any more ghost towns here in British Columbia. The resources are finite, and that's why we have to have catch limits out in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. When I was a boy, I thought that the oceans were limitless, and that we would never run out of salmon, we'd never run out of rock cod, ling cod and one thing and another. But they are finite resources.

Coal is a finite resource. There might be 200 years of proven reserves of coal, but even that is finite. Our forests are finite, particularly if we fail to appreciate the fragility of the forest resource and the necessity to look after it.

He spoke about increasing taxes, and who has ever increased taxes more than this government? He spoke about how this government has undertaken restraint. This government has not undertaken any restraint; just look at the budgets for the last three or four years. There is no restraint there. They are spending more and more and more money; the question is where they are spending the money. That is the problem with this government. They are spending money in such a way that they've had to increase taxes. They have put 240,000 British Columbians on unemployment insurance, and they have put 250,000 British Columbians on welfare. We have the highest rate of unemployment.

I haven't traveled as widely as some of the members opposite. I've never been to the Maritimes. The Maritimes, I understand, are very quaint provinces. You can go and see the place that inspired Anne of Green Gables, Prince Edward Island. You can go to Newfoundland and see some of the quaint fishing villages. You can also see poverty. But there is one thing that this government has done for me: it has brought that poverty of the Maritimes here to British Columbia so I don't have to go to the Maritimes to see it.

We have not sent the right kinds of signals in this province. The kind of signal that we sent in Nelson.... We shut down David Thompson University Centre. We put teachers and faculty and staff on the scrap heap. We gave a signal to Westar to take the sawmill workers and put them on the scrap heap as well. We gave a signal in Kamloops. We just shut down Tranquille. There were some very good humanitarian reasons for deinstitutionalizing some of the residents of Tranquille, but we did it without even thinking about the economic impact. We just did it. So we threw hundreds of people on the scrap heap in Tranquille. We sent a signal to the Teck Corp.: go ahead, shut down Afton Mines and a copper smelter — throw people on the scrap heap.

Those are the kinds of signals that this government has been sending all over British Columbia. If people don't matter to the government, then how can the private sector be expected to try to work harder to keep things going? If the government shows no faith, how can the private sector be expected to show faith? How can they be expected to stretch out? Fortunately a lot of the private sector are actually doing a great deal more during these tough economic times than the government has shown faith in doing.

Yes, there was an economic recession. It started in late 1981 and went on into 1982. In 1982 on the floor of this House I was asked by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who interjected during a speech of mine.... The throne speech and the budget speech at that time were talking about economic recovery in the third quarter of the year, and I said: "It isn't going to happen." They asked me: "When will it happen?" I said: "Not until 1986." I'm very sad to have been so prophetic, but it's on the record of this House.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, it was self-imposed. The minister is correct. It was self-imposed because what happened in this province? I could have been wrong, but this government.... I had so little faith in this government that I thought I was fairly safe in making those predictions. I could have been wrong. This government could have made me wrong. The rest of Canada started to pull out of that recession. So if you looked at Canada — if you looked at Ontario and British Columbia — we all started down at the same time. We bottomed out at the same time. We were starting to pull out of it until May or June 1983. Ontario went on recovering, Manitoba went on recovering, Canada as a whole went on recovering, and British Columbia peeled off from the pack, because that is the day that they started to drive home their negative message, their negative signals, their so-called program of restraint, their war against prosperity in British Columbia. That is why we're in the trouble we're in today.

Mr. Speaker, last year was the Orwellian year, 1984. This year is the H.G. Wells year. It's the grave new world created by these people opposite. British Columbia deserves better. British Columbia is a resource-blessed province. British Columbia has more going for it than Manitoba, it has more going for it than Ontario, it has more going for it than Saskatchewan or Alberta or Quebec, but this government is determined to make sure that we compete.... This government doesn't want to compete in those leagues. This government is content to compete with a problem-stricken area — an area that has problems of communication and problems of isolation. It's sufficient for them simply to try to compete with Newfoundland and other maritime provinces to see who'll be number 10. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, right now on a scale of 1 to 10, we're number 15.

There we were. You had just won an election, a new mandate. The economy was improving, and that was part of the reason that you won that re-election. People could see that

[ Page 5209 ]

things were pulling up, and there were a little bit more optimistic signs. So you came out of that with a fresh mandate. For three successive elections you have asked for the opportunity to create a "climate" in British Columbia — you've always said: "All we need is the right climate." Yet we've got this record unemployment. You wanted that climate. You had a mandate, and British Columbia was just starting to see a little glimmer of light out there at the end of the tunnel, and do you know what the Premier did? He went out and ordered more tunnel.

I think this has been one of the worst performances of government in the entire British Commonwealth. We couldn't have done worse if we were in the most difficult part of the world. We have turned this country, this province........ We are trying to Taiwanize this province; that's where we look for solutions. I think the solutions are with the people of British Columbia.

You look in the throne speech. We talk about how we've got to increase our exports, broaden our markets and train our young people for new opportunities. I ask you: which opportunities? We're getting rid of opportunities at the B.C. Institute of Technology. We're getting rid of opportunities at the universities. We're getting rid of opportunities at the community colleges and the vocational schools. What opportunities? Is there any opportunity to be an architect in British Columbia; are we going to be building anything? Is there any opportunity to be a nurse; do we give any priority to health care? Is there going to be any opportunity in British Columbia to teach, to be an engineer? Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that less than a quarter of our engineering graduates are getting jobs now? When I was at the University of British Columbia people beat a path to the door of the engineering faculty. Everybody got jobs; you couldn't graduate enough engineers. Now because of the negative climate of this government there is not enough activity, not enough confidence in British Columbia for investors to come in and build, or for British Columbians who are waiting.

Mr. Speaker, this is sending a negative signal by not setting confident goals. This throne speech should have been job-oriented. It should have set job goals for this year and next year and the year following. That's how you send a positive signal to the people of British Columbia. This government has no view beyond 1986. What's going to happen beyond 1986? In May 1986 the Annacis thing is going to be finished; ALRT, northeast coal, Expo — everything is finished. What do we do after that? How many jobs are there? What you've done so far is double the unemployment rate in British Columbia. Are we going to see 30 percent unemployment in British Columbia after that, if this is the best that you can do?

This government is sending a signal to British Columbia Telephone Co. They're telling British Columbia Telephone to centralize, to shut down the services in the communities throughout British Columbia. Pretty soon you won't be able to get a repair person who isn't sent out from Kamloops or someplace if you live in Fernie, the way they're centralizing. But they're only doing the same thing as the provincial government has done with its government services.

We need to realize that there is no such thing as a global Canadian economy. There are regions in Canada, and some regions do better and other do worse. Certainly in Manitoba unemployment is half of what it is here.

We have to realize that even within this province you cannot centralize all economic activity in one area. You cannot tax and tax people supposedly for school purposes and then take those moneys and put them into megaprojects, concentrated in very small parts of this province. It is not free enterprise, it is not logical, and it's not good economics by any measure, or in any way, shape or form.

B.C. Central Credit Union, in their economic update for British Columbia, give not very good news, and they really back up most of the things that I have been saying here. We need regional economic strategies. We need to instill in the people of British Columbia the fact that we can do it. The answer to putting British Columbians to work does not lie in Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong or Singapore. The answer to putting British Columbians to work is to say that we can do it.

For instance, there are all kinds of people in British Columbia who research markets, come up with innovative ideas and put them on the market, only to have somebody come over here from Taiwan and simply look at it and pirate the market that has been researched by people here. For instance, cross-country skiing. There's a thing that you can put on your legs called gaiters. They zip up and protect you from getting snow build-up on your socks and such. There are two firms in British Columbia who have produced very good gaiters. They saw that there was a market with the advent of the popularity of cross-country skiing. They produced the product, marketed it, got it going here, only to find that somebody could come in once they had done all the work and use near slave labour to compete and beat them.

I think we have to instill in British Columbians a sense of patronizing British Columbia. We don't have to legislate it, we don't have to put up tariffs, but we have to show leadership. It doesn't have to be done by compulsion. But I'll tell you, we can make consumer choices which will send a signal to the people of British Columbia that we have faith in ourselves and that we can do it. British Columbia can be better, but we have to have leadership from government. We have to have a government that believes that local areas can solve problems, that does not centralize but allows local people to do things. There are so many things that could be done.

[5:15]

In my area, Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate that the Safeway does not bring in an outside type of bread; they put into the market bread that is produced right in the city of Nelson. That is the house brand, a brand called Johnny's Bakery, which is right in the community of Nelson. So Johnny's Bakery has been forced to expand in the city of Nelson and put in more jobs. We can do the very same thing in other areas — certainly in the food area. We can do that. I think that we should let people know that as long as people like McDonald's bring in buns from outside of British Columbia, in spite of the charity work they do and in spite of the employment opportunity they give for young British Columbians they are not doing enough for British Columbia. I will say that I don't want to see any golden arches in Nelson until they do start to show complete faith in British Columbia and buy British Columbia wherever they can, right down the line.

This is the way that we can start to build our province up again. We can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. You know, the Japanese did not get where they are today by going to some other countries and saying to themselves: "This looks like a nice industry. Everybody's all interested in this. We'll bring it in. We'll start doing this." The Japanese got where they are today, for instance, with bicycles. Back at the turn of the century they were importing bicycles. They found that not

[ Page 5210 ]

everyone could afford a bike, but they found that they could take a few old bikes and they could cannibalize them and put them together and build a reconditioned bike. The next thing they found was that they could provide a few of the replacement parts themselves. They could make sprockets. And then they started making bearings. Then they started to build other things. It built and it built and it built. Then they started to make motorcycles and automobiles and other products. They didn't start by suddenly importing some great huge thing such as a microchip-manufacturing industry. There are other things that we can do in British Columbia that I consider high tech, but the efforts of trying to attract Dynatek here to Victoria have been so pathetic, Mr. Speaker, because they're directed at the wrong end of things.

What we should be doing is looking right under our noses. There is no end of opportunity here in British Columbia. We can do it here. The people of British Columbia deserve more. In my riding, for instance, we could have actually hundreds of people at work within a month or two, if the government would make some of the resource decisions based not on centralized decision-making down here but on listening to some of the people in the community.

Mr. Speaker, this government has centralized, and by doing so they have absolutely stagnated the economy of this province. I would have liked to have seen in the throne speech signals that showed that this government has faith in the people of British Columbia, signals that encouraged British Columbians to take advantage of the opportunities, as consumers, to buy British Columbia products.

I have seen what has happened to this province. I have seen, as a person who is engaged in some commerce, that when you go to order something here in British Columbia most of the warehousing has been taken out of British Columbia because of this government's negative attitude. They are centralizing in places like Calgary — their distribution centers, which should be here in this province. And when I go and try to order something here in this province, I'm being told that it is back-ordered. That is something that retailers in this province are complaining about all the time; it's something that consumers are complaining about all the time.

But that is because of the signal that this government has given here in British Columbia. This government has said that health care is on back order. This government has said that universities are on back order. This government has said that education is on back order. This government has backordered the priorities of people in this province, and the people won't put up with it any longer. We want better service, we want more for our tax dollar, and we know that we can do better. If you don't have faith in us, the people of British Columbia, then get out of the way and we'll do the job.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Naturally I speak against the amendment, because I happen to believe that the throne speech itself does point to new directions and will help British Columbia in the long run.

I have a great deal of discussion. As you listen to members of the opposition, you hear these abstract phrases: stagnation, we've got to do something, there must be another way, we should do development, and so on. But I don't recall in this whole debate hearing one specific suggestion of what they would do other than the negative things, the things that they would stop.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It was interesting to hear this last member speak about, "We've got to have more engineers, " after his whole speech was dedicated to stopping every project that engineers would work on. Like any rail-building, any ALRT, any coal-mining, any bridges, any roads — any of these things he's against. So northeast coal, Expo, all of these things he's against, but he wants more engineers. To do what? Look at the existing bridges? You need to have projects to build on if you're going to have engineers. If you're going to have technically skilled people, you certainly need to have something for these people to do. It is wonderful to keep stating philosophically that we should have more of this, more trained people in this, more trained people in that, and to always try to put down any of the projects that these people would work on.

That member also mentioned that some of the other provinces haven't done as badly as British Columbia. I would suggest that perhaps there is one very good reason. I don't think anywhere in this country or this world is there such a negative force as the NDP in this province, who are against every single development that is proposed. They keep telling the world that if we just had one more opportunity, we would stop northeast coal, we would stop Expo, we would stop ALRT, we would stop every one of these projects. Is it any wonder that sometimes people around the world think that....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Heaven knows. The people once believed them. Just suppose they might believe them once again and cut them out.

They talk about how small business is the answer, and it is correct that small businessmen can do a lot in this province. However, who do small businessmen deal with? I am well aware, and so are all the people in my area, of the NDP policy when they were in government, where they attacked, as they do now, the large corporations. They attacked the oil and gas companies, and they drove them out of the province. Those companies didn't get hurt. They went somewhere else where there was a welcome climate. You know the people who got hurt, and I know many of them; I knew many of them personally, and well. The people who got hurt were the small businessmen — the service industries that dealt with the oil and gas industries. The big companies went out, and down the tube went the small businessmen. They have to have somebody to deal with.

I might just point out that there's been a fairly good propaganda campaign saying that the government in this province is responsible for all of the restraint measures, all of the unemployment, all of these features.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In their usual absolute negativist fashion, they applaud that.

Let's take a look at it realistically. The government did not order restraint in the private sector. The government did not tell the forest industry to cut back on their operations; the world markets did that. The government did not tell the oil and gas industry to cut out their sales, to cut out their production — that happened because the sales weren't there.

[ Page 5211 ]

The government certainly did not order restraint in the mining industry in this province. That happened because they couldn't sell the ore — the world markets again dictated that. The government in this province did not say to agriculture: "Cut back." They did not say to the manufacturing industries: "Please, cut back your staff. We need restraint." They did not say that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, we did not; the government did not say that. The markets dictated that, and that is what happened. What the government in this province did was recognize that it was happening, that there was a world recession coming on and there wouldn't be the sales.

AN HON MEMBER: You mean, you didn't want it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm not going to respond to all those inane comments, because they give them in their speeches anyway.

For instance, during the 1983 election campaign — how well I remember — the NDP said: "If you elect us, we will keep all the sawmills operating in this province, because we want employment. Don't worry that there's no sale for the lumber. Somehow the government will keep those sawmills operating." Anyone in his right mind would know that within a month all of those sawmill yards would be full, and there would be no more production, no more places to stack it, because there wouldn't be the sales for it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Record sales! Why do you think a sawmill operator closes down? Because of government policy? He does not. No sawmill operator shuts down because of any government policy. He shuts down when he can't sell the lumber that he's producing and make a buck doing it.

So the government did recognize that this was coming on. What the government said was: "If we're going to compete in this world...." Other countries decided to compete in this world. They did not demand continuing increases in spending when there were decreases in sales and revenue. Some other areas certainly benefited, but in this province, highly supported and led by the NDP, they said: "Don't back up. Keep demanding increases. Go on strike. Go on the picket lines. We'll support you." So what happened? We had the people saying: "In no way are we going to accept the reality of what's happening in the world. We still want a bigger share of the pie, even if the pie is getting smaller." So you had, with the full and continuing support of the NDP, this attitude of: "We want more, even if there is less being produced in terms of revenue."

The NDP keep suggesting that they are really interested in long-term benefits for this province. Yet every one of the policies they espouse is basically for the short term. You say: "Let the government create the jobs out there. Let the government subsidize and keep a sawmill open. Let the government create an industry. Let the government do that, and get the money from those existing taxpayers who can't afford to pay higher taxes. We would keep them all employed." It's great to say that you're always for the employee, but in the long run the government....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In the long run our economy does not depend on government jobs. That's what the NDP is proposing: either government-supported jobs or government-created jobs. In the long run our economy depends on jobs that are produced because there is a market for what those people produce, whether it is a service or whether it is an item of goods.

[5:30]

MR. HOWARD: Why are you lecturing me? I said that this afternoon.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There's no use lecturing you. You wouldn't understand anything. You're so entrenched in your negativist philosophy that you wouldn't understand a simple thing.

As I've indicated, the opposition talks about long-range benefits, yet they would have the government go into debt to try to win some support for something that is not going to be there in the long run. You cannot continue to prop up the economy in this country by makeshift operations when there's no market for the goods that you produce.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, under the provisions of standing orders, at 30 minutes before the regular hour of conclusion of routine business I must call attention to the fact that at this time we must now call for a vote on the amendment before us. As the member has not yet spoken in the main throne debate, he may have an opportunity to conclude his remarks at that time.

Hon. members, at this time the question before us is that the motion in reply to the opening speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor be amended by adding the words: "but this House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to indicate measures necessary for the reconstruction of the economy of our province and that it continues to send negative signals to our people, thus undermining confidence in our resource-blessed province."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

NAYS — 28

YEAS — 15

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may have leave to make an introduction.

[ Page 5212 ]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, looking particularly hale and hearty, happy and healthy, sitting in the gallery today is a former member of the House who occupied the benches for many years, as well as being a former Minister of Finance and former Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services, and many years MLA for Vancouver Centre and Vancouver–Little Mountain. Looking particularly smug today, I would like the House to recognize Evan Wolfe.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise in support of the Speech from the Throne. I would like to make a few remarks about the very positive aspects and the message contained therein, but due to the lateness of the hour, I would move that we adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:41 p.m.