[ Page 5213 ]

CONTENTS

Legislative Assembly Allowances And Pension Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 26).

Hon. Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 5213

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 5213

Mr. Blencoe –– 5216

Mr. Lea –– 5219

Mr. Gabelmann –– 5221

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ALLOWANCES
AND PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Chabot presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1985.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in moving that the bill be introduced and read a first time now, I just want to make the brief statement that the bill addresses and complies with the spirit of Mr. Peck's review of the compensation package. The legislation reduces the capital city allowance for the greater Victoria area MLAs from $30 a day to $15 a day, and reduces the capital city allowance for other members from $60 a day to $30 a day. The in-constituency expense allowance is reduced by 50 percent to $2,060 for interior, coastal and remote MLAs; the Deputy Chairman of the Whole and the government Whip's salaries are reduced to $2,000; and the official opposition House Leader and the opposition Whip's salaries are also reduced by 50 percent to $1,500. This complies with the spirit of Mr. Peck's review, and I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 26 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.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's nice to be welcomed back to the House, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I was not here last week to hear the scintillating debate that took place in this chamber, which I regret very much. I was practising what is outlined in the throne speech, and I would refer everyone to page 3, the new challenges that face us. We must adjust and position ourselves within the global economy and work in partnership with not only the private sector but the federal government, and I was doing just that last week as I attended the International Tourismus Bourse in West Berlin. Together with our tourism partners in the private sector and our partners in the federal government, we had a most successful conference in Berlin.

I should outline that the ITB, as it is known, is the largest tourism trade show of its kind in the world and a perfect example of the private sector getting together under the auspices of government to do business. Over 15,000 people in the tourism/hospitality industry gathered together to practise business, to put deals together to bring tourists to Canada and British Columbia, as well as to all other parts of the world. It spells out the importance of tourism as it fits into our scheme of things, Mr. Speaker. As we already know, it's our third largest industry, and growing, but if one could see the activity at a meeting like ITB, you would understand the importance of tourism to every country in the world — over 136 countries marketing their product very aggressively to all of the peoplemovers of the world. It points out that every other country is after the same tourism dollar that we are after. They realize the importance of it, and they go after it very aggressively. We must do the same.

We must market aggressively and smartly, and we must market in conjunction with the federal government and the private sector. We were doing just that and intend to continue. On my trip I had good meetings with the federal minister, and I would like to point out that there is a great spirit of cooperation between the federal Minister of State for Tourism, the provincial ministers and the private sector. For the first time in many years, I think we're all heading in the same direction and concentrating our efforts where they will do the most good in getting the most mileage for our collective dollars.

I should also point out, for the benefit of those in the industry, that we are very close to reaching an agreement with the federal government regarding tourism. There is not much left to do, and very shortly we will be announcing that agreement with all its detail. It's an agreement that I'm sure will be greeted with enthusiasm by everyone in the industry, because it will lay the blueprint for tourism in British Columbia for the coming five years.

Similarly, we had good meetings in London with the agents-general of Canada representing the United Kingdom and most of Europe. I would like to take just a moment to thank them all for the enthusiasm they are showing, not only towards tourism but especially towards Expo 86. I would especially like to thank Mr. Alex Hart, the agent-general for British Columbia, for all of his fine work and cooperation, and for all of the arrangements that he made for us on our recent trip. I would also point out that we had extensive meetings with the people from Ontario. I would like to congratulate them on their decision to come to Expo 86 with a $25 million pavilion. They realize the potential of Expo and what it will do for them in years to come.

[10:15]

1 would like to touch on just three or four aspects of the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, a speech that I would call a blueprint for prosperity and recovery in partnership with our friends in the private sector. Before I get into the details on Expo, I would like to talk for just a minute about the item on the top of page 6 of the throne speech — the new B.C. Lottery Corporation head office which was established in my constituency of Kamloops. I would like to commend the government for their decision to put that head office in Kamloops and take a chance on that wonderful town....

AN HON. MEMBER: And the MLA.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: And the MLA. It has done great things for downtown Kamloops which were needed to solidify the commerce there. It has created about 120 jobs immediately, right downtown, which number will be rising to 140 by the end of this summer. But more than that, it has revitalized the spirit of the businessmen and the people of Kamloops. It is attracting businesses, related and unrelated, because of the facilities that have been put in there. Within a very short time we should be announcing two more corporations which will be locating in downtown Kamloops simply

[ Page 5214 ]

because the lottery head office was put there, and this government had the foresight to put that right in downtown Kamloops.

I would also like to refer to page 7 of the speech and job creation, and especially thank the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) and this government for their foresight in accelerating construction of the Coquihalla Highway. I know the benefits of that highway have been outlined many times in this House, but you have no idea of the benefits that highway has already created in the constituency of Kamloops. It has created many jobs, and many people — friends of mine, acquaintances and others — would not be working now if it were not for that project going ahead between Hope and Merritt and, of course, between Merritt and Kamloops in the following years. Literally hundreds of highway construction people are working at this time who would be very hard-pressed to find work were it not for that project. So once again I commend this government for their foresight and planning, and particularly our Minister of Highways, the member for Cariboo.

I view this document as a blueprint for prosperity in the future, and I'm sure that if some of the members opposite would take the time to read it, they would find the job creation plans for the next five years in this province, and I'll touch on a few others as we go along. I'm very sorry I didn't hear all the speeches last week, especially some of those from the other side. But of the ones I did hear I tend to agree with the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) that they seem to be on the wrong track and heading in the wrong direction. Their answers to all the problems were to spend. Everything is spend, spend, spend. Let's make government bigger — that's the way to create jobs. When things get tough, spend more of the taxpayers' money and make government bigger. I heard enough from the two or three speeches that I did hear yesterday to say that I don't think I missed an awful lot by not being here last week.

Sometimes I shudder to think where the debt of this province would be had we had an NDP government in power for the last three years. They talk about debt. I don't think we have any idea what it would be like if we had had a government such as that in power during these very tough times, the way they would have spent money. I think we would be in the position that the former federal government has left the current government in — a legacy of debt and a position in which 30 cents of every tax dollar that we send to Ottawa goes to service interest. I feel that the province would be in the same position had we had a socialist government over the last three years.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: That's a very good speech.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I thought you would enjoy it, Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). I listened to yours....

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member for New Westminster talks about debt, but I'll repeat, Mr. Speaker, that if that member had been a member of government for the last three years, our debt would be out of sight by now.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We tried it once and didn't like it, and we're not about to try it again.

In the throne speech, under Tourism, it says: "My government is committed to the development of tourism and looks forward to welcoming new visitors to British Columbia during Expo 86." And beyond, I should add. "A healthy tourism industry, with its heavy reliance on small business entrepreneurs, will help provide jobs and employment opportunities for British Columbians now and in the years ahead." Mr. Speaker, we can't emphasize too strongly the importance of the tourism-hospitality industry to this province. Over 10,000 businesses large and small rely on the industry for their existence, incorporating everything from the Mom and Pop gas station and motel to the huge airlines and hotel chains — encompassing, I should add for the benefit of my colleague from Point Grey, everything from high tech to low tech and all in between. For many people it's the first job they have in their lives; it's the job that they use to earn their way through university. I think it's very important that our people have a healthy hospitality industry, so they have the opportunity to enter the workforce and to further their education.

More than 100,000 people in this province derive their livelihood from the tourism, travel trade and hospitality industry, and it's our intention to see that it's healthy and that it prospers. We have aggressive marketing plans for this ministry, both at home and abroad, for this coming year. They will be unfolding in the next month or month and a half. We have a new deputy on board in this ministry who is right out of the private sector and has a marketing background. I think that will be evident as the marketing plans for the Ministry of Tourism unfold over the next short little while. We are concentrating very heavily, of course, on our principal markets. Our principal market is British Columbia, and to that end, within the next six weeks, we'll be introducing a very comprehensive travel planner to the industry and for everyone in British Columbia. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that when the members of this House see it, they will realize that it's probably one of the most effective marketing tools that's ever been used to encourage British Columbians and others to travel around our province. So we'll be introducing that within the next six weeks.

We are marketing aggressively on the west coast of the United States for the first time in a long time. We are doing extensive focus group research in Washington, Oregon and California. We are finding out firsthand what the people of our principal markets expect when they come here, what they find when they get here, and what they want — and if they don't get it, why not. We will be sharing that research very shortly with the industry, and I think there will be a lot of pleasant surprises in there, and maybe some unpleasant surprises, that will give them something to work on. So within the next two or three weeks we will be sharing that with all of the people of British Columbia, and especially with the travel hospitality industry.

We have made extensive marketing trips to the Pacific Rim area — including our principal market in that area, Japan, and the emerging market of Korea — as recently as December of last year. We have been to Hong Kong and Singapore, and we always take the private sector with us. We take our partners in tourism with us when we go on these trips. I add, hastily, that they pay their own way on these trips, and that they go to work; we go to do business in these areas.

[ Page 5215 ]

We do a lot of business when we go to Japan, Hong Kong and Korea. As a matter of fact, on the last trip we made in late November or early December, we took our partners with us. We took about 23 people from the private sector and brought them together with the tour wholesalers and operators from the private sector in Japan — a very important market to us. We have done the same thing in Europe, especially in our principal markets of the United Kingdom and West Germany.

I want to talk just for a moment, Mr. Speaker, about another item on page 7 of the throne speech entitled "Expo 86, " which will be the most significant event to happen in this province between now and the end of this century. There probably will not be another event to match Expo in your and my lifetime. "Expo 86 will be a benefit to all British Columbians: the world will see British Columbia in a way which has never been the case before." I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, after being privy to some of the exhibitry that will be shown at Expo 86 — some of the exciting plans that corporations, countries, states and provinces have — that anyone in this room will not only be proud and pleased and privileged to go to see this world exposition but you will be hard pressed to see it in three days. To see this exhibition properly will take you closer to a week.

I urge everyone to get behind Expo and get enthused about it, because it will probably be our finest hour. It will encompass something for everyone — everyone in British Columbia certainly, everyone in Canada for sure and there will be something for every visitor from around the world. We'll have something there for people of all ages, and we'll have things there for the professionals to come to see.

For those who wonder about the job creation and the benefits of Expo, this is from the Vancouver Sun, Saturday, March 9. I was catching up on my reading after coming back to British Columbia yesterday, and I looked at this article entitled: "Rising Towers Defy Slump." I'm going to quote from it very briefly:

"A billion-dollar building boom is turning downtown Vancouver into a highrise haven in stunning defiance of a lacklustre economy.

"A Sun survey shows developers are betting that the hub of the provincial economy will hum again to the tune of Expo excitement and Pacific Rim trade. Their confidence in the future is expressed by architects in prestige designs of tinted glass, stainless steel and polished granite, all helping to create the glossy impression of a city on the move.

"The downtown projects are worth a total of more than $983 million."

Nine hundred and eighty-three million dollars, Mr. Speaker, and they're all there because of "Canada Place, advanced light rapid transit, Expo, " and British Columbia Place, not mentioned in the article. But those jobs that $983 million in construction is creating are there simply because this government had the courage and foresight to go ahead with Expo 86, ALRT and B.C. Place.

So when I hear from the other side that this government isn't doing anything for job creation, I ask them to go to downtown Vancouver and look at the cranes on top of the buildings, and to ask those hundreds of construction workers whether they think that Expo and ALRT and B.C. Place are creating jobs. Ask them where they would be working if those projects were not underway. So again I commend the foresight of those who were here before me and had the fortitude and foresight to plan and to go after a world exposition such as Expo 86.

The benefits that Expo will create will be immeasurable, not only in hard, cold cash and jobs. We could mention those, and I will: $3 billion in economic activity in this province alone — $4 billion if you include the whole country — because of Expo 86; 60,000 or more person-years of employment created simply because of Expo 86. And that doesn't even include the nearly billion-dollar boom in building that I talked about which is a direct result of Expo 86. So when they want to talk about job creation, I think right there, Mr. Speaker, this government has an enviable record.

Also....

[10:30]

AN HON. MEMBER: There's very little envy in Manitoba.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, I'd like to touch on that because, Mr. Speaker, I shudder to think where the unemployment rate would be if we didn't have these projects on the go. I'd like you to talk to the construction association in downtown Vancouver about if those projects weren't underway and if that billion dollars in extra building wasn't taking place. And they have the nerve to mention Manitoba, with the federal handout that they received, courtesy of the Liberal member. How many? An $890 million federal handout and they have the nerve to mention that in the same breath with this project in downtown British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, beyond what Expo will do in immediate job creation and immediate economic benefit for this province, just think of the spinoff benefits in industry and business alone. Virtually every leading industrialist and businessman in the world will be at Expo at one time or another. We will make sure that they're there; through our two ministers of International Trade and Investment and Industry and Small Business Development, we will make sure that they come to Expo. We will also make sure that they know what British Columbia has to offer. We will show them first-hand. We're going to take them through British Columbia and show them what we have to offer here and why they should be locating.

This is why earlier in my speech, Mr. Speaker, I congratulated the province of Ontario for having the foresight to build a $25 million pavilion at Expo because they know the benefits that will accrue to them from talking to all these international business people from around the world.

I only regret, and I've mentioned it before and I'll mention it again, that Manitoba, as mentioned by the member opposite, doesn't have the same foresight to come to Expo. I dearly wish that they would be there. If their economy is as healthy as that member says, they can afford it. They don't have to spend $25 million. I implore them, right from the floor of this House, to reconsider their decision, scale down their pavilion, get on board and come to Expo to do business with the world. I think the province of Manitoba deserves that, and I would dearly love to see them there. I will issue them this one more invitation to reconsider their decision and not be the only province in Canada that will not be represented at Expo 86.

Mr. Speaker, the spinoff in tourism will be even greater than that in industry over the long run — or as great. Expo 67 proved that. The province of Quebec and the city of Montreal reaped the benefits for years from Expo 67 and are still reaping the benefits from that exposition. It was hugely

[ Page 5216 ]

successful. It gave Canadians a moment of pride that they haven't experienced since but that they will experience again in 1986 when they go to our exposition on transportation and communication.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I just want to say that I congratulate my colleagues in government for this document, which is a blueprint to prosperity. It gives us the opportunity to work in partnership with other levels of government and with the private sector. I don't think there is any other ministry in government that works more closely and has a better relationship with the private sector than the Ministry of Tourism.

Two other areas in my ministry, if I may be permitted, where we work very closely with private industry.... The film promotion department of my ministry is a little three person department that, working with the people in the industry and the people who put the films together, the producers, is managing to attract in the neighbourhood of $40 million to $60 million in film production every year. This year is going to be another great year for British Columbia. These film makers are coming here for various reasons. They're coming not only because of the locations we have, the beautiful scenery and backdrops that they want for their movies; they're coming because of the pool of technical expertise that we have in British Columbia. They will tell you it provides one of the finest assemblages of crews anywhere in the world, and they love to come here and make movies. I have to add that the value of the dollar isn't hurting either. They have many other locations in the world that they could choose from, but one of their prime locations is British Columbia. We're thankful for that, and we're working hard to keep promoting that industry, which could grow from a $50 million-a-year industry to who knows where in years to come.

My colleague from Little Mountain reminds me of a brave young man that we have starting out on a round-the-world trip...

AN HON. MEMBER: March 21.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: ...on March 21, in a wheelchair, to promote this province and to promote Expo 86. It's never been done before, and I know that we all wish young Rick Hansen every success and godspeed. He's a fine young athlete and a tremendous example to the young people of our province, and we all wish him well. We'll be keeping in touch with Rick as he journeys around this world telling people about British Columbia.

One other part of my ministry that is becoming increasingly important, Mr. Speaker, is the convention and incentive travel side of tourism. I know I don't have to remind everyone of the marvellous convention facility that will be a legacy to the people of British Columbia once Expo 86 has wound up its activities. Canada Harbour Place will undoubtedly be one of the finest convention centres anywhere in the world. My ministry is working very hard to promote conventions — not only to Vancouver but to Penticton, Kamloops, Prince George, Victoria and all other centres of the province. But that facility in Vancouver will be second to none.

I should point out — many people may not be aware — that the incentive side of travel, worldwide, is becoming increasingly important as corporations use paid vacation trips as incentive to their employees. We are finding that this is one of the fastest-growing areas of travel and tourism, and to that end we have a person who works with the industry, very closely, to promote incentive travel: another example of partners in business, Mr. Speaker. We are working at many levels in my ministry in partnership with the private sector to enable them to do business worldwide.

I come back to my original statement: it would be great if everyone in this House could see the action that goes on at some of the large travel trade shows, and how government, by spearheading the effort, can open the doors and bring the private sector together so that they can do business in this $2 billion-a-year industry in our province.

I commend the throne speech to everyone. I would hope that everyone in the province — schoolchildren, adults, everyone — would read the Speech from the Throne, and view it as a blueprint for prosperity, for the recovery process that is taking place. It is a blueprint for us to work with the private sector over the next five years and beyond. I will be supporting the Speech from the Throne fully.

MR. BLENCOE: It's a pleasure to stand today and make some comments about the throne speech. My comments will be primarily about municipal affairs and some of the issues that we have been concerned about, and some of the expectations we may have now from the minister's announcements in the last few weeks. We hope for a positive agenda for municipal and local government.

First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that yesterday we had a Commonwealth Day message from Her Majesty the Queen. Unfortunately there was no reference in this House to that message, no reference to the youth of the province of British Columbia. I think that today, as one of the youthful members of this House, the youthful and august body that we are, I must draw attention to the fact that in the province we indeed have thousands and thousands of young people who I think are to be commended for their diligence, commended for their attempts to get a decent education. I believe we should be paying more attention to their needs and their aspirations as the future of British Columbia. Yesterday there was no mention of Her Majesty's comments, and I hope in the next few weeks this government, along with us on this side, will have a lot to say about the youth of the province.

Today there are 71,000 young people unemployed in the province. Many of them, if we go on the way we are, will never see any employment, or any long-term employment. A number of critical issues face us in this Legislature, but I suggest that the recognition that many of them may never see long-term employment is a critical situation; it is a crisis in terms of this province's faith in any government, and we must pay attention to that.

I hope that in the next few weeks we will see some major kinds of initiatives by this government — not the smoke and mirrors we have been used to seeing in the past, but some real indication that this government believes in the young people of the province. As one still fairly young person, over and over again young people come to my office — they come to all our offices — and there is one question: "What hope do I have to attain some meaningful employment in British Columbia? " We must tackle that issue. I think one way we could show our interest and concern and belief in the young people of the province is to introduce a motion, one signed by both sides of the House, giving 18-year-olds the vote in the next election. I think youth and their concerns is something we have not paid attention to, and I am optimistic that we will indeed give some serious consideration to their dilemma.

[ Page 5217 ]

As I indicated, I want to talk primarily about municipal affairs and some of our expectations — I certainly have them — of the pronouncements that are going to come up in the next few days vis-à-vis local government and municipal issues. Based on the vagueness of the throne speech, initially we were somewhat disappointed in the lack of initiatives shown towards local governments and their ability to be a part of reconstruction in British Columbia. Since the throne speech I've had the opportunity to meet with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) and discuss some of the issues that I think are important, and that the people I and my party are in touch with at the local level think are important. I put forward to the minister a positive agenda. I have constantly put forward a positive agenda, pulling local government into the major decision-making processes in the province.

The minister made announcements over the weekend, and I heard him say once again at a meeting in Port Alberni that he is going to bring forward initiatives to ensure that municipalities have a major role to play in the future of the province. I anticipate therefore an end to the entrenched paternalistic relationship vis-à-vis municipalities in British Columbia. I anticipate a devolving or removing of some of the centralized powers that this government has given itself at the expense of local government, returning those to local government. I anticipate an end to that kind of paternalism vis-à-vis local government. That is the positive agenda we would like to see. I anticipate a return to sound economic planning at the local level; that has to be a major part of any partnership deal which is established with local government.

[10:45]

I fully assume that land planning will be the major focus of local government; that they will not see their powers eroded in land planning. They know best for their local jurisdiction, and will have those powers returned to them. I anticipate that within the new framework of partnership for local government — this positive agenda that I hope we can all be part of — local government will have an important role to play in resource planning. We anticipate that positive agenda. We anticipate that local government will be given the opportunity and the resources to seriously plan for jobs and job creation.

We anticipate legislation to introduce the concept of municipal enterprise and to extend the idea of municipal tree farms and silviculture programs. This is partnership and a major sharing by the provincial government in financial support for local governments in this partnership. Anything else will be a continuation of the smoke and mirrors and loading onto the homeowner — the real estate taxpayer — the burden of having to front any kind of initiative that comes forward.

We say unequivocally that any partnership deal with local governments must not be at the expense of the homeowner. I anticipate that the homeowner will not pay for any kind of program that this government comes forward with. That has to be part of the positive agenda.

I anticipate that the minister's partnership — and I wish he was here today — will include decent, real communication and discussion with the UBCM, the mayors and the regional district representatives about how we're going to get partnership really rolling in British Columbia. It won't, I'm sure, just be: "Here it is. Take it, leave it or lump it." I'm sure it will be a meaningful dialogue, and that they will be serious about treating municipalities and local government fairly.

Because of that, and anticipating the positive agenda in which the homeowner will not be loaded with having to pay the costs of tax incentives or anything like that, I have today, in the interests of fair play, tabled a motion which, I'm sure, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) will be happy to second. I'll give the House an indication of what this motion is all about. At this point I believe the minister when he says that it will be an equal partnership. The mayor of Vancouver says that he believes and hopes it will be an equal partnership. We are giving the benefit of the doubt. I have suggested, in the interests of being able to discuss with all those representatives....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. We are on the motion of adoption of the throne speech, and debate on another motion at this time is not in order. Would you address yourself to the throne speech.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to address the motion; I'm going to give again, in light of my discussion, the general gist, the concept of what I've been talking about. I'm suggesting....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member should address the motion with respect to the throne speech that is on the floor at the moment. Discussion or debate on any other motion at this time would not be in order.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, with respect to Your Honour's remarks in drawing the member for Victoria to order, it should be pointed out that the throne speech does mention a partnership between the government of the province of British Columbia and the municipalities, and that's what I thought the member was broaching in his remarks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your comments are in order, Mr. Member, but the second member for Victoria was going to discuss his motion. We can only rely on what he said in this House. If he wishes to discuss the partnership with respect to the municipalities as it is in the throne speech, that would be in order in respect of the present motion. The member's motion is not debatable when we are discussing the present motion on the throne speech.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I won't mention the word, 'motion." I'm suggesting that in taking the minister at his word — and all those 1,400 elected officials are trying to take him at his word — there be meaningful, ongoing dialogue between the mayors and regional representatives and the province of British Columbia. If he wants partnership in terms of recovery and all those other buzzwords that have been constantly used, I suggest that there be ongoing meetings, through the standing committee of the Legislature, with the mayors, other representatives and the UBCM executive for the purpose of establishing, under the term "equal partnership, " a municipal-provincial economic reconstruction program — equal partners in the development of a program that is developed in consultation with local government. I am suggesting — and I take the minister at his word — that the partnership will involve strategies for economic reconstruction involving local government. I am taking him at his word that the partnership will involve municipal enterprise and job creation programs, as I've already outlined. I am anticipating

[ Page 5218 ]

that any partnership will encourage municipal and regional economic planning strategies. No less can be accepted by this side of the House, and no less can be accepted by all those municipalities, regional districts and the people who are elected to represent them.

It is my understanding that the minister will be having a meeting at the Newcombe Auditorium, and I fully expect that we will have the concept of equal partnership. I fully expect the minister to announce that revenue-sharing will be brought back up to the 1982 levels. I fully expect that the sewer financing formula, which was reversed a few years ago, will be reversed again and that the province of British Columbia will pay 75 percent of those kinds of costs. Currently it's 25 percent. I fully expect that they, in the environment of equal partnership, will be returning to that fair formula. I fully expect that the minister will recognize the infrastructure and maintenance problems currently being experienced by major facilities, and will be prepared to work with local municipalities to solve those problems.

I fully expect the minister to recognize a serious problem in terms of real estate taxes: only 44 percent of all real estate taxes that are currently collected today goes towards general municipal purposes. That what's happening: the real estate taxes.... More and more is being asked for by other levels of government: education, the Assessment Authority, the Municipal Finance Authority. Of taxes that are currently collected for municipal purposes, less than 50 percent is actually spent on general purposes in municipalities. I expect the minister to recognize that, and I look forward to some equal partnership themes around those particular problems, Mr. Speaker.

I fully expect the minister to announce that he will advocate that consideration be given to expanding existing progressive tax fields for local government use and to the fact that their resources and revenues have been eaten away, and that he is prepared seriously to consider utilization of progressive tax fields by municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that we anticipate that the minister, given the things he has been saying and given what he has said to me and to other local people, is serious about equal partnership and that he will not expect those municipalities to have to pay and pay and pay for some reelection gimmick that may indeed come up; that he's serious about utilizing the talents and the expertise that's available in local government to get this province back on the road, and that it will be an equal partnership. Anything less will be unacceptable.

I will leave municipal government. We will await the announcements and anticipate some very progressive legislation that will allow municipalities equal partnership.

To finish off my part in this debate, I want to talk a little bit about the Victoria riding and some of the things that have been a particular problem here. First, I hope the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is working on this particular issue. We have a rather unfortunate situation happening at the Royal Jubilee Hospital. I know the minister is aware of this particular concern. I have asked the minister to investigate the current levels of service and patient care in the emergency service. We have a department that currently cannot handle the physical overload. We have staff that are working in an incredible pressure situation, and we have medical people now saying that they cannot handle the situation.

The Royal Jubilee Hospital and a number of the other hospitals in this area are under extreme pressure. There is concern that they will not be able to continue to cope with the situation safely. I fully expect that the minister will be taking this situation under advisement and will be bringing in and announcing some changes in this area.

Mr. Speaker, I started my comments today on the subject of youth, and I want to touch very quickly on the education situation. The minister is here. I'd like to indicate the concern of this community that the current school board has decided, in its wisdom, that it is going to have to become a charity to pay for educational services in Victoria. We have to reflect on that kind of announcement by school trustees. I hope the minister is listening.

[11:00]

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

MR. BLENCOE: The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich).

I'm sure you are aware, Mr. Minister, through the Chair, that the Greater Victoria School Board has announced that it will have to become a charity to pay for the services they believe are needed for the children of Victoria. Mr. Speaker, I can only say that when we have come down to the level where education and children and their needs and their future and investment for those children is now deemed a charity, we have to wonder how far we have come and where we are going. Education of children has become a charity in Victoria. I fully anticipate that the minister will have some serious things to say about that situation. It is totally unacceptable that the Greater Victoria School Board has to structure itself as a charity to be able to pay for the costs of our children in Victoria.

MR. LAUK: Selling raffle tickets.

MR. BLENCOE: Raffle tickets, that's right, to pay for textbooks.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced, and our party is convinced, that the people of British Columbia and the people of Victoria no longer accept their policies toward education. They saw last week that because of the policies of this government and that particular minister, the school board of Victoria is going to have to become a charity. No, Mr. Speaker, our children are not charity cases. Our children are our future. Let's invest in them properly. No more charity so they can buy their textbooks and get a proper education.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The minister turns his back and hides his head in shame. So he should. How many other districts or school boards in the province of British Columbia are going to have to see their school boards become charities to ensure that those children get the proper education they justly deserve. They are entitled to get the proper education. I could not believe it when I saw the Victoria School Board was going to become a charity. Absolutely scandalous!

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I see that the minister continues to turn his back and will not listen.

A high percentage of this community is made up of senior citizens, who have in the last year and a half, because of the

[ Page 5219 ]

various policies of this government, continued to see their incomes and their limited pensions dwindle and dwindle. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), in his wisdom, decided to eliminate the rentalsman and rent controls and rent review. Now seniors wonder what's going to happen next month. Are they going to see their apartments and the cost of living go so high that they won't be able to afford them?

We have seen the rates of GAIN and SAFER frozen. We have the federal government increases to pension levels taken right off the top by this government, so those senior citizens and people on fixed incomes cannot get ahead. There has to be some recognition that we cannot continue to impact on those senior citizens, who are totally at the mercy of government in terms of the services and pensions they receive.

Senior citizens in this community, like every other community, are seeing their health care costs rise. They're seeing their long-term care per diems rise again, and they're wondering where it's going to end. They're wondering when they're going to get a fair deal from this government and when they're going to be able to say that they get to keep the the pension increases the government gets. They're wondering when this government is going to recognize that apartments and homes that they've lived in for years and years have to have some protection from landlords who want to increase any amount they want on the rental accommodation. That's true. We have some people who don't believe that, but in British Columbia today any rent increase is now legal.

In the last year and a half this community has probably been hit the hardest of any of the communities in the province of British Columbia. We have certainly felt the ravages of their austerity program: high unemployment and programs that have been cut back to many of those who are, indeed, as I referred to, senior citizens and those with fixed incomes. I'm hoping that in the next few months there will be a recognition that we cannot continue on that course.

Our office in Victoria now handles between 400 and 500 new cases a month. I won't go into the details, but I can tell you that since this government came into office a year and a half ago our work has grown leaps and bounds with having to deal with their policies and their programs and the ravages of their lack of concern for those who are least capable of defending themselves.

I see no indication by this government that they're prepared to pay attention to the many problems in Victoria. We continue to lose industries here and continue to see job losses. We have had a number of opportunities, if this government had stepped in and prepared to play a role, to save certain industries. I won't go into the details of some of the ideas and legislation I think would be necessary to save some of those industries, like the Oakland fish plant, the Labatt brewery, the plywood mill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Drink more beer.

MR. BLENCOE: Drink more beer. Let them eat cake, that's the answer.

There has to be attention paid to those industries that have been critical in this and other communities. There have to be legislation and infrastructure changes that would allow us to retain those important industries. I will not refer this time — but I will perhaps in the budget debate — to some of the methods and legislative changes, necessary to ensure that some of these important industries are maintained, not only in Victoria but in the province of British Columbia.

We have to look at ways that will ensure that those essential industries owned by British Columbians are maintained here. And we have to look at the whole structure of the economy; I'm not just talking about band-aids, I'm talking about major structural changes that allow British Columbians themselves to participate in the economy, and to own a sizable portion of that economy by various necessary changes.

There are a number of ways that jurisdictions in other parts of the world are doing that very same thing. I am saying that in Victoria we have the opportunity, for instance.... I may suggest infrastructure change, but Oakland Fisheries or Labatt Breweries have the opportunity to become cooperative enterprises, where the workers themselves, if there had been support by the provincial government, could have had the opportunity to buy those viable plants, so they would be still operating today.

We cannot just allow the marketplace, that rampant free enterprise kind of jungle mentality, to do as it wants with viable plants. I am hoping that in this session, Mr. Speaker, we can take a look at some of those critical changes to the economic infrastructure that would allow workers in the province of British Columbia to participate directly in the economy by starting to own some of those essential and viable enterprises.

We have to democratize the economy of British Columbia. That is our challenge. And it has been done in other jurisdictions. In the days and months ahead 1, and I'm sure a number of our party, will certainly be talking about this particular theme, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting the motion to accept this throne speech, and I don't do it because of what it says, because it's a nice speech and it was well read. I don't support it, because of what it didn't say.

Mr. Speaker, what the province needs is hope, the kind of hope that instills the feeling that what is wanted will also happen. The people of British Columbia not only want a prosperous future, but we want to feel secure again. We want the security of knowing that when we get sick, our health care system is second to none. We want the security of seeing our children participate in a school system which is second to none. We want the security of having a justice system which will afford each citizen equality under the law.

We want the security of living in a humane and just society and of being able to pay the bill that will be presented to us in order to live in such a society. Only a wealthy province can live in and, at the same time, afford the kind of society we want. Providence has provided us with a province that is rich in natural resources, but only the energy and the imagination of the people that live here can turn those riches into wealth.

Over the last century, we created the wealth that was needed by exporting our natural riches in a near-raw state to a world hungry to buy them. That era is now drawing to a close, and we must prepare ourselves for a totally different future.

The people of this province are demanding that this Legislature provide the kind of leadership needed to make our future even more magnificent than our past. A new kind of leadership is needed, not the paternal leadership of a bygone era, but a leadership that inspires and provides the stimulus

[ Page 5220 ]

that engenders creativity, for it is the inventiveness of the people, not government programs, that will lead us into a brighter future. We must not only work for but also work with the people of British Columbia. In order to work with the people we need new forums, so that dialogue can take place in an orderly and meaningful manner.

The main task of this assembly should be to share and discuss ideas in a civilized manner, and to reach a consensus through reason before action is taken. Today I'd like to share with you some ideas for a new forum, a forum that I believe would inspire creativity, a forum also in which new ideas could be explored, and above all a forum that would meet the challenges of today and therefore direct our society into a brighter future; in other words, a forum that would provide hope.

The forum that I have in mind would consist of three parts. The first would be the economic security council of British Columbia; the second would be the British Columbia economic institute; and the third would be the British Columbia export corporation. These three organizations would answer three very important needs: the need for multipartism, the need for research, and the need for marketing and data gathering.

The need for multipartism could be satisfied by the security council, which would also be the umbrella organization, made up of members from business, labour and the academic field, and from all levels of government. Its terms would be to formulate policy and to appoint the members and to coordinate the efforts of the economic institute and the export corporation. The economic security council would also establish the funding needs of the institute and the corporation.

There is a need for research in this province. Beyond the vague generalizations and optimistic assumptions about world economic recovery, we simply don't know what kind of economic growth British Columbia should strive for. To answer the question of B.C.'s economic future, we need a massive research effort. It's time our province had more than a rare inkling of where it's going and what we have to do to get there. I propose the establishment of a B.C. economic institute geared towards practical research into the creation and management of a new economy. The institute would undertake the following areas of research: strategic research, to analyze our economic position relative to changing world trends, and to pinpoint markets for what we have to sell; product research to determine what goods British Columbia should produce for export and for our own home market; applied research to develop out of our existing industrial base new technology and systems for export or domestic sale; economic research on a broad scale to determine how to restructure our economy to keep it efficient and flexible in a competitive, changing world; finally, resource management research to give us the most from our existing resources, so that they can help finance the transition to a new economy. It would be an independent organization, publicly and privately funded, which would coordinate economic research in British Columbia. It would be the first and most important step in creating an acceptable industrial strategy for our province.

[11:15]

There is also a need for marketing and data-gathering, and that would be met by the export corporation. This corporation would have two related but nevertheless distinct functions. One function would be to search for new markets for the goods and services that British Columbia now produces; the other function would be to be on the lookout for commodities that are now produced by other jurisdictions but could very well be produced in British Columbia and competitively distributed to the domestic or international markets.

The export corporation would continuously feed information on commodities and markets from around the world into the economic institute for research purposes. The sales people sponsored by the export corporation would not be government agents but rather members of the B.C. business community. It's my feeling that the business community is better able to market B.C. products than government agents; also, business people are more apt to recognize an opportunity to market a new product that could be manufactured here but is not at the present time. This kind of marketing would be especially advantageous and beneficial for the small business community.

The forum that I'm putting forward goes beyond tripartism, which is why I'm suggesting multipartism. It's not good enough to have only labour, big corporations and government involved; in order to plan and take care of the economic future of this province we must also make room at the table for members from small business, municipal representatives, academics, school trustees and other special-interest groups.

Our economy is at a low ebb. Some of the problems are through no fault of our own; some are of our own making. But the most unproductive game we could play at this time is to sit still, point at each other and say: "It's your fault we're in trouble." What purpose is that going to serve? Our job is not to point the finger of blame; our task is to point the province in the right direction towards economic recovery. We got into trouble together, so we must look for a solution together. Let's not cling to rigid positions of the past, but look to and search for solutions for the future. We can only do that by exploring new ideas. Although it's a dramatically changing world, it can be an exciting, exhilarating and scintillating journey into the twenty-first century, but only if we all work together.

I earlier spoke of the need for creation of wealth if we're to head into a future with security and hope. Just a moment ago I mentioned that it's a changing world we live in. The biggest change in society is the new economy of wealth creation. The rapid growth of new technology is changing our economic structure every minute of every day. During the industrial era, from approximately 1750 to 1960, technology was basically a substitute for brawn. Since the advent of the computer and the microchip, new technology has been to a great extent replacing skills and management. In the production of goods and services, machines are doing more and more; people are needed less and less. This trend is not weakening, but is getting stronger.

The question is, however, whether we are going to let this trend frighten us or give us hope. I believe that it should give us hope. It should help to make us free, not enslave us; and it will if we ensure that the new technology is used for the good of all and not just for the few. It does mean, though, that we will have to re-examine a number of areas that in the old industrial economy were sacrosanct. Along with the progress of new technology, we are facing the prospect of jobless wealth creation, which means that we, as a society, have to devise new methods for the redistribution of wealth. For if we don't redistribute the wealth created by technology, then who will be able to buy the goods and services produced by the machines? At the same time we realize that an idle society is not a healthy society. A healthy society depends to a large

[ Page 5221 ]

degree on each citizen contributing his or her share towards making society function. This means that we have to redefine work. While machines are doing a great deal of the work in supplying society with commodities, they will at the same time free our citizens to turn to other work. And there's a lot of work that should be done: silviculture, mariculture, art, music, etc. The list goes on and on.

Mr. Speaker, however we deal with the problems, and however we plan our future, the people of this province want to be involved, whether it concerns government services, economics or cultural affairs. Our people want to participate in the decision-making process. However, they can't participate if we continue a system of centralized decision-making. They can only take part if we decentralize the decision-making process.

I've spoken to you about the need for a new system for the redistribution of wealth. I've talked about the need for a new system for the redistribution of work. There's a further need: the need for a new system for the redistribution of power. It isn't good enough for the government of the day, or the Legislature of the day, to come up with a plan, enact legislation and then impose that plan on the people. We must not only work for the people but also with the people of this province in searching for a solution. I propose that a standing committee of the Legislature be constituted to travel the length and breadth of this province, talking with our citizens about the need for decentralized decision-making and the redistribution of power. The committee should be directed to report back to the Legislature within two years with recommendations for a new British Columbia constitution. This constitution would enshrine in legislation the power to be held by each level of government and the process by which it should be achieved. The new constitution should then go to referendum before it can be proclaimed. After proclamation no change could be made to the constitution without referendum. In that way the people would write the constitution, and no government would ever again be able to centralize power away from the people.

Mr. Speaker, politics is the forum for ideas. Ideas are to politics what air and water are to life. Without ideas parliament will die. I should add that in this throne speech debate I've heard more new ideas from all sides of the House than during my previous 13 years in parliament. Let's hope that with these new ideas there will be new life, for always with new life there is renewed hope.

I'd like to close by reading three paragraphs by one of Canada's most distinguished citizens, the Rt. Hon. Edward R. Schreyer, former Governor-General of Canada. It's entitled "The Mystery of the Future."

"From the very dawn of civilization the future has fascinated mankind, and penetrating its mystery has been a constant challenge. The pronouncements of the Delphic oracle all the way down to today's interest in futurology and computer projections testify to this obsession of man to know what lies ahead, to try to shape the whole world's destiny, to dream of an ideal universe.

"The technological advances of the twentieth century and the opening of instantaneous global communication channels have brought our planet to an unprecedented state of awareness, which makes it impossible for a country or a people to live in isolation. For better or for worse, our destinies are inextricably linked, and we must work together to harness our present and future state of knowledge to make it work for the benefit of all the earth's inhabitants. The fate of the very next generation of humanity will be altered tremendously by decisions in this next decade, especially as regards energy patterns and dependencies.

"We can no longer lie back and let history repeat itself; it has repeated itself too often already. We must heed D.W. Brogan's warning: 'Never underestimate the stupidity factor as a determinant of history.'

Back to Mr. Schreyer:

"The world has suffered more than its share of blunders, whether they were unleashed by satanic minds or happened by accident. Man is the only animal intelligent enough to destroy his planet; conversely, he is also able to save it."

Mr. Speaker, it's been an honour once again to take my place in the debate, both as the representative of my constituency of Prince Rupert and as the leader of the United Party of British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, readers of Hansard should be aware, if they have read the preceding pages, that they have witnessed something new in our chamber, and that's the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) reading a speech. To my knowledge, the most extensive notes that that member has ever had were a couple of blank pages on his desk, and today's notes are just as illuminating and have just as much content. For that member to suggest that the economic and social crisis in this province is a result of all of us making decisions that got us into this together is absolute nonsense, and the member knows that as well as anyone else. In trying to create some ground for himself, he is making a few what you might call statements from the world of fantasy. In fact, what has happened in North America, particularly in British Columbia, is that people in power have not understood the consequences of their political, economic and social decisions. I think that comes from something else one gleans from listening to the member for Prince Rupert — that is, that everything is looked at in a North American context and not in terms of what can be done and has been done in other parts of the world. As one of my colleagues has been saying to me this morning, we tend to look south of the border for all of our solutions, instead of to other parts of the world where many of the same kinds of problems have been dealt with, and dealt with well. We don't need to cite just Scandinavia; we can cite many countries in many parts of the world where unemployment, inflation, distribution of income and poverty are certainly not problems in the way they are here.

[11:30]

One of the things that disturbs me about politics and politicians in this province — and to a lesser degree on this continent — is that we tend always to talk about economics in bad times, never social policy. In good times we end up talking primarily about social policy and rarely economics. Until we begin to understand that at all times we need to talk about both social policy and economic policy and find a way of integrating them, we're going to continue to have the boom-and-bust cycles and the serious problems that we have. It is important, even though it may not be politically popular in bad economic times, to talk about social policy, and I intend to do some of that today, but not at the expense of also talking about economic policy.

[ Page 5222 ]

We need to begin to understand what the role of government is. I think that lies at the heart of the problem. The fundamental problem is that the Social Credit government has not understood — nor, I think, even thought about — what the role of government really should be. Their idea, it seems, is that in good times the role of government is to hand out goodies and in bad times to take those goodies away from the people. That seems to be the extent of their thinking about the role of government.

I'm not an economist and I don't profess to understand in any full way the way an economy works, nor do I understand entirely the way a government should work. But I do understand that a government should understand itself what its role is, and in our society a government's role must fundamentally include the protection of its citizens from bad economic times and a recognition that in good times policies need to be put into place that will protect those citizens again in the next series of downturns.

You know, Mr. Speaker, a citizen's right — and it is a right — to be fed, to be housed and to be clothed properly cannot depend upon the status of the economy. Because government is nothing more than a collection of individuals banded together, representing society, a government's fundamental responsibility is to ensure that its citizens are fed and clothed and housed. In this province at this time easily 14 or 15 percent of our citizens are not properly clothed, fed or housed. We can listen to all the speeches in the world about going into debt — because, of course, we do hear those speeches from the government side, the experts at going into debt, with $4 billion to $16 billion in less than a decade — but I am prepared to say publicly that if it is necessary to go into debt to make sure that people have proper food, housing and clothing, then I say let's go into debt to do it.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: It couldn't be any more than a billion for ALRT or a billion for northeast coal or half a billion here or another half a billion for a pipeline. What is important in our society is its people, and it's important that they be fed, housed and clothed. People in this province do not now have those basic rights. I don't think some members of the government side understand that. They should spend some time in the soup kitchens and in the soup lines. They should spend some time knocking on doors of people who are no longer on UIC but are on welfare, whose 25- and 30-year old kids have come home, where there is no income in the house except the pitiful amount of money that's provided by social assistance — in many instances less than half what is required to keep people at the poverty line. Yet the government can say: "We can't spend that money, because it might put us in debt." But they're quite happy to spend that kind of money on megaprojects with unproven worth.

AN HON. MEMBER: And leave us in debt.

MR. GABELMANN: And put us in debt many times the amount that properly feeding our citizens would do.

Mr. Speaker, I know it's not popular to talk about these kinds of things and that you don't win votes. But it's important for politicians, in my view, to raise these kinds of issues. I'm delighted that municipal councils all over this province are passing motions in support of a request that welfare rates be brought up to at least the poverty level, even though in many instances that means doubling the particular rate.

One of the things that is not understood by the government is that if they did that, if they put that money.... Even if it were $1 billion — which it wouldn't be — that money would do more to stimulate the economy of this province than all of their megaprojects and all of their billions of dollars of expenditure on Revelstoke Dam, on northeast coal, on rapid transit, on B.C. Place and whatever else they have in mind. All of the billions spent on those projects produce less economic stimulation, less economic recovery, than the simple provision of proper income to those people in our society who are now below the poverty line. That kind of economic stimulation would not only meet the humanitarian needs that we should be meeting as a society but, curiously, would also have an economic benefit that would be far more profound than anything the government has done.

Mr. Speaker, the government also needs to understand that spending money on quality education will stimulate the economy. We on this side of the House don't talk about funding our universities properly, or funding our high school and our public school system properly, simply because of an ideological commitment to public education and to good public education. We have that. But we also understand that one of the fundamental economic levers in our society is a well-educated workforce. If we don't have that, we don't attract other well-educated people, and we don't prepare people either for being productive members of society or for living a proper and full life in their leisure time. There is economic benefit in spending money on education, and that doesn't seem to be understood.

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, there is economic benefit in having a good, preventive public health care system. We all agree in this House that we spend an immense amount of money on what is called health care. The point has been made many times that what in fact we are doing is spending an immense amount of money on illness treatment, locked into a system in which doctors and hospitals gobble up far more money than we really need to be spending or should be spending, and spending nothing on preventive care. We spend very little on occupational health and safety, on workplace health matters. Yet those kinds of expenditures would have an economic return.

Everybody on the other side of the House goes on at great length when there is a strike in this province about the economic impact of that particular strike or lockout and how it shouldn't be allowed to happen. Yet every year in this province we suffer far more economic damage as a result of poor health and safety in the workplace. We suffer many times more damage from absenteeism. We seem to always focus on the dramatic, and we don't spend enough time dealing with some of these unseen and unheard issues, which could have far more beneficial impact on our economy.

It seems to have become the cliché of the year that everyone should work together. I don't even want to say the words anymore, because they come out of so many mouths in this House from people — I'm trying to find a parliamentary way of saying this, Mr. Speaker — who don't believe a word of it. On the one hand, they are out there fighting with people and creating confrontation, and on the other hand they are saying we have to work together. But from the point of view of basic economics, if you don't have people participating in the decisions that affect their lives, then they will not, fulfill the decisions in a proper and full way. I haven't put it very well,

[ Page 5223 ]

but that's a fundamental principle. Until we understand that everyone, not just people in positions of power but every single citizen in this society, should be participating in the economic structure, we will never have the full value of their potential productivity. That doesn't seem to be understood, despite the clichés about needing to work together.

People talk about the need for restraint. We agree. We've agreed from the beginning that there needs to be restraint. How do you accomplish it: by doing it arbitrarily or by discussing with people that they need to cut back? Obviously, one would think, you discuss with people, you bring them together and you make them recognize that they are part of a solution, and their price is equal to what everyone is paying. But that's not the way we've operated and it's not the way we continue to operate in this province.

Mr. Speaker, we need an integration in our minds of the social and economic policies. The government's view is that you have sound economic policies and then social benefits can flow from those hopefully successful economic policies. But in fact there is a full integration of the two, and you cannot talk about social policies in isolation from economic policies. We have to start with some basic principles, positions and objectives. For my part, I believe that our primary objective, to the exclusion of all else as primary objective, is an objective of full employment. We should do everything in government and society on the premise of whether or not it will achieve a society with full employment. There is a debate going on among economists these days — it slips into the political party debates occasionally — about whether or not full employment is a reasonable goal in our society. In my view, there should be no question about this whatsoever. Every citizen, as a matter of right, should have an opportunity to be employed in a meaningful way, and government should have as its paramount objective a policy and policies designed to achieve the goal of ensuring that every citizen has the right to participate in the economy of their society. It's quite clear to me, and I think it's quite clear to the people of this province, that full employment is not a goal of the members opposite, and it should be.

In this province we're chasing after dreams and we forget that we have some basic strengths. I want to talk briefly about several of what I think are the basic and traditional strengths of this province which are being diminished and abandoned by the government. As a result of that, I think they are creating the kind of institutionalized 14 to 16 percent unemployment that has now become a way of life in this province.

First on this list of traditional strengths is education. We talk about forests and mines, fisheries, a trained workforce, a whole variety of strengths; I'm going to talk about those as well, but we need first of all to talk about education, a strength that we've had in this province. We've had not a brilliant system, but a good system, one that is now being torn apart, with our best people leaving. Kids in grade 12, some of whom I've talked to, wonder whether they should go to university in other provinces, or whether the universities in this province are any good any more. What kind of hope is there for them? What kind of future is there if our kids are talking about leaving the province for an education? We have an opportunity; we've got the resources, the people, the natural resource wealth to have the best educational system on the continent, if not in the world, in this province. But what do we do? We tear it down.

[11:45]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Because we're blessed with the kind of climate that we have, the kind of geography, the lifestyle, we could attract people who are among the very best in their fields all over the world. That's what we should be trying to achieve. We wouldn't have to pay them a lot more than they might earn elsewhere, because people would like to come to this part of the world to live, if they thought there was a good and free academic situation, that there was a prospect of being allowed to do the kind of work that they're good at. We wouldn't then have to talk about free-trade zones and Silicon Valleys and all the rest of the jargon. These kinds of projects would come almost automatically as a result of having that kind of quality education in this province. For me, next to the poverty that's been created and institutionalized in the last few years, the next greatest tragedy is what's happened to our educational system at absolutely every level.

Yesterday the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) talked at some length about our forest resource. It is beyond comprehension to me, coming from the riding that I come from, that we treat our forests the way we do. Mr. Speaker, I've said this before in the House. I grew up on a farm in the Okanagan Valley. If the farmers in that valley treated their trees the way our forest industry and our Forests ministry treat their trees, there would be no agricultural industry in the Okanagan Valley within months. Why are they treated differently? We have the potential to double or even triple the number of people working in the forest industry in this province. The government doesn't even have the will or the ability, or both, to sign an agreement with the federal government to take advantage of other money that's available, to try to begin to repair the damage that has been done over the decades in our forest industry. It's beyond my ability to describe the travesty and the tragedy that has occurred on what should be our biggest and our best and our most productive farm in this province. Our strip-miners don't do as much damage to our economy as our forest industry does in the way it strip-mines its resource.

Mr. Speaker, I won't go into more detail about that, other than to say that as far as I'm concerned we on this side of the House, during the course of this session, will make forestry an important issue. We don't believe, on this side of the House, that it's a sunset industry, as the government does. We don't believe that it's a dying industry. We don't believe that it's an industry that should be abandoned by government. We believe that forestry is in fact the major resource of this province — or could be and should be.

The government talks a lot — to move on to another one of our less traditional strengths, but one that I think will become more so — about tourism. They talk about how we have to attract people, not only from the States and the rest of Canada but from around the world, to come to this province. And then, Mr. Speaker — pardon my English — they don't do a damn thing to make it attractive for people to come here. We used to have a parks system in this province that we were proud of. I remember during the fifties and the early sixties traveling from one provincial campsite or one provincial park to another in our old station-wagon with a carload of kids. It was a joy to travel around this province. We had a parks system that was being developed by W A. C. Bennett's government that was good — one that we could be proud of and one that reminds us of the system in Oregon.

What's happened to that system? North of Campbell River on Vancouver Island, which is half of Vancouver Island, there isn't a public campsite — not one public campsite

[ Page 5224 ]

for tents or for recreational vehicles; not for nothin', to use the vernacular of North Island.

MRS. JOHNSTON: The NDP didn't put one in, eh?

MR. GABELMANN: That's right. But do you know what the NDP did in North Island with respect to campsites, Madam Member? We created a wilderness park at Cape Scott, and we made sure that it was institutionalized by making it part of the legislation. That's a gorgeous area. Do you know what the government has done in Cape Scott since they were elected in 1975? Absolutely nothing.

It could be, for Vancouver Island, a major attraction. In a different way it could be attractive for tourists as Banff is in the Alberta Rockies, or the Waterton Lakes Park is south of there, or many other parts of this province in this country are. But it's not. Nobody knows how to get there. Once they get there, there's no place to park. Once they try walking through the woods, the muck is too deep, because the trails aren't maintained.

There is a major resource on Vancouver Island about which nothing has been done — absolutely nothing. And we talk about tourism. There are people all over North Island who are unemployed who would love to go to work maintaining that park, upgrading it and making it attractive for tourists so people go to Holberg and have lunch at the neighbourhood pub there on their way through and help that little businessman out.

Mr. Speaker, you can't talk about a tourism policy to attract people to this province and not make sure that the policy applies across the board. Advertising is only part of it. Getting people here is only part of it. It's made worse if you get people here, and when they come here they don't have the facilities. What happens every other day in the summer when the Queen of the North unloads at Port Hardy at Bear Cove? The campers come off that ferry by the dozens, and they look for a place to park. There aren't any. They park on the side of the road; they park in the bush.

Do you know what they mostly do? They have to drive straight down the Island and they get on another ferry and leave, because their first hint of the Island — their first awareness of the Island — is that there are no facilities; there is nothing for them. So they leave the Island, because they don't know that it might be different further south. There are no tourist counsellors on board to tell them about the facilities that might exist, because they don't exist. So for the government to promote tourism and not to do anything about making it attractive for tourists to come to this province is a little bit hypocritical, in my view.

Mr. Speaker, talking about some of the traditional resources, I think we also need to spend a little bit more time understanding that we on the west coast of North America here in British Columbia have the potential for the most lucrative mariculture industry in the world. We have the best conditions, and we need to understand too that they're not just the best conditions for salmon. There is a whole variety of other kinds of marine resources that we could be developing on this coast, and we could be creating thousands upon thousands of jobs on this coast so communities could survive and many that are closed could open again. I want to talk about that more during the Ministry of Environment's estimates.

In the couple of minutes that I have left, Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk, if I may, about the gas pipeline. The government has been proposing for two million years now that they will bring the gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. They're going to spend half a billion dollars — at the last estimate — to get that pipeline to the island. In my riding, most people, even if it did arrive, would never ever have the benefit of the gas, because the gas pipeline will never go to Port Hardy, Alert Bay, Port McNeill, Port Alice, Tahsis or, likely, Gold River. What I am in favour of is using the excess energy that we have on this island already, as a result of the electrical line that's been brought over from the Cheekye-Dunsmuir — at the same price at which members' constituents on the mainland get their heating power. I am in favour of using excess energy that already exists on Vancouver Island and using that power that Hydro has to give us the same rates on this island as people in the lower mainland and other parts of this province have. What is wrong with that? If I have to choose between spending that half billion dollars on a particular project to provide yet further excess power, I would be inclined to do it another day.

Mr. Speaker, I see the light; I've got through about a quarter of my notes, but I will sit down.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, so that you don't miss any of the positive things I have to say, I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.