[ Page 5225 ]

CONTENTS

Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act (Bill 2). Hon. A. Fraser.

Introduction and first reading –– 5225

An Act To Regulate Smoking In Public Places (Bill M202). Mrs. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 5225

Oral Questions

Transfer of timber allocation. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5225

Shipbuilding financing. Mr. Mitchell –– 5226

Five-year plan for universities. Mr. Nicolson –– 5226

Education funding. Mr. Rose –– 5227

Bulk food sales. Mrs. Dailly –– 5227

Throne speech debate

Mr. Veitch –– 5227

Mr. Lauk –– 5231

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 5234

Mr. Passarell –– 5237

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 5240

Mr. Lockstead –– 5242

Mr. Ree –– 5245

Mr. Rose –– 5247

Tabling Documents –– 5251

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1985

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In our gallery today we have three very energetic representatives of the Young Socred. I would like to ask the House to welcome the president of the Young Socreds, Mr. Robin Williams, who is a representative of West Vancouver–Howe Sound. I'd also like the House to welcome Janna Kirkwood, representing Vancouver–Little Mountain, and Mike Sporer, representing Burnaby-Edmonds. Will the House please give them a warm welcome.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to welcome with me three members of the United Party who are in the gallery today.

AN HON. MEMBER: All of them?

MR. LEA: All of Victoria. There is John Smith, a director of the United Party, Rene Wassink, a former director of the Social Credit constituency in Victoria and now a member of the United Party, and Anthony Beks, who up until last week was the president of the Young Socred group in the Victoria constituency and is now a member of the United Party. I'd like to ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today as well are 16 members of the Cowichan-Malahat Social Credit Women's Auxiliary, who are visiting our precincts. As a brief editorial comment, they serve about the best potluck supper I've ever enjoyed.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, included among the group of women who have just been introduced, I would like the House to recognize Donny Redding, who is the president of the Social Credit W.A. Would you please all welcome her.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, if I could I would have Commonwealth flags on my desk today, because yesterday was Commonwealth Day. I would also like to encourage those of you here to do what I plan to do: introduce Commonwealth Day in the schools in Vancouver. With that I would like to introduce James Dougan, president of the Royal Commonwealth Society. Would the House please make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY
CONSTRUCTION ACCELERATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act.

HON. A. FRASER: In moving the bill to be read a first time now, I'd like to make a few comments. As the bill states, it is the Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act, which speeds up the construction of this new highway from Hope to Kamloops via Merritt. It provides for this highway to be in use approximately seven years before it was originally anticipated. We hope to be to Merritt by 1986 and to Kamloops by 1987. It will be a four-lane highway built to freeway standards. It reduces the travelling time from Vancouver to Kamloops by approximately one hour. The bill provides for the charging of tolls. It creates jobs now and for the future.

Mr. Speaker, today there are 1,650 people working on this worthwhile project.

Bill 2 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.

AN ACT TO REGULATE
SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES

On a motion by Mrs. Wallace, Bill M202, An Act to Regulate Smoking in Public Places was introduced.

MRS. WALLACE: In commenting on the act, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this is no stranger to this legislation. It's an act that has the support, obviously, of both sides of the House. It is an act that is in order, as has been ruled previously, and it is an act that would bring to the province the type of legislation that is now in place in many regions of this province — the capital region, for one. I would move that the bill be introduced and read now a first time.

Bill M202 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.

Oral Questions

TRANSFER OF TIMBER ALLOCATION

MR. MacWILLIAM: I have a question to the Minister of Forests. On February 19 I requested that the minister release a portion of the timber allocations of Drew Sawmills of Salmon Arm, now in receivership. The minister replied he was reviewing all proposals regarding the disposal of Drew's assets. I am now advised that the minister has approved in principle the sale of Drew Sawmills to Beaumont Timber with no apparent reallocation of the timber to the many small local mills which expressed an interest in this timber. My question to the minister is: can the minister advise the House why he has failed to respond to the needs of the many small mills in the Salmon Arm area which are in critical need of this timber allocation?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In response to the member, I have approved in principle the transfer of the cutting rights to another organization which wishes to acquire the assets. This does not mean that I have actually approved the transfer. The formal request has not yet come forward. However, providing that those conditions which I expressed in the approval in principle are met, I see no reason why the final approval will not be made.

[2:15]

Some of the conditions include the continuation of the operation of the Drew sawmill so that those people who are employed by that company can expect to be continually employed in manufacturing. I would hate to see those people laid off work and have the timber distributed to others who so far have been able — although with some difficulty, I must admit — to maintain a supply of timber for their smaller

[ Page 5226 ]

mills. One of my chief criteria is to make sure that we maintain that employment base for those present employees of Drew Sawmills.

MR. MacWILLIAM: In supplement, Mr. Speaker, the allocation of the timber of Drew Sawmills to Beaumont Timber will, in effect, significantly increase its timber allocations significantly above their needs. Other small mills in the area employ a number of individuals on a steady basis. They're in a crisis situation in which they cannot find enough timber, and the minister had advised that he was in fact in consultation with these smaller outfits — to respond to their needs. In light of the fact that none of that allocation has been stripped off for the smaller independent operators, why has the minister failed to respond to the needs of these independent operators? Please answer the question.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would be more than happy to answer the member's question. It's called question period because we can have questions and answers. I think that somewhere in that long preamble there was a question.

First of all, I most emphatically deny that any crisis exists in the supply of timber for smaller operators. As a matter of fact, it is under the policies which I have brought forward as the Minister of Forests that we have a small business enterprise program whose objective is to provide timber for the small operators in the province.

The usable portion of the Drew Sawmills timber allocation is not in excess of the requirements of that mill. As I have already stated, one of the conditions of the transfer of cutting rights to, as the member mentioned, Beaumont is that the mill, if they conclude their arrangements with the receiver of Drew, be continually operated, so that the employment base will not be dissipated and those people who currently work there will continue to have jobs. The maintenance of employment is one of the chief criteria which I will consider.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Minister, these small operators are so frustrated with the lack of the promised real consultation that they have gone to the ombudsman in search of a reallocation of these timber rights. I have such a letter in front of me here. In view of these facts, would the minister now agree to halt the sale to Beaumont and the allocation of the timber resource, which is in excess of Beaumont's needs, until such time as these local sawmills are given some access to this timber?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I most emphatically will not. The small operators do have access to Crown timber and have had for a number of years. The volume of wood being allocated for small business operators is increasing year by year. There is never going to be enough Crown timber to satisfy all those people in the province who may desire to put it to use. We have reached the limit of the allowable cut in British Columbia. It is no longer an expansionary period. If anything, it's a period of more intensive utilization. No, I most emphatically will not eliminate that employment base from all those people who have worked for Drew for so many years.

SHIPBUILDING FINANCING

MR. MITCHELL: My question is to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. I'm hoping that he can assure the House with the same enthusiasm as the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Rogers) had when he pursued a similar question yesterday. In the last election the Conservative government promised $75 million for shipbuilding; instead of that they have cut the budget by $40 million. My question to the minister is: has he contacted his counterpart with the federal government, and is he pursuing that government to get the $40 million back so we can have our shipyards working in British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Certainly I'm enthusiastic about the opportunities to work with the new Conservative government in Ottawa. We are pursuing a number of options; we will continue to pursue them. We will travel to Ottawa every week, if we need to, to make sure that British Columbia gets treated equally — perhaps for the first time in a long time.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I'm hoping that with his travelling back and forth he won't spend the $40 million we're after. But I want some assurance from that minister: has he contacted his counterpart in that government? Without travelling back and forth, are we going to get that $40 million back here so we can get people to work? That's the question I want answered. I don't want to hear about his holidays or his travel budget.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee that member that ministerial visits to Ottawa and vice versa are very productive. We won't act like the government of 1972 to 1975 and sit back and hope that something might happen, and it never did.

FIVE-YEAR PLAN FOR UNIVERSITIES

MR. NICOLSON: Last night the Minister of Universities, Science and Technology outlined some plans he has calling for the preparation of a five-year plan to cut courses at the universities to make them more exclusive institutions. I ask the minister: given that in 1984-85 only 101 young British Columbians in 1,000 went to university –– 25 percent below the Canadian average — how exclusive does he intend that these universities are to become?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the member has attributed to me remarks that I never made. I don't know from where he gets his quotes, but it wasn't anything I ever said — he said it. We have asked each of the universities to develop, for the first time, five-year academic plans. We had asked the universities previously to provide capital plans; now we have asked them, through the Universities Council, to provide academic plans. Since the universities have not done this before, it will be a wonderful opportunity for each university to know what its academic plans are. Each university will know what the others are planning, and everyone in British Columbia can then understand the directions in which the universities are going.

Mr. Speaker, does the member opposite think there's something wrong with that?

[ Page 5227 ]

MR. NICOLSON: The minister says that they want to understand where we're going. When is the minister going to make public the directions that were given to the universities so that the public of British Columbia can know where our universities are going?

HON. MR. McGEER: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to make available all correspondence that we've had on this matter with the Universities Council, which after all is charged with the responsibility of allocating the funds that this Legislature gives to the universities on behalf of the taxpayers. That's a wonderful thing to do, and I would be pleased to make that correspondence available at 6 p.m. this evening.

EDUCATION FUNDING

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to lob a gentle question over to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). On February 14, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications credited the federal government with funding 50 percent of the grade 12 program in our high schools. Since federal funding is going up by 7.5 percent next year, can the minister assure all grade 12 students that those funds will be used for grade 12 programs, or is it the plan for the government to divert these funds to some other purposes unrelated to education, as they've been doing with the college and university funding?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, again I would call the member's attention to page 19 of the Standing Orders regarding argumentative questions. However, the minister may respond.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I have to apologize to the member, because I really don't know what he was referring to. He is making reference to federal funding into the public school system, and he made reference to grade 12. The only federal funding that I know of is available for the startup costs for French immersion programs in the public school system, along with some contributions made by the Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of National Defence. I don't know of any other federal funding made available to the public school system K to 12.

MR. ROSE: Perhaps, then, I could ask a question of the minister that he does know something about.

Government policy expressed in the present School Act, the Education (Interim) Finance Act and the Compensation Stabilization Act requires school boards and teachers to bargain for teacher settlements to be arbitrated and then approved by the compensation stabilization commissioner. I'd like to ask the minister whether the government has decided to amend the fiscal framework to provide school trustees with enough money to pay for any increases that the government's policy had produced.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I've made it abundantly clear that the amount of money in the framework for both the transitional year, commencing January to June, 1985, and the full fiscal year, commencing July 1, 1985, and ending June 30, 1986, has now been allocated.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister would agree then that the whole arbitration setup under the School Act is a farce?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions, hon. members?

BULK FOOD SALES

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question to the Minister of Health. This question is with reference to bulk food sales. The minister will be aware that the Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors has called on the government to develop regulations to deal with the sale of bulk foods in British Columbia. Can the minister inform the House whether he's prepared to respond to these concerns with a set of intermunicipal guidelines, and will he at the same time assure consumers that whatever guidelines are developed, the consumer will still be able, though, to enjoy the opportunity to buy food in bulk.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The question of bulk food sales has been creating some difficulties for a year and a half or two. There is an inconsistency at the local level among various union boards of health and other health authorities with respect to what the appropriate bylaws should be for bulk food sales. We do have a basic standard for the province, but there are some individual areas who insist that their standards be different from the provincial standards, and some have themselves introduced specific bylaws with respect to the sale of bulk foods.

I believe that we have the capacity, with the cooperation of the various union boards and other health organizations, to establish fair, reasonable regulations with respect to the sales of bulk food which would permit maximum access to the consumer, with maximum benefit with respect to health protection. It's new to a lot, and some of them are resisting rather strongly, but I think we can overcome their difficulties.

[2:30]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, last week I took as notice a question about the salary and benefits of Dr. Pedersen of the University of British Columbia. I undertook to bring an answer to the House, and I file it in the form of a letter from Mr. David McLean, chairman of the board.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. VEITCH: It is certainly my pleasure to rise and support the Speech from the Throne. In so doing I'd like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Speech from the Throne; they did a very commendable job. I'd also like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker on his elevation to the new official position that we have of Deputy Chairman of the Whole House. And, of course, the new government Whip, who is about, doing his business; that's a very demanding job, and I understand what his responsibilities are.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 5228 ]

I'd also like to congratulate the committee that brought in the fine new rules that we're working under in this House. I had the pleasure of serving on that committee. It appears to be working very well. I must say that every member of that committee worked very hard, and there was a degree of cooperation that I have never seen before emanating from the members of this House.

I'd also like to congratulate the new ministers on their positions. In particular, I'd like to congratulate the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) in his new position. What a lot of us, and especially people in the New Democratic Party, fail to realize is that you can have all of the coal in British Columbia and all of the natural gas in the world, and it's potentially valuable, sure, but it's worthless until someone sells it and takes it somewhere. That's what this gentleman is doing, and he has been doing it very well over the years. I congratulate them.

I heard a lot of talk from the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who was speaking just prior to me, mentioning that we should be expanding welfare rates. That's probably a good idea if you are able to do it, but what he doesn't seem to realize is that British Columbia is a very small open economy, and the only way that we can bring prosperity to British Columbians — and indeed to Canada — is to do the things that that minister is doing and sell our products to the world. We just simply do not have enough people in this.... A rising tide, Mr. Speaker, will lift all ships. That's something that they have to learn.

I'd like to talk for a few minutes about my constituency of Burnaby-Willingdon. I want to tell you that an undertaking of this government which has been much maligned by the NDP — and I'm talking of ALRT — is bringing about hundreds of millions of dollars of development right in my riding of Burnaby-Willingdon. I refer to CAL Investments, who, I believe, are to commence in May in the Metrotown area. The ALRT provided the catalyst for that development, and that is a $500 million development. That's what this government is doing. That's the good news.

I'd like to say that in my opinion the good news in British Columbia is that the bad news is just about over, and we're working on a new economy and a new era. I'm looking forward to that.

My colleague, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), mentioned something to me, and during the noon hour I did some investigation. The member for North Island was speaking about all the problems with tourism on the Island. My colleague here so kindly told me about an undertaking that was going on in Chemainus. So I investigated and I find that the village of Chemainus on Vancouver Island has taken the situation into their own hands, in the British Columbia spirit, Mr. Speaker, and are doing something about it — people doing something about things. What they've done is created a system of painting murals on buildings in that village of Chemainus.

I talked with a Mr. Bill Jameson, who is the past president of the Chemainus Chamber of Commerce. He said that the murals have created masses of tourists. They had 60,000 tourists go through Chemainus last year, and they are looking forward to 100,000 in the year that's up and coming. New businesses are springing up as a result of this initiative. The town has been written up in most leading magazines, and National Geographic, I believe, is doing an article on it. There was a television documentary done called: "The Little Town That Did." There are new restaurants opening up. Mr. Jameson himself is building a new mall, and every shop in that mall has been taken up. That's the British Columbia spirit. That's the spirit of optimism that we have.

I believe that what we've got to do in British Columbia — and indeed in Canada — is stop accentuating the negatives, and we've got to push the positive button. That's where we're at.

I'm very pleased at the opportunity of being appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education. I see it as an opportunity. I see myself as one of those very few privileged British Columbians to have been elected twice to this Legislative Assembly and to have the opportunity to participate in this very worthwhile undertaking.

Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to have the opportunity to reply to the Speech from the Throne. I'd like to congratulate the government for proposing a course of action for post-secondary education which is both creative and cooperative. Indeed, the necessity of those two qualities for education and training in British Columbia is what I wish to bring to the attention of my fellow members of the Legislature today. In doing so, I hope to contribute towards convincing all of us in this chamber of the value of not just the innovative measures advanced by, but also the spirit of partnership which I hope will be embodied in, any legislation that is brought forward to this Legislative Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, one moment please. Members who wish to stay in the Assembly could do the Assembly a service by showing some courtesy to the member who has now taken his place in the debate.

MR. VEITCH: Thank you for protecting me, Mr. Speaker. I needed that.

The opposition has a responsibility to propose concrete and specific measures that meet the challenges that we face in this province, and I personally welcome their commitment to abandon personal attacks in favour of cooperative dialogue. This is a responsibility of each member in this House. In 1976 I had the privilege of moving the first Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne of what was then the new Social Credit government. I mentioned that at that time, and I'm glad to see that someone has finally taken heed.

We as a province and as a nation must prepare for our future, and education is the principal way a society readies itself. We are at serious risk if we fail to meet the challenge of the all-too-rapid economic and social changes which confront not just British Columbia but Canada and the world. No wish, however sincere, has held history still, not for a day, not for a moment. It's a moving vibrant thing and never static.

Mr. Speaker, from Burnaby to Bangkok and Birmingham to Buffalo the world economy grows ever more interdependent and ever more competitive. The sawmill in Prince George competes with one in Stockholm for markets in Spain. A copper mine in Highland Valley competes with one in Chile for sales to Japan. An electronics manufacturer in Surrey competes with one in Seoul for sales of telephone switching equipment to Saudi Arabia. We simply cannot afford to ignore what our competitors are doing in this world. No matter how abundant our resources or how talented our workers and engineers or how high our hopes, if we do not prepare for the future, someone else will and thus seize our markets and our opportunity and thus the prosperity that could lie before us.

[ Page 5229 ]

We cannot afford to wait, and we cannot afford, as Canadians and British Columbians, to fail in this undertaking. No one ideology, no one person can guide us to success in the turbulent world economy which, for better or for worse, holds us in its tight grasp. We must always be open-minded and creative, and we must continually work together or we will pull apart. Creativity and cooperation mix most potently at that point in our economy where post-secondary education, business and government meet on the same plane, that fluid interface binding together research and technical skills, entrepreneurial acumen and business skills, and public leadership and support, which forces the world to catch up to us, not the converse. That three-way interaction creates new industries and new jobs, it revitalizes existing industries and jobs, and it generates new answers and new challenges.

The Social Credit government has focused and energized that cooperation among itself, the academic community and business. Before the second great war and the great sea change it wrought, the interaction was conducted unconsciously, and at that time without any direction. Colleges and universities suspected that contact with business would erode their objectivity and freedom, and business saw the concerns of higher education as largely irrelevant to the world of industry and commerce. Government could not at that time articulate a clear role for itself.

Today we find an entirely different and better situation. Colleges and universities, business and government at all levels have entered into a new relationship. We've proven that we can work together to adapt and to succeed in our complex and competitive world economy. We've overcome petty rivalries, a hesitation to look forward and the failure to try new ideas. We've learned the inadequacy of half-hearted decisions and the value of sustained commitments to human and economic potential.

I wish to bring to the members' attention here today some of the ways in which the government is ensuring the continued life and increased intensity of cooperation. In other words, I wish to highlight some efforts of the government to meet the challenge of the future.

One such initiative is not without its warts or problems. It is the TRAC program, which provides goal-based, competency-based training and retraining for anyone over the age of 16. It provides individuals with the opportunity to move as quickly as possible to the training they need to succeed in their chosen occupations and those other occupations which will become available to them. TRAC provides an innovative alternative to traditional lock-step education whereby a student advanced through a set curriculum of courses regardless of whether or not he or she already knew the material or whether or not the required courses were pertinent to their goals. This system called TRAC, the training access program, provides a modular system of education whereby a student can test out the common core of courses involving basic language and mathematical skills. Having tested out this common core, he or she can go directly to specialized courses in a variety of areas. The TRAC program is, in my mind, a good example of government responding to the needs of an economy and helping post-secondary education to fulfill those needs. It's another part of the good news that we have in British Columbia.

It is important to remember that this program is being brought to light because of the long-term commitment of the Social Credit government to post-secondary education in this province. This government, firm in the belief of the power of cooperation, has provided sustained and substantial financial and administrative support for higher education in the province of British Columbia. It developed innovative programs and agencies, such as the discovery parks and the Science Council of B.C., to bring education and business together so that each could contribute to sustaining the creative interface that only they can work out.

[2:45]

Social Credit governments have provided British Columbia with an extensive network of community colleges throughout the province. Starting with the recommendations of the influential Macdonald report of 1962, which was entitled Higher Education in British Columbia: A Plan for the Future, it is the Social Credit government that has built and developed 21 colleges and institutes which served approximately 70,000 students in British Columbia last year. For those who seek post-secondary education, but who are unable to attend regular classes, this government has provided for distance education — the Open Learning Institute and the Knowledge Network. The Open Learning Institute can create for students a flexible and in-depth course of study; this need can be fulfilled at home. The Knowledge Network pioneered the use of television and satellite technology to reach students and all interested British Columbians throughout the province. As never before, people in remote areas or with responsibilities at home or at work now have the opportunity to benefit from post-secondary education in this province, and that's another part of the good news that we have to tell.

The simple fact is that the provincial government has guaranteed that post-secondary education has received sufficient funding. The three universities in British Columbia — University of British Columbia, University of Victoria, and Simon Fraser University — have, since 1975, increased their funding from $170 million to $340.6 million, an increase of 103 percent. The 21 colleges and institutions have since 1975 increased their funding from $86 million to $265 million, an increase of 208 percent. Who says that our Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) does not support education in this province?

A graduating senior this year, Mr. Speaker, assuming he or she has been enrolled for the last four years, will have benefited, from their freshman year until now, from a 32 percent increase in the amount given to colleges and institutes. For the past two years, the community college budget has exceeded $300 million a year and accounted for 5 percent of the total provincial budget. In the fiscal year 1983-84, their total budget dollars rose by 14 percent.

In this year 1984-85 the government faced a situation whereby the costs of education rose dramatically faster than the ability of the people of the province to pay. The budgets of all educational facilities virtually doubled from 1979 to 1984, from one billion to nearly two billion dollars in this province. Provincial revenues during the same period only increased by 18 percent. Community college and institute budgets rose by 50 percent, or $100 million, during that same period.

The improved financial position of the province, as it comes about as a result of the policies of this great government, will help to create new jobs and opportunities for the graduating students who will come out of those colleges and institutions.

Indeed, in 1984, we saw increased investment in capital goods and repair, in trade, finance and services. It rose 28

[ Page 5230 ]

percent in those areas, and in manufacturing it rose, I believe, by a powerful 115 percent. Only confidence in British Columbia's future and in the quality of its people's skills and training could motivate such an investment and, I might add, confidence in the government of the day, which is Social Credit.

I've had some experience, Mr. Speaker, in working in finance in the community college system. In examining the community colleges and institutes, it's helpful to remember that the provincial government actually receives very little assistance from the federal government. The funds which Ottawa provides come through the established programs financing arrangement, the EPF fund. The EPF funds are given for health and post-secondary education combined, and they come in that envelope. What has happened in recent years is that the federal government has been silent, completely silent, on rising health costs. This indicates that the formula is somewhat dated as far as the provision of adequate funding from the federal government goes.

MR. LAUK: You want to put a tax on the sick.

MR. VEITCH: You may learn something at this late date even you, hon. member — if you listen.

What this means is that the rise in health care costs has meant that a larger share of the EPF funds must go to the health budget. Last year, 18 percent of the EPF funds went to post-secondary education — both the college system and the university system. It's my hope, and I'm sure it's the government's hope, that the federal government will realize the reality of the health costs and their continuing increases. They should restore, in my opinion, the funding flexibility which was the objective of the EPF in the first instance.

As a result of rising costs, tuition fees have been raised at universities and colleges. Fees, however, remain....

Interjections.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, protect me, please, from this big member over here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. VEITCH: Fees, however, remain comparable to what students pay in the province of Ontario and less than those in the Maritimes. It's important to remember that student fees only account for, I believe, 15 percent of the cost of their education. What other investment reaps a 566 percent dividend? The return over a lifetime is not calculable. That's a very small investment, and the rest of the people in British Columbia make up the difference.

The thousands of jobs which will be available to students from Expo 86 next summer may prove to be one of the best financial education assistance programs to British Columbia students in the history of this province. Indeed, a survey of grade 12 students taken in 1981 indicated that a full 40 percent of them going to college intended to pay their tuition fees from their own summer earnings. Of that group, 99 percent were to some degree confident that they could finance their education; only 4 percent of that group stated they depended on provincial government assistance. That's something else that points out to me that the NDP are completely mistaken when they think that youth are following the socialist line. They're not. They're supporting private enterprise; they're supporting the Social Credit government, and don't ever forget it.

The Social Credit government is proud of the tremendous human and economic potential for our province's post-secondary students. This government knows that it is their keen and inquisitive minds and their determination to succeed, both as providers and as citizens, which is at the heart of much of the progress in this province. The Social Credit government recognizes the powerful and creative potential of our students to make new advances in research and in the business field. As a result, we have developed several exciting programs and initiatives which are helping to connect ideas and innovations with the entrepreneurial skills and business acumen necessary to bring to reality new products, new services and, what is more important, new jobs.

The Science Council of British Columbia supplies funding for both academic and industrial researchers to pursue applied-technology research. Graduate and post-graduate students engaged in research and development work, in cooperation with industry, can receive graduate, research, engineering and technology awards as well as industrial post-doctoral fellowships. The work being funded covers a multitude of technologies, not just high-tech electronics. Examples of projects include a device for the better lubrication of heavy machinery, diagnostic test kits for fish farming and software for satellite imagery. The list could go on and on.

The Discovery Foundation aims to strengthen....

MR. LAUK: It sounds like Chemenko's last speech.

MR. VEITCH: I need your protection again, Mr. Speaker; this little member keeps interrupting. I'll be happy to listen to him when he speaks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) will come to order, please.

MR. VEITCH: The Discovery Foundation aims to strengthen the province's economy by promoting growth in scientific and technological industries. It does so through its subsidiaries, the discovery parks. Discovery Parks Inc. maintains properties next to universities and the PVI-BCIT complex which allow for an interface between students, scholars and the business world. A new building adjacent to PVI-BCIT is a great success, with 40 companies, a private investment of $2 million and 270 jobs being provided.

The facility at Simon Fraser now houses Microtel Pacific Research. Plans are underway, I believe, for sites at UBC, the University of Victoria and an aquaculture research centre at Malaspina College. The discovery enterprise program, in its first year, invested $3.4 million in 22 projects, which generated $30 million in outside investment and 270 jobs. The program, directed by volunteers from the private sector, concentrates on small business, where, after all, 85 percent of the new jobs are created in the Canadian economy.

Various colleges have been active with their own projects. For instance, Malaspina College has begun a unique initiative — the student venture capital program. The program is funded through a joint agreement by the college, the local Kiwanis Club, and the Nanaimo District Savings Credit Union. An initial contribution of $13,000 was made in 1984. Depositors in savings and term accounts can enter into an

[ Page 5231 ]

agreement whereby half of their earned interest could go to the community ventures account. The program has already supported 20 programs, most of which are successful.

The Social Credit government has also entered into several agreements with the federal government to reassess and redirect apprenticeship and employment training programs. These will provide skills for our young people in the areas of industry and commerce where new advances are being generated every day. No advance in business and in industrial technology can succeed without the trained personnel capable of putting their intelligence, training and skills to maximum use. We are training our young people for the jobs of tomorrow in both existing and new industries in our resources, our service and our new technological industries.

The Apprenticeship Board has just completed a major report on its future directions. It is currently reassessing the capacity of the employers of the province to take in new apprentices and the skills most in demand now and those that will be in demand in the future. As of the end of 1984 there were 11,850 apprentices involved with 16,000 employers. In 1984, 4,210 apprentices were certified.

The Social Credit government and the federal government have entered into a joint program for the summer employment of youth. The Challenge 85 program will embody the principles agreed upon as the best truly national approach to human resource development. This program will provide summer employment for over 15,000 young British Columbians. These people will gain work experience, valuable career training and in some cases the chance to exercise their entrepreneurial skills by operating a small business for the summer.

I do not hesitate to say that all of the money and the time the government, the colleges and the universities and the private investors have committed to the initiatives, agencies and programs I have mentioned are part of a wager. All of us have gambled some of what we now possess on the hope that it will bring a greater return in the future. After all, isn't that what education is all about? As with all ventures there is a chance involved, but I know we'll win. We will search for excellence. We will not lose our conviction that the future demands our attention, preparation, creativity and cooperation.

We as a province will emerge stronger and as committed as ever to meeting the challenge of the future.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I want to close by saying that this throne speech gives proof of the power of the individual. The legislation which I am sure will be introduced, particularly that dealing with education, has no clearer object than to help the young person willing to meet the challenge of the future. We have the obligation, Mr. Speaker, as members of this Legislative Assembly, to work in a positive way to do those things for those future British Columbians to help bring those dreams to reality.

[3:00]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I hope everybody treats me with the same courtesy during the course of my remarks to this thronging mass in the House. The hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon has used a great many figures. I think we're going to change his nickname from Slim to Smokescreen. The parliamentary secretaries, I've noticed, are reading from prepared scripts and using all of the research staff that they've now acquired to prepare their speeches. I might say that I think they were better off when they just spoke extempore in the House — although it was once a year.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's okay when you've got nothing to say.

MR. LAUK: Yes, either way, Mr. Member. But with respect to the Speech from the Throne, a number of speakers on the government side have made remarks.

Firstly I want to bring greetings from downtown British Columbia, which is my constituency. Greetings from the city of Vancouver to the Legislature of British Columbia. With those greetings comes an expectation, a hope or a prayer that the legislators will give some relief to the taxpayers of the city of Vancouver. The homeowners in the city of Vancouver, like other British Columbians, have borne the brunt of the recession and of the star-crossed restraint program of the Social Credit government. It's not enough that we have to bear the tremendous cost of bringing services in downtown Vancouver to the rest of British Columbia who visit us and do business there. It costs us a great deal — us people who have homes in Vancouver. It costs us extra taxes every year to pay for extra policing and servicing and everything else because we are the downtown of the province of British Columbia.

The provincial government, through its megaproject idea, has given us Expo. Hon. members of the Social Credit Party keep on saying to me: "You should be so pleased. We're spending more money in your constituency than the rest of the province put together." Well, the people of the city of Vancouver are paying extra taxes for the servicing of Expo and the visitors that will come in 1986. We know that we're paying taxes provincially, we know that we're paying taxes municipally, and we know that we're paying taxes federally. So far all we've had are grandiose, complicated speeches, like those of the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) and the Premier, promising us pie in the sky with these megaprojects. But all we can see is that every year, relentlessly and as predictably as the sun comes up in the morning and goes down at night, our taxes on our homes are going up. It's not based on our ability to pay; it's based on the fact that we have homes in the city of Vancouver and have got to pay these extra taxes.

Now there's a dispute between the provincial government and the federal government and the city government with respect to who's going to run the convention centre. The provincial government, through the Premier — like Sam Slick — is saying: "Hey, well, you know, the province and the federal government have given you the capital cost of this convention centre. Now we're going to let you operate it." There isn't a convention centre in North America that makes money. What a favour! More tax money. More increases in taxation on homeowners in Vancouver to pay for the operation of the convention centre. We're not going to make any money off the convention centre in the city of Vancouver. It will provide jobs to people in the city and outside the city. It will bring revenues to private merchants within the city, to the operators of facilities such as hotels and to those who attract and carry on the convention. It will bring tourist dollars to the city of Vancouver. That's all very fine. But once again the people of the city of Vancouver are going to be asked to pay

[ Page 5232 ]

taxes without any revenue coming back from that operation. There's no possible revenue to the city of Vancouver from the convention centre.

The other great gift from the province of British Columbia is the ALRT system. Thank you very much for the ALRT system. The province says: "Now that we've built it, we're going to have to have a way of paying for it. We've got such a great idea: the city's going to pay for it; the local taxpayer is going to pay for it."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's going to use it?

MR. LAUK: I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker. Very few of the people using the ALRT system will be from the city of Vancouver — they already live in downtown British Columbia. It's going to be people from the member's constituency; it's going to be people from all the surrounding constituencies. I don't mean to square off one municipality against another, but I will say that paying for the rapid transit system is going to be another burden on the Vancouver homeowner.

Instead of providing financial support for regional development, which benefits everybody in British Columbia, we keep on getting these gifts from the province of British Columbia. I say to the province of British Columbia and to the Premier: don't do us any more favours; we can't afford it. We simply can't afford to pay for these. If you're not going to carry through with provincial funding to keep those things afloat, or with separate financial authority as in the ALRT system, then forget it.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) is going to have a great big meeting with the mayors of municipalities in the province of British Columbia, and he's going to offer them a great deal. Well, I have a solemn warning for the mayors and council people of the municipalities of British Columbia: beware of Socreds bearing gifts; it's going to cost the taxpayers in your municipalities more taxes.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, the jobs. Here's the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) talking about jobs. He's just heard his colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon talking about all those PhDs who are so lucky because they can sell hotdogs at Expo in 1986. They've got that good old free enterprise spirit. While their parents are paying hundreds of dollars more in taxes on their homes each year, they can feel satisfied that their sons and daughters are making that extra $300 or $400 for six months' work selling hotdogs or souvenirs at Expo. That's the good old free enterprise system, says the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Coquitlam is interrupting my speech, Mr. Speaker. I don't mind that; it helps the flow. I made a note of part of his prepared speech — his evidence that the economy is turning around. The whole press gallery was waiting with bated breath for the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam to tell us how the economy is turning around. He has brought incontrovertible evidence to the Legislature. He says that the advertising in a weekly newspaper up north somewhere has increased substantially. That's his evidence that the economy is turning around — a weekly newspaper has increased its advertising. The new parliamentary secretary comes in here and replies to the address of His Honour, and then he turns around in his speech and says that the recession in British Columbia was the fault of the press. Do you remember that? He said it was the media's fault. They're the ones who preached doom and gloom, who went out with their cameras and captured on film people in soup kitchens, who went out to the UIC lines and took photographs. These are people with negative thinking. We've got to ignore all of those negative things and pretend they didn't happen. We've been hearing far too much of that in this country lately, ignoring reality. It's one thing to be positive and give hope. It's another thing to ignore reality and sidestep responsibility.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt).... Where is he? Where's the cabinet? There's no one here from the cabinet. They're out having tea with the Social Credit Women's Auxiliary. They won't sit here and listen to a speech, because they don't want to listen to the facts. The other day I heard the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs say there is proof that the whole economy is turning around — a 10 or 15 percent increase in incorporations last month. Well, anybody could tell you — and you could tell that, Mr. Speaker.... Lawyers who do incorporations can tell you that one out of five incorporations results in a going concern, so it would have to increase many more fold than 15 percent to be an impressive turnaround. Bankruptcies in British Columbia are ever increasing; bankruptcies every day, receiverships every day, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs says: "Well, there are more incorporations." People incorporate to lease a car, for heaven's sake. Who is he trying to kid?

AN HON. MEMBER: It makes money for lawyers.

MR. LAUK: And rightly so.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I heard the member for Point Grey, the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer), speak in this debate. He pleaded with the NDP to listen to reason. He said that every year he's disappointed in the NDP, and he gave us words of wisdom. I want to canvass with you the other times....

I've wanted very much to follow the reasoning and accept the advice of the Minister of Universities over the years. I've listened carefully. I even read his book, Mr. Speaker. Have you read his book? Perhaps one or two people in this House have read Politics in Paradise. Since then I've been wondering about the Minister of Universities. I've listened to a number of his speeches and I want to canvass some of them with you.

Do you remember Brazil? Three or four years ago he said he was sick and tired of hearing from the NDP and he pleaded with us to listen to him. He said that the classic example of people who know how to run an economy is Brazil. He forgot about the 300 percent inflation. He forgot that it's a pyramid there and that the vast majority of the people — 60 to 70 percent — live in abject poverty. But the Minister of Universities stands up in the House a few years ago and says we've got to use Brazil as the classic example of how to turn British Columbia's economy around, and since that time this government has moved steadfastly in that direction. They've created 16 percent unemployment, food banks and long lineups of unemployed at the UIC and for job-hunting. So we didn't take his advice, but the government did.

[ Page 5233 ]

The Minister of Universities has steadfastly, in that position, destroyed the pride and confidence of us all in the universities of this province. He has single-handedly, through his actions, meddled in the affairs of the universities. He announced recently that he's demanding of them not only operational plans for the foreseeable future, but their academic planning. Why does this government want to know the academic planning of B.C. universities? I'll tell you why. It's not restraint. It's not budget. It's that they want to meddle in the academic freedom of universities in this province. Up until now, our universities have been second to none in the world, but the ill-conceived meddling of the Minister of Universities is destroying the pride that the professors and students themselves have had in their universities.

[3:15]

It's unforgivable and inexcusable for a government to use its power to interfere in academic freedom on the university campuses of the province of British Columbia. Every self-respecting citizen of British Columbia should stand up and be heard and defend our universities and their independence against the political interference of this government and that minister, who is misguided and elitist in his views of education.

On the lighter side, we can look at some of the less harmful aspects of the Minister of Universities and his approach. After all, he brought us the satellite dish. He stood up before the world and said that he was going to use taxpayers' money and put a satellite dish in the garden of the parliament buildings. Was it a wooden one? Well, it didn't work, but it cost us $12,000 or $75,000. He was going to fight the CRTC to the last drop of the B.C. taxpayers' blood.

But when we asked him to do something about hiking the rates of telephone users in this province, he said: "That's an intergovernmental issue. I'm not going to even deal with the CRTC on it." He wants it both ways. Now why wasn't he enthusiastic about defending ordinary users of telephone services in this province? Why didn't he humble himself and make a strong representation to the CRTC against the usurious and greedy moves of that monopolistic utility, the B.C. Telephone Co.?

Do you know that the B.C. Telephone Co sends out between $40 million and $60 million a year in dividends alone to the United States? You read the figures, Mr. Member. Compensating foreign shareholders of our utility. There is no excuse for that outflow of capital to foreign shareholders. Has he taken a position on that? He's thrown up his hands: "Oh, it's a federal issue. I won't deal with the CRTC, because it's intergovernmental, and we demand control of the utility to British Columbia." He was courageous with his satellite dish. He was less than courageous defending ordinary British Columbians against the usurious and greedy moves made by B.C. Telephone.

Do you remember this great minister who is advising the House, who told us he wanted to build a STOL airport in Victoria and in Vancouver? Again I waited for some rational advice that I could accept. Do you know where he had the STOL airport in Vancouver? On Terminal Avenue, right where the ALRT system had already been planned. He announces this to the world as another great idea that he hatched in his office in the comer over here. Do you remember the underwater tunnel from Vancouver to Victoria, the longest exhaust pipe in the world? The cost of hundreds of millions of dollars? He thought this was a great idea too.

What about Discovery Parks? He held a press conference in Victoria, a simultaneous press conference in Vancouver, other press conferences here and there. He says we're going to attract the great industrial research of the world here to British Columbia. They spent millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money building Discovery Parks. Do you know what we have in that great big building in Burnaby costing us millions of dollars?

AN HON. MEMBER: Great job-creating projects.

MR. LAUK: Great job-creating projects! Do you know what they are, Mr. Member? They're all sales organizations. There's no research anywhere in that building: not a square foot of research except probably....

AN HON. MEMBER: Prevaricator.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you rising on a point of order?

MR. LAUK: It's up to the Chair to respond to something like that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate that. Mr. Member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, I'm sure you will withdraw any untoward comments about the integrity of the member.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, are you deeming that expression unparliamentary?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am.

MR. PARKS: Well then, clearly I would be prepared to remove that. But I would also be pleased to have the member make sure he qualifies the exact statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Member. You will have your opportunity. I draw your attention to section 42 of the rules, which provides that: "No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, but then he is not to introduce any new matter...." The member for Vancouver Centre is making comments with respect to points of your speech which you do not agree with, and he may be misquoting you. You may rise afterwards. Otherwise the member for Vancouver Centre should be allowed to continue in orderly debate.

MR. LAUK: Now these Discovery Parks were.... Speak of the devil: there he is with his notes. That's an expression; I'm sure that.... Mr. Speaker, here is the man that brought us Discovery Parks. Every square foot of these Discovery Parks, if they're not empty, have groups of sales organizations and an ordinary type of commercial rental space. It's not being used for this great undertaking of attracting worldwide industrial research to British Columbia. I don't want to spend too much time on the minister; he's heard all of my speech on his loudspeaker in his office — which he always does. But he was also in favour of the Crow rate being repealed at the expense of the British Columbia Railway. It was double-dealing by the federal government and endangered the special rates that we had that gave Vancouver a much-needed and much-deserved trade advantage in the shipment of goods from back east out here. It was the trade-

[ Page 5234 ]

off against the tariffs in the Niagara Peninsula, and this government didn't have the wisdom to protect its own people in British Columbia.

Our view of the economy, be it public, private or mixed, is somewhat different than that of the government opposite. They have over the past three years tied the B.C. citizen in a chair, beat him about the head and ears, and then stopped and said: "All right, I'm going to untie your hands, because there's going to be a new spirit of cooperation, a new spirit of partnership." It's asking all of the people of British Columbia to suspend their judgment and disbelief and to forgive the unforgivable. Our view of the economy is somewhat different than that of this government: we believe there is a way in which we can recover from economic recessions that are fuelled by an uncertain world economy and by the rather unpredictable events in Ottawa. But it's not the way that this government has gone in three years.

In Manitoba, which we use as an example not simply because there's a New Democratic Party government there doing an excellent job, which it is, but because it's very similar to our own province.... It has a smaller population, but the economy is about the same. They have mining and forestry resource development; they have transportation advantages in Winnipeg and so on. So there's no excuse. You can't draw any differences between Manitoba and British Columbia in terms of the economic base of both provinces.

What's happened in Manitoba while the recession in British Columbia has been fuelled by the restraint policies of this government? With approximately the same unemployment rates in both provinces in 1981, the B.C. rate now is almost double the rate in Manitoba. They sell to the same international markets as we do. During the last 12 months of 1984, Manitoba's unemployment rate fell from 9.4 percent to 8.3 percent, while B.C.'s rate continued to climb from 13.8 percent to 14.8 percent during the same period. During 1984 Manitoba's economy grew by 3.9 percent, while B.C.'s economy showed no growth. In 1984 new capital investment in Manitoba is predicted.... The figures are expected to be 15.6 percent in growth, compared to a decline of 8.5 percent in British Columbia. During 1984 the number of jobs in Manitoba grew by 2.6 percent, while employment in B.C. showed virtually no growth.

Mr. Speaker, what are they doing differently than us? They are dealing on a cooperative basis with the various groups in society that must produce the wealth: industry, labour, the unorganized worker and capital. They have worked with those groups, not against them. They have not governed by confrontation; they've governed by consultation. They have managed to survive the recession much better than we, and they've done so without confrontation, without pitting neighbour against neighbour. They have managed to do that by maintaining high educational standards that have far exceeded British Columbia's in the same period of time. They have kept their young people at school and in the universities. Their participation rate is much higher than ours.

That is a government that governs for the people, and not by poll. It takes its advice from the various interested citizens' groups in their province and doesn't take advice from Kinsella about how to present an image to the electorate during election time. That's the difference. That's why we moved our motion of non-confidence, and that's why in the main debate we're opposed to supporting the motion in support of the address from the throne. The government's approach today, through this Speech from the Throne, is really an admission of failure. It's a confession of guilt. They're condemned by it, and now their pathetic attempt to reverse their course at this time is transparent. The people of British Columbia can see it, and they are marching ever more in larger groups, relentlessly toward the ballot box in this province's next general election. They're going to throw this government out of office, and they will do so because the pain and cruelty that was foisted upon them, ostensibly because of the recession, was done so simply for cheap political appearances and not in the interests of the province.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased and honoured to stand in my place today in the Legislature and support the Speech from the Throne. But before I get into it, I want to comment for a couple of moments on the last speaker's deliberations in the House. I notice that he didn't really talk too much about NDP policies and he certainly didn't offer any new alternatives to the government, which has been typical of that group opposite. What he did do was make a constituency speech, because whether or not his party forms the government in the next election, he wants to ensure that he is indeed elected.

I was also interested, Mr. Speaker, in what he had to say about universities. I remember that when Microtel was purchased by B.C. Tel and brought back to British Columbia, that member for Vancouver Centre said it would do nothing for British Columbia; it would not create any jobs.

[3:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: He was against it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, he was against it.

Today, Microtel Pacific Research Ltd. at Simon Fraser University is indeed doing research in communications equipment, assisting our manufacturing industries to compete in the international marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues in the Speech from the Throne, but I want to relate my remarks mainly to renewal initiatives, preserving our trading relationships and the sections dealing with international trade and investment. We have just come through a period of difficulty not only in British Columbia and Canada, but indeed in the world. This government recognized that if we were going to be able to provide the climate for future investment to keep our industries competitive in the international marketplace, we had to take less from them. Taking less from them meant that we would have to curtail government spending. That is what is referred to as the restraint program.

Mr. Speaker, our restraint program has preserved British Columbia for the youth growing up today so that they will have opportunities tomorrow. That's what restraint is all about. Had we continued with the same magnitude of spending and increases as we had when we started the restraint program, today we would be in the same position as Ottawa. Before my ministry change, I had the opportunity for some negotiations with the new government in Ottawa. What are they telling Canadians? "Canadians, we're broke." They don't have the money that they should to plough back into programs, because every year $20 billion of our tax money goes to pay off the national debt. We would have been in the same situation in British Columbia had we not gone on the restraint program.

[ Page 5235 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's about one-third of the total budget.

We are able to come out with a throne speech that talks about the initiatives that will indeed be in the budget, because we went on a restraint program.

I have listened to the members opposite talk about jobs, and I don't think they really understand the Canadian economy. Any jobs that we're going to create in Canada will have to come from exports. Canada is a major trading nation and international trade is crucial to Canadian income and employment. If you're going to create new jobs and more income, it's going to have to come from international trade. Growth in our exports means more economic activity in Canada and more jobs for Canadians.

Three basic conditions of success for us in the world economy are competitiveness, access to foreign markets and effective export marketing. Each of these conditions is necessary and they are related. Effective marketing requires a competitive product and secure access. Our budget, I have a feeling, will address the necessity of keeping our industries competitive in the international marketplace. Our transportation systems and the new talks on a general agreement on tariff and trade will indeed ensure that we have access to foreign markets. Of course, this new ministry has the responsibility of ensuring that we have effective export marketing,

Mr. Speaker, of the seven countries that participate in the annual economic summit meetings, Canada is the second most dependent nation on exports: 28 percent of our gross domestic product. Canada is exceeded only by the Republic of Germany at 32 percent. In contrast, our two main trading partners, the U.S.A. and Japan, depend considerably less on exports. We must remember that Canada, with a relatively small population, cannot consume the goods and services that we produce. Therefore we must trade to survive. We must trade if we're going to have economic activity, and we must trade if we're going to have new jobs. It's great to talk about people going out and spending more money and buying more from the department stores. Yes, that will create maybe a few more jobs in the immediate future. But in the long run, the lasting jobs must come from the international marketplace.

I don't think that our opposition in this House realize this or want to come to grips with those facts. Exports are vital to Canadian jobs. Canada's share of world merchandise exports was 4.5 percent in 1970. Unfortunately, it went down to 4 percent in 1983. Had we achieved a 4.5 percent share in 1983, an increase of 0.5 percent, we would have employed an additional 160,000 Canadians in Canada.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's fancy arithmetic.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the member opposite says it's fancy arithmetic. I don't suppose that he wants to believe that. If he doesn't want to believe it, maybe he can run it through his computer and come up with another figure. But one thing he must remember.... Maybe the 160,000 is not totally accurate. I'll agree with that, because we're running a series of scenes through a computer. But I don't think the member opposite will disagree that indeed the new jobs will have to come from additional exports.

The Economic Council of Canada projects that in 1990 our share of world exports will be 3.8 percent. The same forecast by the Economic Council of Canada has unemployment at 9.8 percent. An increase by 1990 of our share of world market exports back to the 4.5 percent that we had could lower unemployment to 7.3 percent from the 9.8 percent predicted by the Economic Council of Canada. That is where the new jobs are going to have to come from. Between now and 1990, every $1 billion increase of merchandise exports should generate approximately 16,000 new jobs.

The member is right. While no one can accurately predict the job impact of an increased share of world market, there is no doubt that it would be significant and very positive.

Mr. Speaker, as we look to future opportunities for growth in our exports, we must focus on both large and dynamic markets. The Wharton Economic Outlook of December 1984 forecasts that the world gross domestic product will grow at 3 percent per year between 1985 and 1989.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll talk about B.C. in just a moment.

The Pacific Rim developing countries are expected to have the highest growth rates, at 5.6 percent; next is Japan, at 3.8 percent, followed by the total for all developing countries, at 3.7 percent. The U.S.A. is forecast to exceed world growth by a small margin, while the European community is expected to lag behind. The Pacific Rim is Canada's fastest growing market, and the forecast suggests that this may continue to be the case for some time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to you that this has been British Columbia's position for a number of years. The member says that British Columbia may not grow. Well, I happen to have a lot more faith in what is going to happen in British Columbia than does the member opposite. Not only did British Columbia talk about the future of the Pacific Rim, but we have built that infrastructure so that we will be able to take the opportunities when they come. We have built them not only on behalf of British Columbia but on behalf of all of Canada. Practically everything we have done in building that infrastructure has been opposed by the opposition, the NDP, who are talking about creating jobs.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, when we built Duke Point to serve the industry on Vancouver Island so they would have decent port facilities to take advantage of that growing trade with the Pacific Rim, the NDP were against it. They talked about it for three years, but nothing happened at Duke Point until this little government came to power and made some positive decisions.

The same is true of Roberts Bank. Yes, it was this government that encouraged the expansion of Roberts Bank. It was this government that sat down with the then Minister of Transportation and made the deal, and said to the lawyers: "You can allow the expansion to go on. You can draw up a legal agreement. You don't have to wade through the Strait of Georgia case and all that paraphernalia." It was this government that saw the future and the need for the expansion of Roberts Bank to serve the dynamic growth that will take place in the Pacific Rim.

It was this government that supported the changes in the harbours board act, so that the port of Vancouver could have more autonomy over its own decisions, and not be controlled by a bunch of bureaucrats 3,000 miles away in Ottawa. This government helped that to take place. I'll tell you, decisions are now being made.

[ Page 5236 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Your audience is leaving.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You just listen. Never mind about the audience. If I can get through to you, I'll figure I've made my case. When you were the minister of everything in this province, nothing was happening — a lot of talk.

MR. WILLIAMS: Everyone was working.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, most of them for the government. You didn't have a job because you were paid $80,000 to lie in the background. Well, nobody's bought me off yet, so I'll continue to speak.

One little item in Vancouver harbour, called Fibreco, was put together with the assistance of this government. It's been the saviour of those little sawmills in this province, because they were able to export their chips into the international marketplace.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you what happened. You should know what happened. Just as soon as we built Fibreco, there were more chips produced, and it wasn't left on the forest floor. You know that as well as I do. I'll go on, Mr. Speaker.

[3:45]

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it's been a great success. If that member had been Minister of Forests, it would never have been built. All he did was fill up a huge bureaucracy to control the price of chips. Sure, that old NDP scheme: put a whole bunch of people.... Control the marketing and control the price. Because of Fibreco we set chips at the world price and let them be competitive in the world. That's what happened; not any NDP bureaucracy to control the price.

It's all part of the infrastructure to serve the future, to serve that growing market in the Pacific Rim. What else? Talked about since 1914: a new port of Prince Rupert. Now it's a reality: a new port for the export of coal; a new port for the export of bulk commodities; Fairview Terminals is busier than ever; and a new grain terminal. They were all helped, fostered and promoted by this government, so that British Columbia and Canada would be in a position to take advantage of those growing markets in the Pacific Rim.

That whole northern transportation corridor will assist Canada to export her goods and services. Today the Canadian Pacific Railway is spending hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading its line, so that it will be prepared to take advantage of those additional exports. It's happening. The Canadian National Railway is employing thousands and thousands....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, from British Columbia and from the rest of Canada. Our job and our responsibility is as the gateway to the Pacific; it's not to be parochial. We're good Canadians. We'll provide the exports. We'll provide the transportation system, I should say. And we'll use the employment here. Yes, we'll take the employment here as a result of it. But the NDP were against that as well.

I don't hear much talk lately about the British Columbia Railway. But the British Columbia Railway today is a well run, profitable railway, in place to take advantage of and to serve those additional exports. Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, that's only a small part of the infrastructure which has been put in place to serve British Columbia and to serve Canada.

What about the Annacis Island bridge? When those fellows opposite talk about jobs.... They were against that. "Oh, don't build the Annacis Island bridge. Who needs the Annacis Island bridge? Put your televisions on your back and take them on the bus with you. You don't need an infrastructure to serve the transportation needs of the commercial area in the lower mainland." You'd see everybody — a team, thousands of people — with little televisions on their backs, all the goods and services, jumping on the bus. They said: "You don't need a transportation system to serve commerce in the lower mainland." I don't know what they thought we were going to do. That's their idea of providing jobs and getting the economy....

What about the Coquihalla Highway, to serve our growing tourist industry and to serve the interior of the province? They were against it, yet they have the audacity to stand up in this Legislature and talk about jobs. I want to tell you something, Mr. Speaker, what about jobs? I know things aren't as good as they could be. But there are 23,000 more people employed in February 1985 than there were in February 1980, and there are 21,000 more employed in February 1985 than there were in February 1983. I want to tell you, recovery is happening, and when that great budget comes down, it'll take off like a shot out of a cannon. I want to tell you, just in the last few weeks the proposals are coming in faster than we can handle them.

There's confidence in Canada today. We've got a new government in Ottawa now, not one that was in bed with the NDP and further left than they were, probably. No, we've got a good government in Canada today, a government that will provide opportunities for Canadians and return that entrepreneurial spirit so that Canadians will be able to fulfill all that pent-up energy and enthusiasm that they've had, not be depressed by socialist philosophies.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much money are they going to give for the pipeline?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm not through yet, Mr. Speaker, talking about how we have prepared. We haven't just talked about doing things. We have built the infrastructure so that British Columbians will be able to have the opportunity to work and to take advantage of those opportunities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you mean the railway to Tumbler Ridge?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There's the man who talks about a railway to Tumbler Ridge. Well, I want to tell you, I don't know whether he was on the negotiating team for the NDP back in 1972 to 1975 but, you know, those guys over there, they make me laugh. Gary Lauk announced that northeast coal would go ahead about four days before the election in 1975. If you were on the negotiating team, you wanted to buy out the companies and develop northeast coal as a government project. That's what you wanted to do. Well, I want to

[ Page 5237 ]

tell you, northeast coal went ahead and is employing thousands of people today. It is a very good project and is helping Canada with the balance of trade.

Oh, yes, you laugh, my friend. You must have been on the negotiating team that tried to buy out all the companies and wanted to go ahead and do it yourselves, you thought it was such a good idea. They wanted to do it themselves, and now they make fun of it. They said it would never go ahead. They actually not only wanted to build the infrastructure; they wanted to buy out the companies that built the mines. So it's pretty shallow when you start talking about northeast coal.

I know the story. I won't give you all the details in the House, but I know the story — how you guys tried to buy out the mines up there and then talk about.... You couldn't put it together. You didn't have the ability to do it. It took this government to bring it into reality. That's what happened, I want to tell you.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia is prepared for the future. Ski areas now abound. Destination ski areas abound in British Columbia because of the policies of this government in putting those ski areas together. We set out to make Canada the Austria of North America. We're just about there. Some of the finest skiing areas you'll find anywhere in the world, assisted with a little bit of infrastructure and a little bit of seed money by this government.... The private sector went ahead and developed them. It's bringing tourists here in the wintertime. Oh, yes, it's bringing tourists here in the wintertime, helping to make British Columbia a 12-month-a-year tourist destination area.

Canada Place. Where did the idea for Canada Place start? Where did it start? It started with this government. It started with the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain; that's where Canada Place started. Another idea from this government looking to the future, preparing for the future; that's where it started. And who laughed at it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Your light's on.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I wish your light would come on. Maybe we'd see a little bit of brightness around here from that side of the House.

Anyway, Canada Harbour Place, built by the federal government as a trade and convention centre, contains the first hotel investment in North America by Tokyu Corp., the fourth largest company in Japan. They have one in Hawaii, but their first investment on mainland North America is in British Columbia. Why? Because they've got faith in the future of British Columbia. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that idea of the trade and convention centre, to make Vancouver harbour beautiful, to compete with the other three most beautiful cities in the world, had to come from this government.

Expo 86 will bring the world to our doorstep. We've heard the opposition criticize Expo 86. They're not really sure whether they want to be against it or for it. They're sort of talking around the edges. But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, Expo 86 wouldn't be happening in Vancouver if it weren't for the government of the province of British Columbia. I want to tell you that it's all very easy for those socialists over there to criticize it, because it wasn't their idea, and to try to tear it down. I'll tell you what will happen. We will have some intelligent press people come here one day from Toronto or somewhere else, and they'll tell the rest of the world what is happening at Expo 86. Then some of the local boys will have to smarten up. They will be embarrassed when somebody from outside comes in here and says Expo 86 is a good deal.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not attacking the press; I'm making a statement, my friend.

The B.C. Pavilion being built as part of Expo will remain, as will Canada Place, a heritage for all British Columbians. Then there's ALRT. It's all part of the infrastructure that this government is putting in to serve the future. Lonsdale Quay is another great development started by this government to help make that lower mainland area, Canada's gateway to the Pacific, a much better place. These things that I mention are not idle talk. They're there for everybody to see: a new harbour development at Duke Point, expansion at Roberts Bank, Vancouver harbour and Fibreco, the new port at Prince Rupert, the northern transportation corridor, upgrading of the Canadian Pacific Railway, upgrading of the British Columbia Railway, upgrading of the CNR, the Annacis bridge, the Coquihalla Highway, industrial parks throughout British Columbia, ski areas, the Asia Pacific Foundation, Canada Place, Expo 86, the B.C. Pavilion, ALRT. All of those have been built with the idea in mind of serving the youth of today when they grow up and make British Columbia fulfill its destiny as Canada's gateway to the Pacific. That's not idle talk. That's providing jobs and that's building for the future.

I want to tell you that when the world economy takes off, there will be one province that's ready to go, and there will be one province that will have the incentives for their industry. Why? Because we had the foresight to bring in restraint. We will be the envy of other provinces in Canada.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the Address in Reply, the Chair recognizes the member for Atlin.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought you said the member from Austria of the north, but Atlin will do okay.

That was a hard act to follow. I was sure that while I was sitting listening I heard some harps in the background. A bright light came down over on that side.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your being appointed for another term, and the members who have been assigned to cabinet ministers.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I think this is going to be a little different than throne speech debates that have been heard around this Legislature for a number of years, because I'm not going to be attacking any of the three political parties in this House. Mr. Speaker, I get a little fed up at times sitting in here and listening to the arguments going back and forth and people not really caring, not really listening to what's going on. I think that all of us at one time or another have an idea to present. If that idea is a little different from somebody else's, it seems that we just don't want to accept it, because we've labelled one another with one political stripe or another.

[4:00]

I think all we have to do is walk out of the Disneyland that this building is incorporated in, and go out and talk to people.

I think people are really concerned about what's going on. I

[ Page 5238 ]

think we've lost touch with reality. Look at the customs in this place: what is it — two-and-a-half sword lengths between us? We don't talk about flowers between us or bookcases. We talk about two-and-a-half sword lengths between one political party and another. I've been here in the comer for the last six years, and I can say that the members that I've talked to — and at times they've sat less than two-and-a-half sword lengths from me.... We've been able to discuss ideas, to talk, without the impasse of two-and-a-half sword lengths between us.

Then I hear also a new phrase that the media — all you have to do is look up, and you won't see one of them around — talk about: cooperation. I'm going to get into the media a little later in my presentation, because that's a sore point with me. The media likes to talk about televising the Legislature. I think that would be a great idea, but I think it would be great to televise the press gallery at times to see what goes on there.

We hear about cooperation. In the six years that I've spent in this House, Mr. Speaker, I've walked over to cabinet ministers; I don't think there's a cabinet minister across the floor that I can't go to and talk to and discuss issues with. I find that that is what cooperation is all about, not this new phrase — this new catchword that the media likes to throw around. It would be nice at times if we could spend a little bit more time talking between cabinet ministers and backbenchers, and explaining ideas. There's a lot that we have to offer, and by the same token there's a lot that you have to offer too. I think if we just spent some time talking and discussing, without the circus and having to perform in front of each other.... Well, we see one who has just come in.

In cooperation, I had an interesting experience last week. The second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) asked me to go and discuss some matters with some planners from Expo. I said sure. It was upstairs, and there were two planners from Expo. They wanted to hear some ideas from the north for the B.C. pavilion. We spent about a half-hour talking; there wasn't anything political about it. We were talking about some of the legends of the north, some of the geography of the north that might be incorporated into the B.C. pavilion. They asked about having the Nishga band come down to perform at Expo.

Do the media report any of this? To them it's not of any importance. What they want is sensationalism. They want somebody from one side of the floor to call somebody else a name, to go out and throw your hands up and say, "I'll meet you out in the hallway," and pretend this little fight's going on. They really don't care. You see them sitting up there when there is question period. You have some of the media sitting up there knitting. Some of the media sit up in the press gallery and knit with question period going on, and they're supposed to be the ones that explain to the general public what's going on in here. How are they going to be able to explain what's going on when they're knitting?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I wouldn't. Not big Jim — Big Jim's a little bigger than I am.

I think any of us who have sat around here long enough know the mainland media. It's a little after 4 p.m. right now, so it must be happy hour over at the Empress or wherever, and they've scampered over there to see what they can dig up or drink up or whatever the case is. I'm getting to the point where I don't even want to discuss anything with these people down here, these mainland media, because they never report anything factual half the time. They make up their own stories. If I'm going to report something, I'll go to the media in my own riding, the media up north, who at least give you the opportunity to discuss something with them — not like this group down here.

On to the Legislature after I've had my little shot at the media, which I will continue to do until some of the people in the media here — these overpriced journalists — start reporting the truth.

There are two-and-a-half million people, more or less, in this province of British Columbia, and representing two-and-a-half million people are 57 of us. Mr. Speaker, you stand a better chance winning a lottery than being elected to the Legislature. So we represent less than one-half of one percent of the people of British Columbia in this House. It's getting larger. Twelve new seats are coming up — something that I don't particularly want to see, but by the same token, I've heard in the last couple of weeks about the constituency of Atlin.

To me, Mr. Speaker, at times people matter more. It doesn't matter what your customs are, what your cultures are, or what your political stripes are. I think people matter more, and often the media dictate to political parties what issues we should discuss and what issues we shouldn't. I have nothing against the cities. I was born in the city and got out of it quick enough, but I've heard in the last couple of weeks comments regarding the constituency of Atlin — one of the oldest constituencies in the province of British Columbia. Historically, at one time, it used to have two members. Before there was a community of Prince George, it used to go down almost into the Cariboo.

I remember looking at an election, I think it was.... I should have listened to the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) the other day when he was going through it, but he only started in about 1933 and worked up to 1985. I think this was in 1893, or something. The constituency of Atlin had two members; I think there were six people running for the two positions. It was a February election and there were only 30 votes cast in the entire constituency — which must have been one heck of a race, from one to six, particularly when there were no roads up there.

I wish the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) were in the House, because he often likes to discuss how the constituency of Atlin should be eliminated because it's small. But that type of thinking would have led us as a country to only stretch, maybe, to the Great Lakes. If we were just worried about population and where the media were, we would never have stretched out. The media would have had this country going from the St. Lawrence Seaway to the Great Lakes. They wouldn't even have reported what was going on in the west, let alone the north.

AN HON. MEMBER: Upper Canada.

MR. PASSARELL: That's it.

For years that member has, prior to the Constitution debates, spoken about how the west was not truly represented and the east had this domination. I hear that same type of stuff; everything is east and west. They forget that there is the north. Everything does not exist along the 49th parallel. At times we forget that there's a strident lifestyle north of 60. Tom Berger one time said: "How we treat the north will tell us what type of country we will have."

[ Page 5239 ]

This weekend that member for North Vancouver–Seymour was speaking on one of the open-line shows, "For the Record" — I don't know how they ever came up with that name. He spoke on taxes, roads, and how the north really shouldn't be complaining too often about the road conditions they have, because people don't pay as many taxes as they do in the cities. He said we shouldn't expect this, which I find totally alienating to what this province and this country are all about. There are people who live up north who are good Canadian citizens and good taxpayers, and they shouldn't be delegated to a second-class road system because the member for North Vancouver–Seymour with all his education said on television that northerners shouldn't expect to have the same types of roads as the south.

I was going to take a shot this time — I know the galleries are full, the back benches are full — at my colleague the new member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) regarding his comments about Atlin. I think we fail to realize that from Prince George over to Prince Rupert, and north to Atlin and east over to Fort Nelson, the residents who live in that area — by choice — through their jobs, their taxes, and the items that they produce keep the south with their majority of people in a lifestyle that would be worse off if there were no north. Those people have their aspirations, their wants, their hopes and their needs planted in the far north. Certainly I would hope that this Legislature would never come to the point, whether it's an NDP member representing Atlin, or a Social Credit member or a United member, that we would replace the voice, the concerns or the aspirations of the far north because they don't have as many people as the south.

Since I'm taking shots, I might as well take a shot at the NDP MP for the area, Mr. Fulton, when he talks about our work habits and what we do. For years that MP, who represents the same political party that I do, has not been seen in many communities. So when I travel and people come up to me.... A lot of times residents don't know the difference between an MP and an MLA. If they have a problem they come to their elected official, and so often I'm doing — as I think all members in this House do — work for our federal members. At times I get very upset that I'm representing over 20 percent of this province with less than 1 percent, let's say, of the public and that I'm doing jobs for a federal MP who is making a lot more money than I am and receiving a lot more benefits than I do — and then I hear the great media here in the mainland who criticize me for some travelling allowance, when I might receive $824 a year more to travel 20 percent of this province.

MR. R. FRASER: Is there more?

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, there's more. You just settle down there.

I could go on further about the north and what we produce, how we feel, and how we often feel alienated from this Legislature — and from the mainland, and from Ottawa — because it seems that our concerns and our wants and aspirations are not always important to the people down here. They fail to realize that when you are attacking residents who live in the far north, you're attacking good Canadian tax-paying citizens.

I think the second sentence of the throne speech is the most important one. I'd like to read it into the record.

"I trust and pray that the people of our province and their needs will remain in the forefront of your thoughts and deliberations, and that all members of this assembly will strive during their service to work for the common well-being of all British Columbians and to ensure that their hopes, dreams and aspirations are realized to the fullest extent possible."

How can anybody in this Legislature attack or criticize a statement like that? I think that's why we're elected. It's to use that simple statement presented two weeks ago as what we should be moving for, as the 1 percent solution that this Legislature represents. What caring, thinking human being can criticize a statement of that nature? I guess if we are allowed to forget about our political stripes and about the two-and-a-half sword lengths, and we sat as in many bodies around a round table.... We do so in committee: we sit next to Social Credit members, or whatever, and discuss issues. If we came to something like this it would be very difficult for any of us to vote against it, figuratively. How can you vote against hopes or aspirations of 99.9 percent of the people of this province? If you're voting in favour of this simple statement, then you're making a commitment to the people of this province that you're going to try to achieve these goals.

People are hurting, and have been hurting for the last few years. Economic renewal? I don't think you'll find any caring, thinking human being who is opposed to economic renewal. All of us want to see renewal in the economic area, because we know that that's the future of this province. It's in our minerals, our fish, our natural resources, the trees. But an interesting, and I think very important, word was used in that statement on economic renewal: the word "promise." I think if this government.... They have more seats than the opposition does and they'll be able to pass this, if the NDP votes against it and the government votes in favour of it. You're making a commitment, a promise that you are going to strive to have economic renewal happen in this province very quickly. I think it's difficult for any individual on the floor of this House to attack the creation of real and permanent jobs. You stated this as your number one priority. You've made a promise, and you have the opportunity to fulfill that promise to the people of this province. I guess if you get down to the very short strokes, Mr. Speaker, if you succeed with this promise of creating real and permanent jobs, you will be re-elected. If you fail, then the opposite: you probably will not be re-elected. But that is a promise that you have made. And if you fulfill that promise, then you pick up the marbles at the end of the road.

[4:15]

I'm going to be trying to do something in this session of the House for the next four months, or five months, because I represent an area that Statistics Canada doesn't even put out figures for when it comes to unemployment, or people on assistance; we're incorporated with other areas of this province. I'm going to be doing something different this time around, Mr. Speaker. When I see something that the government presents that's good, that's going to benefit the constituents of Atlin, then I will be supporting you on that. If it happens in the next four or five months that you present things that hurt people in the Atlin constituency, then it is my duty to attack you on it. I'm going to make that commitment to the Legislature here. I think we have to forget about the labels, the two-and-a-half sword lengths between us, and start to work for the people who are putting faith in us.

All of us will be judged in the next 12 months on what we do in this Legislature, and how we help the 2.4 million people

[ Page 5240 ]

in this province to regain some kind of dignity, to have their hopes and aspirations brought back. There's no quick-fix solution. I don't think any political party has the medicine to say: "Here, take two of these and you'll wake up in the morning and everything'll be rosy." But I think it's about time we started looking at alternatives and some other opportunities. Politics got us onto the floor of this House, and politics can have us removed from the floor of this House just as quickly.

In conclusion I'd like to quote from Mahatma Gandhi, who once said to the political leaders of England: "Man cannot change his temperament all at once. It is against the laws of nature to suppose that these gentlemen will suddenly become different."

I think we owe it to ourselves — you can forget about the media — to use what Mahatma Gandhi has said and maybe change a little bit: to talk a little bit, to plan a little bit and help out those people who have elected us to represent them in this Legislature.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to speak in support of the throne speech, because I think it does point out — in the way that throne speeches do in very general terms — what we need to do and where we need to go in order to restore the economy in this province.

As I indicated in my comments speaking against the amendment, there were just too many negatives that were injected into that. The opposition criticized the throne speech for not dealing with the unemployment situation and for not dwelling on the stopgap measures of government creating jobs. It does dwell on what needs to be done to create jobs in the long term.

Certainly that is what I and my colleagues support. How do you stimulate the recovery in the province in order to create the jobs? The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) has just expressed some very positive thoughts — it's a hard act to follow — about getting involved with the various criticisms that go back and forth.

Let me comment briefly about my own constituents, who were probably hurt worse than almost any region in the province. Part of it was that they were caught up in the euphoria that all of us were caught up in — government and the private sector — that tomorrow was going to be better, the prices were going to go up tomorrow, the wages were going to go up tomorrow and everything was going to go up tomorrow. So borrowing was the way to go: the more you developed, the more money you would make. It didn't matter how much it cost to borrow. Of course it went on as though there would be no end.

There were warning signs that it was going to come to a day of reckoning, and that day of reckoning came, and, of course, it came very abruptly. My constituents, I believe, do recognize that there is a downturn in the forest industry, the oil and gas industry and the agricultural industry. They got hurt very badly. They had overbuilt in the area in expectation of the Site C Dam going ahead, the Alaska Highway gas pipeline going ahead and the oil and gas industry to keep booming. Everything was looking good, and there was a certain amount of over-optimism and overbuilding.

So of course when things turned around, they got hurt, probably worse than a lot of other areas. But I can tell you this: they did support the spending restraint in the public sector. They didn't believe that the public sector should increase in numbers and salaries while the rest of the people in the area were subject to the realities of the marketplace. In other words, if you couldn't sell the goods, you couldn't keep the jobs in place. They did not want to pay higher taxes in order to have one special-interest group or one segment of society increasing their benefits while they had to pay from a decreasing revenue supply.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that many of the people up there are up there because they are basically entrepreneurs. They know that they face some difficult conditions. They face some risks and so they will be in the forefront in leading the program for recovery. That's their very nature. I know friends of mine who lost a lot of money, some of it on paper, if you like. We have people who have lost most of what they have worked for for 10 or 15 years, and then they say: "Well, I didn't have that much when I started. The country's been good to me, and so I'll start again."

So these people are there. They are working on it now. I can give you a couple of good examples, not just of the employers but also some of the employees. I know Canfor's sawmills in my constituency were losing something like $150,000 a month at their mill when the lumber industry was really down. They got their employees together — and it was a unionized operation — and said: "Look, we'll try to hang in there in hopes that it will turn around. But we need all the support we can get from you. We need productivity, we need your cooperation." And those members said: "Fine, you've got it. You hang in there, and we'll hang in there with you." And they hung in there for six months. I know their losses went almost to a million dollars before it turned around. When it turned around, they were in place. Their workers have kept working, and tried to get that company back on its feet. Somehow or other those people seem to think that if the company survives, then their jobs survive. They don't seem to believe that the company is an enemy. Of course, what a lot more people have to recognize is that the employers, the big corporations, the small businessmen — these people who are trying desperately to survive — are not the opponents, the protagonists; they are necessary friends.

I'll give you another example. While all this has been going on, in Fort Nelson Tackama Forest Products has expanded its mill operation and is starting a plywood plant. Why? Because they believe in the future, and that it is going to benefit them. So they're taking advantage of the lower construction costs, of the desire for people to work, and they're using that to build up, to keep people employed. There are others that have gone under.

Just last weekend when I was home I met a fellow who has bought up a certain amount of land there and is going to increase and put in a fairly large cattle ranch operation. That's the kind of optimism that the people in those areas have. I think it's that kind of optimism that is going to build the recovery, not the negative criticism that we hear so much about. We're hearing now continued negative aspects about Expo going to be a failure, and so on. I guess what I'd like to do is just compare briefly some of the things that have happened in the very recent past. The opposition seems to look for all of the possible negative aspects to anything, and then develop that and expand it to the utmost. I really have to wonder why. There seems to be almost a concerted effort to undermine every development project that is going on in the province; and those are development projects that have kept some jobs going and will keep jobs going in the future.

Shortly after I became minister we found out that there was a fairly desperate financial situation at Whistler. We

[ Page 5241 ]

analyzed it as carefully as we could; we took a look at it and felt that the potential and the prospects at Whistler were great. I had a number of people who said: "Whistler has got the potential to keep going, to do great things in the future, but it's going to need something to prevent it from going under, for a few million dollars that was owed to the bank." So we decided to take that step: to salvage, if you like, the situation at Whistler. I can well remember the flak that I got about how wrong we were: let it die, it's not worth saving, that sort of thing. Yet in a very short time — remember, this is during the difficult times that we've been going through in the last couple of years — the golf course was finished, the occupancy rates doubled and tripled in the summertime. It has kept many of those businesses alive. We talk about creating new jobs, but what about the jobs that were saved there, with all the people who are working in the service industry at Whistler? I know there was just an article in the January edition of B.C. Business that extolled the benefits of what has been done at Whistler and what's happening.

The convention centre will be finished soon. I can tell you that they have already booked thousands and thousands of people who are going to come there for conventions. That means room revenue to the province. It means jobs for the people. That convention centre has employed about 130 people during the construction phase; it will employ at least 50 people full-time. Here was another example of where had we listened to the critics, the negative thinkers, we wouldn't have those jobs in place; we would have a lot of people who would have gotten hurt. Yet because the positive thinkers prevailed, it is a success story and will continue to go on and be a success story.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I can remember when the B.C. Place Stadium was being built: people were saying — and among them the opposition member — that it would never work; it shouldn't be built; we should drop it; we should let it go. Yet it has been built, and it's a success story in Canada and in North America, if you like.

Northeast coal. My colleague from South Peace River is very knowledgeable about that. But if the opposition had had their way.... They said: "Shut it down. Don't do it." Under that emotional term "megaproject".... If it's a large project, we shouldn't do it because it's a megaproject. But what is not stated often enough is that by providing the incentive, by providing the government assistance in the infrastructure, that brought a great deal of investment into the province. Remember, what the government put in was a pittance compared to what the private sector brought in. They created a lot of the jobs.

[4:30]

We had the ALRT, and some members opposite are still trying to stop that, still trying to destroy it; yet it's soon going to be operating. What is not mentioned on many occasions is that if it wasn't for the ALRT, there would certainly have to be a great deal of money spent on more freeways that are going to bring traffic into the city. So it's not just the direct costs and benefits that you're dealing with; it's many of the indirect benefits that you have. This government has tried to encourage foreign investment in this province, yet we have people in the opposition who apparently do not want foreign investment. It's evil somehow or other. Yet that foreign investment builds buildings and what have you.

The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was talking about all the things that have been done wrong and all the pessimism that apparently exists. Yet in Vancouver the people in the private sector don't seem to be buying that: they are building apartments, hotels and all of those things in the constituency despite that member's pessimism. Obviously those people must believe there is a future.

MR. LAUK: In spite of your government.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would say that this government has tried to encourage that investment. This government has tried to encourage people and say to them: "Yes, there is a positive future ahead, and that's why those people are building." It's not in spite of this government but because of it that they....

MR. LAUK: Nonsense.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I'll tell you, I don't think that too many of them who are building those buildings are socialists. I know the oil industry are not socialists either, and if they thought for one minute that there might be a socialist government in this province, they would pack up their bags and go away, as they were driven out once before. The opposition members have gone out of their way to attack, criticize and, if they can, stop the marketing efforts of this government by attacking the trips that ministers make overseas, where a few thousand dollars are spent. The opposition has basically attacked every one of those trips with snide remarks and various types of comments. Yet those trips have resulted in sales. This government has increased lumber sales, agricultural product sales and....

MR. LAUK: Nonsense.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You can say "nonsense" if you like, but there are contracts that have come in because of those trips. Certainly they would not have come in had those people not have gone out.

We have a great many critics. Let me use Expo as a classic example: here we have recognition in eastern Canada, in the United States and in many parts of the world. Obviously there has to be recognition when that many countries are coming here to Expo to put up their booths and to spend money to do it. So there is recognition that Expo is a world-class fair. Other people have said that it's well organized, and you would think that because it's in British Columbia and it's never going to happen again in this century, and because we have an opportunity here to attract the world and to sell our best side to the world, sooner or later even the opposition members would drop their partisan position, support Expo and say, "Hey, Expo is a great thing; we're pulling for it; we're going to do everything to try to make it work," instead of constantly hitting the media with: "It's going to go broke, it's going to go under, it's going to do this, and it's going to do that."

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You people do that constantly. You do it in your speeches; you do it outside the House. You're constantly attacking the Expo situation. I guess about the only job creation you do is the extra work that the

[ Page 5242 ]

promoters have to do to say: "No, it's not going to be that. Hot dogs aren't going to be selling for $8." Someone makes that kind of statement, and then they attack this sort of thing. I would think that most of the people in this province would get behind it and say: "Let's put our best foot forward. Let's put our best face forward. That is a great thing, and we have a great province here to sell, and let's sell it in the best possible way." That will bring a great deal of revenue into this province. With a little bit of positive support all around, instead of hoping that something will go wrong and pointing that out.... Perhaps if everyone got behind it, we could attract more people and assure its success. It can be a success. It will be a success despite the critics, because what did the critics ever build?

I reiterate that this business of disparagement sometimes becomes a habit.

MR. LAUK: You're constantly whining.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Maybe I'm whining; maybe I'm really concerned that never will you people ever get on a bandwagon that boosts this province. You're so intent on attacking this government that you will not get on anything that is good for this province and support it. Just once I would like to hear you do that.

MR. LAUK: We think that by attacking you we're boosting the province.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe you had your turn to give your speech, didn't you? It's strange that the very things that have brought the most to his own constituency.... That second member is still against them and still trying his best to undermine them in whatever way he can.

MR. LAUK: That's not true.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, it's certainly apparent, if it's not true.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to look very optimistically ahead to the budget to give some more specific direction of what the throne speech has indicated, and to support it. Certainly the throne speech did not talk about unemployment and government measures to create short-term jobs, but it did point in the direction that this province can and will go, and the direction that I think the people of this province will make it go despite any negative and pessimistic outlook. The positive thinkers have built this province and the positive thinkers will prevail in the long run.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I've had to speak in this particular debate and I appreciate the opportunity to do so. Before I get into the body of my delivery, I would like to comment on some of the remarks.

I've listened very carefully over the last week or so to the remarks of the members opposite, generally from the government. For example, yesterday we were subjected to speech No. 4 from the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). We've heard the same speech in here for 12 years, and that's all right; many of us repeat our remarks. But once again that member, as do many members on that side of the House, was refighting the 1975 election. They blame all the ills of the world on the fact that the New Democratic Party was the government in this province between 1972 and 1975, and the best government that this province has ever seen. We will be back in office again, I can tell you.

Mr. Speaker, I'm definitely not going to support the Speech from the Throne. I've listened to 13 — I think — Speeches from the Throne since I was elected to this House in 1972, and this is by far the vaguest, the thinnest I've ever heard in this Legislature. There's very little meat in this speech, and I've gone through it very carefully.

AN HON. MEMBER: A lot of gravy, though.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A lot of gravy for a few, but perhaps we'll get into that in a few minutes.

I want to say at the outset that while I'm going to discuss the economy as the result of mismanagement by that government sitting across the floor, I'm going to try to be a bit more positive in terms of job creation and hopefully improving the economy of this province. It has been said in this House on a number of occasions that at the present time 16.4 percent of the people in this province are unemployed and seeking work. That translates into 228,000 people currently on UIC, and about 200,000 on welfare, as a direct result of the policies of the government opposite. You will notice that they've stopped using the word "restraint," and there's a reason for that. They're embarrassed. None of the people on this side of the House was....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The member asks what I suggest, and hopefully I'm going to get into that in a few moments.

These are shameful figures — the highest number of people on UIC and welfare in this province since the Great Depression. In numbers we certainly have more people on UIC and welfare than were ever in this situation from 1932 to 1939.

When our government left office in December 1975, the province's debt was some $4.3 billion. That included all debts of Crown corporations, which a former Premier of this House, W.A.C. Bennett, used to refer to as contingent liabilities; they didn't call them debts at all. The figure in January 1976 was $4.3 billion — the total debt of this province. Our last budget as a government in 1975 was a balanced budget, despite what was said on that side of the House in a speech the other day. The current debt of this province is $17.6 billion, according to the government's own figures. That's shameful. They have the nerve to get up and tell us, in speech after speech, what fine managers they are of the public purse. Every man, woman and child in this province owes, on that debt, approximately $6,000 — the government's own figures, Mr. Speaker — and that is shameful.

The government refers to this again in the throne speech. Certainly the Premier has stated this in his public address to the province some six weeks or so ago, perhaps less. And they tell us that there will be no tax increase. I say: nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Let me cite some of the ways, and I'm going to be brief about this, because I've got some positive things to say as well.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're going to have to eat your words in a couple of days.

[4:45]

[ Page 5243 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister says I'll have to eat my words. That travelling minister, who goes at least twice or three times a year to Japan at government expense for his semi-annual steam bath, and spends thousands and thousands of taxpayers' dollars, says I'm going to eat my words in a few days. I know what's going to be in that budget. There'll be no increase for education. There'll be no major increase for health care in this province. So don't tell me. I can hardly wait for that budget to come down, because if you think I'm being nasty now, you just wait for my reply to the budget speech.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind you of some of the tax increases that we are currently going to have to put up with in this province. First of all, hydro rates. That's a tax — you can call it whatever you want: increased payments to a Crown corporation, revenues to a government agency. Hydro rates just went up last April, and now they've asked for, and will likely receive, another rate increase. So that's an increase in taxes.

Telephone rates. They're going to be increased. I know the hearings are currently before the CRTC. No matter. B.C. Tel asks and usually gets pretty well what it wants.

A further tax increase: B.C. Ferry fares, increased again this year. Every year for the last several years. That's a tax increase to people living all over the coast of British Columbia — certainly to the people living on Vancouver Island, and to those people living on the mainland, particularly on the lower mainland, who have to travel here. That's a tax increase. You can call it what you want.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Okay. The minister says I smoke too much. He's absolutely right. I agree with that. It's also bad for your health. But that is not the point.

You just reminded me, Mr. Minister. This Legislature, Mr. Speaker.... I don't think you were in the chair at the time. I hope not, because what happened? One of the most shameful bills went through this Legislature, involving the tax on the sale of spirits and tobacco. Every year the government at least had to bring in a bill to increase the taxes on those two items. Three years ago, I believe it was, this government brought in a bill where they can arbitrarily — and they do, once or twice every year — increase the tax on the sale of alcohol and tobacco....

MRS. WALLACE: And gasoline.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: And gasoline — that was next on my list, but right now.... That government increased revenues on those two items, and it's the working and poor people who really bear the brunt of the burden.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Sure, what's an increase of 10 cents a package on a pack of cigarettes? It may not be much to a cabinet minister over there. With their travelling allowance, they're making well in excess of $100,000 a year. It's easy for them to say. But to some person who's on welfare, who doesn't want to be on welfare but, who this government has forced onto welfare, those arbitrary taxes on the sales of alcohol, tobacco — and gasoline, as the member for Cowichan-Malahat pointed out — are raised automatically once or twice a year without reference to the Legislature. And those are tax increases that we all pay.

So I don't want to hear from that bunch over there about no tax increases. Property taxes have gone up, and the list goes on and on.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The tax on the sick, is right. Ambulance costs have gone up. Premiums on medicare have gone up. As I said, the list goes on and on.

However, I did say I was going to be a bit more positive, and if time allows me, I'll come up with something. But in the meantime, I'm going to talk about one issue in my riding. I swore last year I would never talk about this pipeline again, but I have no choice. You forced me — not you, Mr. Speaker, but the government has forced me into it. Here in this throne speech....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The devil made you do it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The devil made me do it. You'd be surprised what that devil makes me do.

Mr. Speaker, once again the government has made reference to the proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island, and this issue has been around for at least 23 years. In fact, I have in my possession — because we had no Hansard in the House at the time.... We had no real Hansard in this Legislature until the NDP took office in 1972, but that's another story. What I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, is that I have in my possession the original article relating to a proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island — from Williams Lake to Powell River to Courtenay — that was put forward some 23 years ago by a former Premier of this province, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett of Kelowna, in an article appearing in the Vancouver Sun.

I want to tell you something about election campaigns. I am going to skip all the history and get right into 1983 on this pipeline. In that last provincial election campaign we had no less than seven cabinet ministers in my riding hoping to unseat the incumbent, who happened to be me.

MR. WILLIAMS: We had 11 in the by-election.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You're closer to downtown.

But, Mr. Speaker, no less than seven, including the Premier of this province. At one point the Premier made a two- or three-hour visit to my riding. He got up in the Powell River Plaza shopping centre, along with the Social Credit candidate, whom I respect and like — a friend of mine, but that's not the point. During the course of that election campaign he said, as did other cabinet ministers, most of whom are still in office: "You vote for our candidate and we will guarantee you the natural gas pipeline through Powell River, and the accompanying fertilizer plant, to produce 400 direct jobs and 800 indirect jobs." That was a total of 1,200 jobs guaranteed for the Powell River region. Everybody was excited about it — good idea — but they didn't vote Socred. As you may recall, there was a little hitch.

MRS. WALLACE: Maybe that's why they changed their minds.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm just getting into that. There was a little hitch: "Of course, you know, the matter is before the

[ Page 5244 ]

B.C. Utilities Commission." It was before the commission for over a year and a half, as I recall, Mr. Speaker. He said that the whole matter was before the B.C. Utilities Commission and that they would make a final determination on the route of the proposed pipeline. Also, during that campaign not one of those cabinet ministers who came into my riding ever suggested that it all hinged on the federal government's coming up with, at that time, $350 million. It has now gone up to $523 million or something. "Unless we get that subsidy" was never said. Oh, no, it was: "Vote me and you get the pipeline."

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that somebody was not telling the whole truth. Let me say that they were not telling the whole story. They were misleading, purposely in my view, the.... However, I have a lot of very smart voters in my riding, and they rejected the Social Credit candidate.

Now I suspect that what we'll see in the next provincial election is maybe ten Social Credit cabinet ministers — whoever their candidate may be — coming into the riding and saying: "Vote for our candidate and we will guarantee you the fertilizer plant and the pipeline. The feds have now signed the agreement, and they're going to come up with the $523 million that's required for the subsidy." Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do that it's a farce. It will continue to be a farce.

The government chose, in its wisdom, to build that Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line at a cost of at least $1.2 billion, although the minister denies that. He hasn't included all the costs, and we'll get to him in estimates. But that's another story. It's an energy line that was probably not required, had the pipeline proceeded. So here we are with an excess of electrical energy on Vancouver Island, with an excess of electrical energy in the province, selling it cheaper to California than we're selling it to our own residents here in British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: Shocking!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Shocking is right, Mr. Member.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, read your own annual report. I just got the annual report from Hydro a week ago. The minister interjects from across the floor. I thought he would be off to his new post — to China, Korea, Europe, off for his annual steambath. I know he'll be going pretty quick.

AN HON. MEMBER: They know him in the Ginza.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's right.

Anyway, that's the long and the short of it. Just one last thing on the proposed natural gas pipeline. That Social Credit cabinet had a 50 percent chance of being correct and choosing the proper route for that proposed line, and they chose the wrong one. Would you believe it? They chose the wrong location. As a result of that, thousands and thousands of jobs are going to go begging in British Columbia — because of that decision made by that Social Credit cabinet. Incredible incompetence!

I guess a good indicator of the performance of this government — and this has certainly been stated many times in this House over the last few days by our members — is that retail sales in British Columbia have declined for the past four consecutive years. Housing starts are down; small business is taking a beating as a result of this government. This government has come up with no positive proposals, but we have. To give the leader of our party credit where it is due, and our caucus and our party itself, we have come up....

This particular Speech from the Throne was so thin and so weak that we found it necessary to come up with an alternate throne speech. We have a number of positive ideas for the reconstruction of British Columbia, not the least of which was to form an all-party committee of this House to tackle the economy and travel the province, not individual ministers running around the province at taxpayers' expense talking to people and doing what they want then anyway.

We had our Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), for example — and I went to a number of these meetings in my own riding — travelling around the province discussing "Let's Talk About Schools." Before those meetings even took place, there was a bill introduced in this Legislature approximately a month ago dealing with referenda to school districts. Over and above that, we know and have it on good authority — and this is before the evidence is in from all of the school districts all over the province on what people think about our education system.... The minister can't possibly have that data yet, because I attended a meeting just last week in my own riding. That minister has drafted a new School Act. It has been drafted and will be placed before this Legislature in due course. Mr. Speaker, I guarantee you that it will. The minister has made up his mind and is going through this exercise, as did the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) on tax issues, and then he'll go ahead and do what he wants anyway. I think it's shameful. Not only that, even when they operate in that fashion, they bungle whatever they do anyway. Bunglers.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of small business, I'm going to quote from our alternate throne speech that was put forward to this Legislature and has subsequently been forwarded to people within our own party and the people of British Columbia as a whole. I think there are some very good points in the thing. The section dealing with small business is quite lengthy, and I won't dwell on it at length, but I think the present Socred policies "are directly harmful to locally owned business enterprises. Direct and specific measures are required to restore the job-creation potential of businesses owned and controlled within the province."

You may be interested to know — and I think the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) used these figures yesterday — that 98 percent of all B.C. businesses have sales under $2 million a year. Between 1975 and 1981, 71 percent of all new jobs were created by small business. From 1981 to 1983, 100 percent of all new jobs in this province were created in the small business sector. So we therefore, in part, recommend the following:

"In recognition of the high taxation costs facing B.C.-owned businesses, particularly those imposed in the past two budgets, the NDP proposes a tax credit for small business to recognize the unfair burden of high payroll and property taxes. We also propose expanding the small business income tax rate to a larger number of firms, including profitability and partnership."

Mr. Speaker, just in passing, I see the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) is not in the House. To a large

[ Page 5245 ]

extent, this policy proposal put forward by our party is due to that member for Okanagan North.

[5:00]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, there he is.

Mr. Speaker, I see I've only got 15 minutes left, and there are two other major issues that I want to discuss that affect my constituency.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have about six minutes, hon. member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'd like to get into northeast coal and the fiasco that this government has created up in Ocean Falls, but I simply don't have time. I'll have the opportunity in estimates. Since I happen to be our party's debate leader on mining and petroleum resources, I've attempted to do my homework in this regard, and we'll get into that in estimates as well.

I do want to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that 14 of the 29 metal mines in British Columbia are currently shut down as a direct result of the policies of the government sitting opposite. I can just see what the minister of world travel and economic trade and international whatever is thinking, but I want that minister to give me — or anybody on that side of the House — one example where a mine shut down under the NDP in British Columbia between 1972 and 1975. We now have 14 of the 29 operating metal mines in this province shut down as a result of this government's policy. Fourteen thousand regularly employed miners are currently unemployed.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're being negative.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, no. I'm going to be a bit positive right now.

Mr. Speaker, I mention this matter because in the course of the throne speech the government has indicated they're going to offer some tax relief for the operating mines and non-operating mines and some forest companies in British Columbia. I'm not going to make any comment, because we have no specific proposals before us. But if those proposals are brought to this House in the form of legislation and they're good proposals that will ensure a fair return of the resource and provide employment opportunities for the people of this province, I will go on record right now telling you I will support those proposals. If, however, they are another giveaway of the resources of the people of this province, you can rest assured I will be voting against those proposals. But we'll have to wait and see.

I've got to speak a little faster here. I wanted to discuss at some length forestry and reforestation and logging practices in my riding. I simply don't have the time, because I know I've only got three minutes left. I will save those remarks on forestry, because I have to go into some detail. Forestry and pulp and paper production is one of the very major industries in my riding.

In closing I want to talk about another topic: mariculture and fish-farming. This is one of the fastest-growing small business....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: And aquaculture, yes. I read your publications as they come out of your departments. But this is not what I'm on about.

What I'm on about is that in my riding, which has 2,600 miles of coastline, is almost 325 miles in length as the crow flies, and has literally thousands of inlets and bays, mariculture is one of fastest-growing small businesses. The minister applauds. Through his previous ministry some aid has been forthcoming, and I'm not knocking that. I appreciate that. What I'm telling you is that our party has put forward a policy. This government has failed to recognize.... I have made representation on the people in the fish-farming sector.... While I mention fish-farming, I'd like to say that there's quite a bit of controversy about that aspect of rearing salmon on the coast of British Columbia. Some experiences have been good and some not so good in other countries. I want to make this statement very clear: I do not oppose the practice of fish-farming in British Columbia, but I would oppose this government or the federal government using fish-farming as an alternative to salmon enhancement in our streams. I would oppose fish-farming if the federal or provincial government happened to take that particular tack, because that is wrong. But fish-farming could be very successful in these areas, as it is in other countries — Norway and Japan come to mind. I think we should proceed in that area. The growing of oysters particularly, but other species.... Would you believe that kelp is a potential mariculture and aquaculture industry in British Columbia?

I would suggest to you that eventually the coastal riding of Mackenzie will be the largest aquaculture, mariculture, fish-farming area in British Columbia. We have the right water temperatures, we have the right conditions, and that industry should be encouraged. I would only hope that the people who create this industry.... Many of these are now Mom and Pop industries; some are somewhat larger. When these people hire help I would encourage them to pay a reasonable rate of pay to these people and not the minimum wage, so they can survive.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will not be supporting this throne speech, and I will probably not support the budget either, for the reasons I outlined previously.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure to stand here in this throne speech address. First I would like to thank this House for its confidence in me in the appointment as Deputy Chairman of the Whole. I'd like to thank the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) for his comments on the day of the throne speech a week last Monday. I thank him particularly because I know he was a member of the committee that drew up the new standing orders for this House and as such is well conversant with those standing orders, which rule our day-to-day conduct in the august chamber. Knowing his knowledge of these rules, knowing his dedication to the procedure and decorum of this House, I know that he will be a great advocate in the future to prevent any delay or disturbances, or any holding up of the conduct and proceedings of this House. I welcome his comments and thank him for them, and I look forward to sitting in the chair with his support for the rules we will be following.

Again I thank this House for its confidence, and I assure you that when I sit in that chair I shall do my utmost to be impartial and to administer my duties responsibly.

Mr. Speaker, now to the throne speech. I'd like to read one paragraph which I think has a great deal of the meat and

[ Page 5246 ]

substance of the speech, and the direction that this government will be taking this session.

"...my government will introduce a number of initiatives to expand job opportunities in the private sector; to broaden British Columbia's economic base; to attract new investments; to increase exports; to train our young people for new opportunities; and to retrain those who have been most affected by the international recession."

I think that is a tremendous goal, Mr. Speaker. I have sat here throughout the throne speech debate and watched member after member of the opposition stand up. I think the last speaker, the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), was a prime example. With great pride and in a forceful voice, he indicated that he would be voting against this throne speech. He would be against initiatives to increase business in the private sector to expand opportunities, against improving the economic base of this province, against anything to attract new investment or increase exports, or to train new people. He said he was against this throne speech; he was not for it. Mr. Speaker, that's the type of opposition we have. A year and a few months from now we have a great exposition coming up in British Columbia, Expo 86. Many municipalities have developed Expo committees to attract tourists and business, and to encourage their businesses with the introduction of tourists and people into their communities throughout the whole province. In North Vancouver we have a very active committee. I'd be willing to bet that the great majority of the constituencies represented by the opposition do not have such committees, and that nearly every constituency represented by a member of the government does have such a committee. The indication is positive; people go out and do things. Those who want to criticize, who will not support and wish to be negative, do not get anything accomplished.

Mr. Speaker, in many ways I appreciate that there's a silver lining to every grey cloud. We have realized that British Columbia is not alone in this world. We are not the complete rulers of our own destiny in this world. We are subjected to forces outside of our boundary and our control. The economic reality has brought that to us. It's brought a conscious recognition. A great deal of those in my generation — and maybe just a few years younger — have a different perspective of the world. We have the perspective of a large world, where around the world in 80 days was a unique event. The youth of today have a perspective where around the world in 24 hours is a common event. Because we develop these perspectives from our experiences when we are young, when we are older we have to consciously recognize changing these perspectives.

[5:15]

Mr. Speaker, that is where economic reality comes in. The recession has brought to us the reality that we are not alone. As I said, we do not have sole control of our own economic destiny. We therefore have to consciously recognize the smallness of this world. The distances between one place and another are small compared to my generation's perspective, and that is why I would like to acknowledge the appointment of the new Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips), and congratulate him. This government has recognized the smallness of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I'm getting interjections from the member for Vancouver Centre, who does not have a perspective on the world reality of today — a conscious one. He cannot even recognize development in his own constituency. He has to knock it. He cannot be positive. He's the typical negative individual that we have come to learn about in the opposition. I can recall that that member for Vancouver Centre was not even in this Legislature at the time of the vote for the pavilion in Vancouver Centre; neither was his colleague from Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: I was standing, but you couldn't see me.

MR. REE: I recognize that, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre. You could not be seen anywhere in this chamber at the time of that vote, whether you were standing, sitting or doing anything else.

But to get back to this perspective, I do know that the direction — the impetus, if you wish to call it that — to be put forward by the new Minister of International Trade and Investment.... I know a great deal of it will be directed to the Pacific Rim area. He has concentrated on that area greatly in the past. We are conducting more and more trade with the Asian-Pacific area than ever before in the history of Canada. It is the future market for the goods, services and knowledge that we have in British Columbia.

It is by selling to them that we can experience prosperity. If we do not go to that area and market our goods.... If we were to stay home, we would not be in a position to prosper. In today's reality you have to get out and sell your product. The buyers will not come to your door. The competition internationally is so great that you have to get out there and go to the buyer's door. You cannot stay home. That is why I'm a great proponent of the mandate given to the minister to get out and sell the product of B.C. The product of B.C. is the results of the labour of the people of B.C., and we are in a tremendous position to turn out the best product, because we have the best people to perform the labour.

Mr. Speaker, the appointment of that minister also frees the former ministry of the duties with respect to international trade and allows the new Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland) to concentrate on our domestic industry and small business. I'm sure the mighty duo, if you wish to call them that, will be most successful in promoting British Columbia business throughout the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: The mighty duo — that has a ring to it.

MR. REE: Yes, we have a mighty duo on that side. There are a number of other duos, I don't know how mighty, on the other side of the House.

However, Mr. Speaker, I would like, at the moment, to say a little bit about North Vancouver. My constituency is a most unique constituency. I'm fortunate to have a seaport, a railway terminal, and recreational facilities for skiing, tennis and other sorts of sports in my constituency.

MR. LAUK: A McDonald's?

MR. REE: Yes, even a McDonald's. I have a lovely ideal residential area in my constituency. I have multiple dwellings. I have small merchants, large merchants, and commercial and industrial activity within the constituency. It is probably unique within the province and probably the most

[ Page 5247 ]

desirable constituency in the province. Certainly as the MLA I would say it is.

I feel I'm most fortunate in that position. But also it's a very fortunate area in which to live and to work, because the people in North Vancouver–Capilano are positive people. If you drive through the streets of North Vancouver, you will find activity. You will find building going on. You will find creating going on. You find buildings going up, and people working, and people doing their jobs. People are positive. They are prepared to invest, and they are prepared to improve. They will not sit back and let the present decay itself. They will replace the old with the new. They are prepared to risk their money. North Vancouver is an ideal place.

We have many small merchants in North Vancouver. Being an associate — my wife being a small merchant — I am always appreciative of small merchants. I know the problems that they have. Also I know that they are positive people. Even in hard times like now they are still positive. They don't look to government to give them handouts. They are prepared to go out and do things themselves. They are prepared to stand up and look after themselves.

I was out last week to a meeting of central Lonsdale small merchants to talk to them about how to redevelop and make central Lonsdale a nicer place to conduct business and to attract clients and customers. They were positive people. They were looking at the program under the auspices of Municipal Affairs to assist redevelopment, but they recognized that the initiative had to come from themselves, and that they had to go out and organize it and do a lot of it themselves. They also recognized that there were many things on the main street of my constituency of central Lonsdale that they could do themselves to improve. Those, Mr. Speaker, are the types of people who make this province go round and will help bring us out of this recession that we have been in.

But we still have to get the economic reality of today, and to recognize that we are in a world-wide market. We're not just a local market. My merchants on Lonsdale have to understand the economic reality that they are in a market greater than their street too. Therefore they have to be able to go to the people and bring them back into their area, and that is why they were having that meeting and why I am confident they are going to be successful.

I'm anxiously awaiting the development of news on highways. I guess I shouldn't mention the budget, but I believe highways were mentioned in the throne speech, and I would like to compliment the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) on his appointment as parliamentary secretary to the Ministry of Highways.

MR. KEMPF: Flattery will get you nowhere.

MR. REE: I've got to make this comment, Mr. Speaker, because I know how hard that member has worked for overpasses in his constituency. So I'm going to be looking quite critically at what may happen in Omineca, because we have a sad need for two overpasses in my constituency. I'm hoping that they may come to pass, so just bring that, Parliamentary Secretary, on a little bit of notice.

MR. KEMPF: Cariboo and Omineca.

MR. REE: Lovely places. Great places.

Mr. Speaker, I read the throne speech, and I listened to His Honour's presentation of it. I think it's a tremendous direction that this government is going to be starting on in this session. I can see more years of a similar direction. I commend the throne speech. Certainly I will be supporting the throne speech. I do appreciate the opportunity to stand up here and be positive.

MR. ROSE: I thank the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano for shortening his speech in order that I might have full time to express myself on the throne speech.

I don't think it will come as any shock to anyone to learn that I don't intend to support the throne speech. However, there are certain parts in there that are interesting, if somewhat in need of translation. I was also interested in some of the things that government members have said about the negativism of the opposition. I think you will find that when this opposition has been presented with decent legislation that we feel is in the best interests of British Columbians, we will be among the first to support those measures. Unfortunately, we haven't seen anything like that in the last couple of years, so it's very difficult for us to be anything else but negative.

I wish to enlighten the government a little bit, though, on this particular topic of the role of the opposition. The role of the opposition is not to flatter, cajole or in any other way obsequiously seek the favour of the government. That's not our role. Our role is to be tough, to probe, to be decisive, and if possible even to be intelligent. That is more difficult for some of us than others, perhaps, but at least we can see the inconsistencies of the ideology that says, on the one hand — by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano — "my small businessmen don't want any handouts," and on the other the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) blaming the opposition for being negative because the government threw $9 million at Whistler. We've got a 300 percent increase in bankruptcy under this government, and at the same time people will stand up on the opposite side, beat their breasts and say: "Free enterprise is the right to fail." I would like to tell you that this government has given the free enterprisers in small business a greater right to fail than any previous government: 300 percent, and that's a record.

They say that we're never positive. Mr. Speaker, I would like very much to be positive. I'm going to be so positive that I intend to read some Social Credit campaign literature. This was published in 1975: "A British Columbia Social Credit government would give B.C.'s young people a better quality education by changing the way our educational system is administered and paid for." It's headed: "Return Authority to Local School Boards." Let me read this:

"In the past two years this province has seen a massive buildup of the educational bureaucracy in Victoria. The Minister of Education seems determined to gain control of all educational facilities within our province — at the expense of local school boards. This move to centralized control means confusion and frustration for local board members. More important, it means that educational policies are being developed with no real consideration for the needs and wishes of local areas.

"We...believe that meaningful educational policies can only be developed in cooperation with local school boards. After all, local school trustees have been elected by the people of their own area. They know the area and are responsive to the needs of their community. We would therefore return authority

[ Page 5248 ]

to local school boards, while at the same time eliminating the bureaucracy in the Department of Education. We would also work to return dignity and responsibility to individual classroom teachers — trained professionals who deserve more authority in setting the educational objectives of their pupils."

What a difference ten years makes, Mr. Speaker. Tell that to the people in Delta. Tell that to the people in the West Kootenays, the Arrow Lakes, and all those places that have suffered under the hands of this policy. But that's not enough. They didn't say that; they said they're going to have a completely different way of financing education. It's called: "Pay for Education out of Growth Revenue" and says:

"The current system of financing education out of property taxes is outmoded and places an unfair burden on the property owner. As government, the British Columbia Social Credit Party would change this system and provide revenues for ever-improved educational facilities from real growth sources. We would look to tax revenues from our resource-based industries — industries which would enjoy steady growth under a new administration.

[5:30]

"We would also look into the provincial sales tax and to other revenue sources which increase naturally with our provincial development. This new approach would help to hold the line on property taxes while meeting the increasing costs of education resulting from inflation."

Not from greedy teachers but from inflation; now we're told it's from greedy teachers.

"Just as important as the source of educational revenue is the manner in which it is distributed. As government, the British Columbia Social Credit government would increase direct payments to local school boards while decreasing the cost and importance of central bureaucracy.

"The end result of such policies would be a better quality education for our young people — a more meaningful education based on policies developed" — not in Victoria under Mr. Heinrich or the current Minister of Education — "at the local level — and an educational system which can grow and develop without burden to the local taxpayers."

Who said that? Was it the NDP? Was it Karl Marx? Was it Harpo Marx? Groucho Marx? No, it was Bill Bennett — signed "Mr. Bill Bennett." Now there's the new educational policy. What a return. What a complete reversal. It wasn't just a lateral arabesque; it was a complete turnaround.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Did that turn you on — that business of the lateral arabesque? No, thank you, I'm sitting this one out. Mr. Speaker, we all know what happened in the last two or three years from Smith to Vander Zalm to the present minister: just the reverse, just the absolute contradiction of everything that the people of this province were promised in this document. And people wonder why politicians have little or no credibility.

There's a lie. That was a flat lie in terms of what happened in the next five years, just a flat lie. It was good for one election.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, we'll use it next time.

MR. ROSE: Well, I just used it now. But many of the things that were said in that paper certainly could be supported by us. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bennett, our Premier, was right in 1975, and he was dead wrong in 1985.

However, all the voting machines on the other side are going to carry out his bidding even though they know that the people that they represent in their ridings do not support them. They don't support them, and the local boards don't support them either. I'll leave the teachers out of it as interested parties; I'll leave them out of that entirely.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to commit probably the most self-indulgent — perhaps even the height of.... I don't know what you'd call it; I suppose it might even be akin to quoting from some source that is unassailable. So I will quote myself. This is what I had to say on June 30, 1983, in part. Now the speech was very much longer and more comprehensive than this, but this is a highlight, in my view. I said this:

"The minister has made a fine start" — this is the new Minister of Education — "a fine recovery in de-escalating the kind of tension that developed between teachers and trustees over the past year. He's going to have a honeymoon for a while" — I didn't mean that literally — "but in my view he won't be able to sweet-talk his way out of it forever. He'll have to make some reasonable changes to give teachers a feeling of some kind of security, boards a feeling of some kind of self-worth and autonomy. Don't brand everything and stamp these things out district after district just like cupcakes, as if one formula is going to work in every instance, because it's not going to. We welcome the minister and congratulate him on the work he's done until now, but we're going to be watching him."

And boy, did we ever watch him. We haven't been able to stop him, but we certainly watch him. The grim reaper of the school district; the Attila the Hun of B.C. education. We're watching him, all right, and a lot of other people are watching him, because he's very interesting.

I go on to say that boards are worried:

"I am told that certain financing formulas are being contemplated which might cause him great difficulty. It might be based on productivity, and costs vary a lot between the boards."

Well, I go on to say why they vary, and I'm not going to bore you with that quote. But I think that the end of the thing might be worth repeating:

"I think the worst thing about it is all the uncertainty in education. We've been through the soft cop" — that's Mr. Smith — "tough cop" — Mr. Vander Zalm — "routine twice in education in the last five years. So we want to know whether you're going to be the soft cop or the tough cop and which tough cop will follow you if you're too soft. We'll be interested to know that."

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, it turned out that he was a tough cop, sotto voce. He proceeded very quietly, but it was the case of the mailed fist. Perhaps I've said enough to indicate that I'm not very happy with what's going to happen and what has

[ Page 5249 ]

happened. That's what they said in 1980. That's what I said in 1983.

1 would like to suggest to you a few things that we in this party find unacceptable in the education system. The first thing is that the cutbacks have been savage. The government side says: "Well, it only amounts to 2 percent. What's 2 percent per year? Only 6 percent." But look at it with inflation added: it's a savage cutback of 25 percent over the three years. No institutions can stand that and still maintain any kind of quality in their output. Even city councils in my riding, without my prompting, have come to the aid of the local school board. They have said in effect — and I'm not going to quote the letter — that they want the government to call off its restraint policy and give the people in Coquitlam-Moody and the local board the opportunity to raise the money they need to provide the kind of education that people in my riding demand. They're doing it in other ridings too, because I had a copy of a letter recently that went to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). I don't know how he answered it; I'd be interested to see the answer. This is signed by the acting city clerk. So it's not just this member making those outlandish charges; there is concern throughout the province. I could cite you letter after letter that I've received, and I know the minister has received them too. Whether or not he's responsive I don't know, but whatever will happen, I think the government is going to have to bear the responsibility for this and accept whatever political costs are incurred in this way.

What does it mean, cutbacks? What do they really mean in terms of what's happening in the schools? A rise in the pupil-teacher ratio to the 1972 levels. Why do we need to go back? We don't need a nineteenth-century education now; we should be planning for a twentieth-century education. Cuts in special education. The ESL in Vancouver is well known. In some areas of Vancouver English is not a second language; it's a fifth language. You're cutting the budget. You're cutting them to the bone. They need $2.5 million and you won't give it to them. The minister says: "Well, we threw $9 million at Whistler and that wasn't anything, but $2.5 million for ESL is too much." Learning assistance gone; cuts in support services; dirtier schools; run down schools; unsafe schools; and crosswalks not covered. These are things that are happening. Don't take my word for it. I see the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) shaking his head. Don't take my word for it. I'm quite certain they haven't happened in his riding yet, but I can tell you, they will. It's going to happen to Chilliwack sooner or later, whether you agree with it or not.

Removal of local autonomy — the very thing that the Premier promised to restore. He promised to restore it in 1975, and it's gone now. Oh, there's a sunset clause, but there was a sunset clause under the Vander Zalm bill too, and that was removed with the latest bill. When are we going to get the sunset clause removed again? In 1986? Certainly we're going to have to look forward to that one.

The ministry sets the boards' budgets. Collective bargaining is out the window. I asked the minister today: what's going to happen if there's collective bargaining through arbitration, or just an agreement between the boards and their employees, whether they happen to be staff or teachers? What's going to happen to them? Nothing. It goes to Ed Peck. It goes to the compensation stabilization commissioner. Even if he does agree to it, the minister isn't going to do anything about it. So there's no collective bargaining in the school system any more at all. It's gone. Absolutely gone. So don't pretend that it exists. It's catch-22. The teachers and staff get a raise. Mr. Peck might agree to that raise, but since the minister controls the global budget of school boards....

And what about this returning more authority to school boards, which again was promised in 1975? That's gone out the window too. So there we are. He's even determining the college curriculum. If the minister doesn't like a particular set of courses or doesn't agree with the priorities, the minister then goes right into the colleges, yanks those courses and turns them away to the private sector. They did that in the Pacific Vocational Institute in the case of hairdressing. They've done it in business at Camosun College, and now, I understand, they're supporting private welding training out in Richmond through manpower and a firm called Epic. Now I don't know the details about that. I'm not maligning Epic at all. But I'm just saying that there are unused places at PVI — unused staff and squandered money. Millions of dollars were spent on a building for welding, and it's not being used because the students in welding are being directed to a private concern to do that.

Consult? The business of the throne speech said the minister was going to consult. What's he going to consult? Did he consult with the boards about referenda? When is he going to start consulting? Is it in the "Let's Talk About Schools"? That was done last year. Is he going to consult in the future? I don't know. He's going to have more math and science. We had new graduation requirements last year. Is that the same thing? Or is this something more? Are we going to have even more math and science, so that arts and drama and the humanities and music will have no room on the curricula for high school students? Gone. No room for the things that humanize us and make us, I hope, a bit more civilized. The options that can provide people who are interested in the arts.... They all have to pass science and math or else flunk out. Where they go then I don't know, but they won't be knocking at the doors of the university; that should make the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) very happy.

What else has happened? On the centralization of control, let me mention one more thing. Appointed college boards, rather than elected. The community has no input anymore into the college boards. The minister controls the courses and the funding, and now the minister controls the college boards. Talk about control and local autonomy! In 1975 Mr. Bennett said: "Centralized control means confusion and frustration."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. ROSE: Mr. W.R. Bennett signed this with his own hand.

The diversion of millions in funds. Last year we cut back universities 5 percent, colleges 3 percent, but at the same time we got $27 million more from the feds for post-secondary education. Where did it go? It was scraped off into general revenue and went to northeast coal, Expo or whatever. We know where it went. We're supposed to get $40 million more this year, and we'll probably cut the budgets even more. That's why we have the departure of distinguished British Columbians like George Pedersen who can't stand the frustration, can't stand not knowing. If you're going to expand a budget or if it's going to remain the same, you can do your planning. But if you're a university president and you know that you're facing cuts because all the signals appear to

[ Page 5250 ]

aim that way, then you can't do that. You have nothing to face but frustration. Not building a first-class university; nothing but frustration.

Mr. Speaker, the transfer programs for universities have been downplayed. At the same time that we're making our high schools more academic, we're downgrading the college transfer programs, which means there isn't the same access for rural students. Never mind the fee hikes that determine access; cut the courses and downplay the university transfer programs, and what have you got? Fewer students who can take advantage of the access to our post-secondary institutions, which, as everybody knows, are all down on the lower mainland or the lower island.

[5:45]

You have reduced choices and larger classes. You have limitations on student access. Right now our young people have one chance in about ten of going on to post-secondary education, despite what the minister has to say. The Canadian average has about one chance in about three or four. About 10 percent we have, and the other one is 17 percent. Why is that? Well, for one thing, we've abolished the grants. There are no more grants for students to go on to post-secondary institutions in this province — none whatever. They've gone; they've been abolished. Which means it's going to cost a B.C. student depending upon student loans for a degree something like $15,000 more than it would someone in Ontario to get the same degree — the very same kind of person, the very same Canadian. That's what happened to your access.

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) represents a rural riding. He knows that it costs a student from his riding to get any kind of post-secondary training something like $2,500 more a year, and that's a very conservative figure. If you haven't got university transfer programs in your local community colleges, or if they're cut down to a scale where students can't proceed to them, then access is going to be limited. Opportunities for that person's future are going to be severely limited, especially when faced with fee hikes of up to 30 percent — and that happened, and they're going up again. Somebody said a little while ago — I think it was the Whip, who was sitting in the chair.... When he spoke earlier, he said that it's still a remarkably good kind of deal. It is if you can put up the money. It's no deal at all if you don't have that access — none whatever. What kind of a deal is that if you can't get there? Sure it's a remarkably good deal, but the access is going to be severely limited.

Mr. Speaker, in the about eight or ten minutes that I've got remaining I'd like to talk about a couple of other things. The minister is very proud of consulting with the boards. He said he's consulted with the boards; he's been around the province and talked to all the boards. Congratulate him for that. The Premier said he's a perfect example of a minister who's willing to go around into the local areas and participate and talk to the people whose legislation and whose lives are being affected by the policies of his ministry. I congratulate him for that too, and so do the school trustees. But let me read into the record just a few little results of the surveys that have been done recently by the B.C. School Trustees' Association. Of the 75 school boards, 73 took part. Most school districts expect considerable difficulties with their 1985-86 budget — 71 percent of them do; 18 percent with the 1985 six-month budget. All right? So they can get by with the six-month budget, perhaps, but they expect considerable difficulties. Some 96 percent of the school districts have concerns about the existing educational financial formulas. The primary concern of 54 percent is inequities and inadequacies in financing formula or funding amounts. The very same thing that I warned the minister about two years ago, 18 months ago, is now confirmed not by us, not by all those radicals in the NDP, but by the school districts themselves.

This is an interesting one, I think. Most of the school boards who met with the minister found him sympathetic — 75 percent said that. But only 18 percent thought there was a good chance that he will remedy their primary concerns. So they think he's a nice guy, and he listens, but he's not going to be able to do much about it because he's not going to fight for education in the cabinet. He's going to roll over and play dead to that phony restraint program that was merely used to justify the Premier as some sort of a strong leader.

To meet the 1985 six-month budget requirements, school districts had to cut non-professional staff, 27 percent; supplies and equipment, 25 percent; programs and services, 15 percent; extracurricular activities, 15 percent; professional staff, 14 percent. To meet the 1985-86 budget requirements, school districts are expected to cut professional staff by 38 percent.

What happens to the broken dreams of people who are prepared to serve their province in the educational capacity?

What's going to happen to the programs in places like Oliver, whose elementary music programs got cut? Well, it's not very important perhaps. According to these school districts, 38 percent of the professional staff are to be cut. Some 73 out of 75, including the minister's own school district, responded to this report. Non-professional staff, 19 percent; administration, 15 percent; programs and services, 14 percent; close schools, 10 percent.

Finally, 73 percent of the school districts expect to have major difficulties or it will be impossible to set '85-86 expenditures in accordance with the proposed '85-86 fiscal framework.

Now again I remind you, Mr. Speaker: it's not the NDP making these wild charges. These are very responsible elected people. I agree that there are probably many of them elected who do not support the government, but even those who do support the government.... There were more elected last time who didn't support the government because already the concern was beginning to be felt in the school districts, and those people who supported the government cutbacks were thrown out of office. They should have been, because there was no reason for them in the first place.

We're only spending 15 percent of our global budget on education. In Ontario it's 20 percent. The Canadian average is 21 percent. We've got the money: 3.5 percent of our GPP as opposed to 5 percent, which is the Canadian average on education. If we, the third richest province in Canada, can't support a decent kind of education, then which province can? And if we can't, you guys will have to admit that you're economic dummies, because you can't get the kind of revenue and you can't develop the kind of resourcefulness in the province to support the kind of education that our students definitely need. I think you should resign, because you've made such, a mess of it all.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Is this the positive speech you were going to make, or are you saving that one until tomorrow?

[ Page 5251 ]

MR. ROSE: Look, I responded to Wolfgang a little earlier, but he was out of the room. He was probably chasing some wolves up and down the road, but I don't where he went.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You're against everything. Are you against the wolves?

MR. ROSE: Yes, I'm against the wolves.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: When you're over here next time, I would like very much for you happiness boys.... Look, the doom-and-gloom guys are all over there. You're the guys who are doing the cutbacks; it's not over here. You're the ones doing the gloom-and-doom stuff.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mark, you should have stayed in Ottawa.

MR. ROSE: You should have stayed on the Ginza strip in Japan, where you can have a lot of fun.

The NDP has proposals, and they're just the opposite of what has been imposed, if you really want to know. We've got a proposal in our background paper — I don't have time to do it in detail — for education based on the following principles. First, provincial goals have to be met and important decisions made locally, if they're going to be made in the best interests of local people. Second, each person's child is entitled to an education according to their needs and interests. In other words, talent is not synonymous with worth. Education is a lifelong process and B.C. can afford to provide suitable education services. In our "New Beginnings" paper, our background paper to the alternative throne speech by my leader, we had a schools reconstruction plan appended. We had a community colleges reconstruction plan. These are the flip sides of all those things I criticized. We had a universities reconstruction plan, and a student access plan. They are there for anyone who can read.

Some of us have spent 40 years in this business trying to build a decent education system, and we're not going to stand idly by and let it be sabotaged just on the whims of one particular minister — or one set of individuals coughed up by the electorate who happen to land over there. Look, a system and an attitude which scapegoats teachers, browbeats trustees and chisels on our kids is not to be tolerated. We have a good opportunity to build on what we've got, but if we keep hacking away at it, we'll never manage to do it. B.C. can do better. B.C. can do with a better government, a better plan and we need a better educational system, not one that's being savaged and eroded by that destructive group sitting opposite us who have nothing to offer but a few wisecracks and cutbacks and....

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, hon. member, time has concluded the member's opportunity to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: More, more!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that we shall be sitting tomorrow, and I move the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Prior to that the Chair would recognize the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tabled documents.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.