[ Page 5253 ]

CONTENTS

Workplace Act (Bill 4). Hon. Mr. Segarty.

Introduction and first reading –– 5253

Oral Questions

Public opinion polls. Mr. Hanson –– 5253

Government aid to Ethiopia. Ms. Sanford –– 5254

Education funding. Mr. Rose –– 5254

Post-secondary education funding. Mr. Nicolson –– 5255

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 5255

Mr. Mitchell –– 5258

Mr. Michael –– 5261

Mrs. Wallace –– 5263

Mr. Macdonald –– 5266

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 5269

Mr. Hanson –– 5271

Division –– 5274

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are my sister Kathy and her husband Tom — Kathy and Tom Kirkley. They're visiting this great province from the province of Ontario and the city of Toronto. I wish the House would make them welcome.

MS. SANFORD: Although it doesn't apply to all political parties I know, Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party is always involved in the process of developing policy which will benefit the people of the province. Today we have with us in the gallery a number of those hard-working people who are involved in policy development. I would like the House to welcome Johanna den Hertog, the chairperson of the policy review committee, and a number of other policy development people, including Bruce Ralston, Marjorie Martin, Cliff Stainsby, Peggy Mika, Jean Lawrence, Jeff Hoskins, Doug Broome, Sharon Olsen, Bob Forshaw, Jim Greis Haber-Otto, and Mike Manley Casimir. I wish the House would make them all welcome this afternoon.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask all members to join me and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) in welcoming two outstanding citizens of our province. They are the publishers of the Record, a newspaper published in Gold River, and they are my cousins: Bert and Joan Donovan.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in the Speaker's gallery is Mr. Doug Bennett from Vancouver Centre. He is the band leader of Doug and the Slugs — a Bennett who went straight.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery we have the pleasure of a lovely lady, Lynne Upton, who is the president of the Social Credit constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey. I would ask the members to make her welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: It's my honour today to have visiting from New Denver in my riding a leading, honoured and distinguished person in the outdoor and environmental fields, Colleen McCrory. She is accompanied by Mr. Dan Bowditch, Mr. Murray Rankin and Mr. Paul George, all of whom are directors of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee. I understand they will be meeting with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton) and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) later today. We wish them welcome.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I would like to take the opportunity to introduce two individuals from the constituency of North Okanagan, Mr. and Mrs. Victor Heller of Vernon, along with their nephew Dick Sutherland from the Victoria area. I would like to welcome them to the House.

MR. GABELMANN: I too would like to welcome Joan and Bert Donovan from Gold River. In addition, I would like the House to welcome Mr. Rob Mingay, who is in the gallery. Rob is newly with the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Introduction of Bills

WORKPLACE ACT

Hon. Mr. Segarty presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Workplace Act.

Bill 4 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.

Oral Questions

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Premier. On March 11, the Premier stated that he had no knowledge of the remarks of his former principal secretary and campaign chairman, Patrick Kinsella, regarding a number of public opinion polls directed from his office. I have a tape of Mr. Kinsella's remarks at Simon Fraser with the marketing course there, and I would ask the Premier if he would care to review this particular tape publicly. I would like to play it, but I know that's probably contrary to the rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: It is, hon. member; almost as contrary as such a long question.

MR. HANSON: The question is: would he care to review this tape in public for the people of this province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no.

MR. HANSON: I'll be happy to table this at the conclusion of question period.

Mr. Speaker, a new question. I'm prepared to table relevant portions of the transcript of Mr. Kinsella's remarks on that particular occasion to jog the Premier's memory, because he indicated to this House that he has no knowledge of that particular event. Mr. Kinsella plainly refers to a massive sample of voters which he ordered within two weeks of joining the Premier's staff. Has the Premier determined if this poll was paid for by the taxpayers?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member is pursuing a line of questioning that I took as notice the other day and was going to reply to after question period. But since the member has introduced it, I would be pleased to deal with his questions.

[2:15]

His first question was, were any of the polls cited by Mr. Kinsella paid for using taxpayers' money, including off-budget funds controlled by cabinet, and the answer is no. In particular, was the massive sample of voters launched by Mr. Kinsella about two weeks after assuming the office of deputy minister to the Premier paid for with tax dollars? The answer is no. Were any polling services performed by Decima Research — and this is for the government? The answer is yes. Public Affairs International? No, because it's not a polling firm. Goldfarb Consultants? Yes. Canadian Gallup Poll? No. Canadian Facts? No.

[ Page 5254 ]

The next question: does the government now have a relationship with Mr. Pezim, Patrick Kinsella and Progressive Strategies Ltd.? The answer is no.

MR. HANSON: A new question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. When Mr. Kinsella was employed in the Premier's office, was he then conducting these polls for the Social Credit Party?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Kinsella does not conduct polls, but in my office, as the principal secretary — as in every other Premier's office across the country — is a political appointment, he would be aware of what the party is doing.

MR. SKELLY: Paid by the taxpayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Leader of the Opposition, who often isn't available for press comment during the day, chirped from his seat that it was paid for by the taxpayers. I've already said that is not true. I would not want the Leader of the Opposition to be the only member in here that did not hear the answer to the question when I gave it to the first member for Victoria.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, so the House is clear: is the Premier telling the House that Mr. Kinsella, whose salary was paid for by the taxpayer, was conducting political research for the Social Credit Party and the various polls that the Premier has indicated were paid for by the taxpayer — for example, Decima and so on? Was Mr. Kinsella involved with them as well?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Government research within the government is developed by the ministries. Mr. Kinsella's relationship with having knowledge of what the party was doing was a confidential relationship so he could report to me.

MR. HANSON: A new question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Premier then prepared to table before this House those particular polling documents with the data and the results of the massive polling that Mr. Kinsella carried out? Is he prepared to table those in this House?

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all, the polling that the member refers to, from the speech — which he found very entertaining and informational to himself — that Mr. Kinsella made sometime earlier was not paid for, as his question asks, by the government. Then it would not be information to be brought to this House. If the question is related to government research that was done in previous years.... As to whether any of that information would be placed before the House, that question has been taken as notice and is under consideration,

MR. HANSON: In pursuing that particular question, you now have had, Mr. Premier, an opportunity to reflect on that. Those polls are shelved in the government confines. Will you now make those available to the House?

MR. SPEAKER: That question, hon. member, which has been taken on notice, ought not be asked again. I believe it was answered in the previous question.

GOVERNMENT AID TO ETHIOPIA

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. The people of British Columbia have now contributed nearly $4 million to relieve the famine in Ethiopia. Has the government reconsidered its position not to contribute to the non-governmental agencies coordinating relief fund-raising here in British Columbia?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, Mr. Speaker.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, officials with the office of David MacDonald, coordinator for African famine, report that apart from the few established grants through the agricultural aid program, there has been no specific commitment for Ethiopian relief from the provincial government. Is the minister aware that by directing a significant contribution through B.C. non-governmental aid agencies a provincial contribution would have a far greater impact than if the government contributes through another government, as the minister indicated they were considering?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, no, I'm not aware of that. I'm not sure if the information and evidence would support that. I suppose if it were selected very carefully it might support that, but I think there's an argument on the other side.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, it's quite clear that if the federal government matches dollar-for-dollar what's raised in British Columbia, and British Columbia contributes toward that federal aid, then the non-governmental agencies in British Columbia would not be able to receive the $4 million matching grant that other provinces are arranging for their non-governmental agencies. Is the minister prepared to make the commitment that British Columbia will match the moneys raised by the non-governmental agencies for Ethiopian famine relief?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, Mr. Speaker.

EDUCATION FUNDING

MR. ROSE: I have a question for the Minister of Education. The fiscal framework package in the summer of 1983 contained this sentence: "The 1985 fiscal framework will be recalculated for each district, taking into account any salary increases and the changes in enrolment levels used to calculate the 1984 budgets." A letter written to the chairpersons of all the boards in the province and dated March 8 contains this line: "The guideline amount is based on September 1984 salaries. When the 1985-86 budgets are finalized, no adjustments to these salaries will be made, whatever the results of bargaining past, present or planned." I'd like to ask the minister, since this is obviously a contradictory set of statements: when were the boards first informed of this apparent reversal in policy?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the material — and I don't doubt for a moment that the member has made an accurate reference. The statement that we made in the preparation of both the transitional and the full fiscal 1985-86 budget.... I have been saying for several months that we would not accommodate within the budgets

[ Page 5255 ]

any proposed or negotiated increases for that 18-month period. If I'm not mistaken, reference is being made to those salary items which were negotiated. Secondly, I believe that the amount which teachers were awarded has been included in the calculation of the average teacher's salary.

Now with respect to the other part, I would like to take the balance of the question on notice, and if I can get a copy of the material or a page reference to it, I will bring an answer back to the House.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the page is page 13 — ironically for the boards. As late as March 11 the minister told this House that he'd await Mr. Peck's rulings on teachers' salaries before making a decision as to whether or not he'd make provision for fiscal framework alterations to allow the boards to pay the increase. On March 8 he said just the opposite in a letter. So there's a lot of confusion around — abounding — and I'd like the minister to clarify these other two sets of contradictory conditions.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, it's been made abundantly clear for a number of months that any amount which has been awarded, either through a negotiated settlement or a mediated settlement which has been approved by the CSP office, must be absorbed by the amount of money which has been incorporated in each of the operating budgets of the 75 school districts. With respect to '85-86, the same terms, conditions, rules and regulations apply. To date, I know of only one agreement which has been made; it involves the Alberni School District. Those decisions — and I made reference to them earlier — were Howe Sound.... That one was negotiated, went to the CSP office, and was returned to the parties. The second decision which was rendered by the CSP office involved the Surrey School District, which was arbitrated and again returned to the parties. Since that time, I do not know of any decision which has yet been made.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

MR. NICOLSON: Last night the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications tabled some figures, along with his letter. It shows that public school enrolment figures have dropped about 8.4 percent since this government was elected; but he's using the drop in high school enrolment to call on universities to cut and slash and mutilate programs.

Given that our university participation rate is 25 percent below the Canadian average, not 8.7 percent, and that only 7 percent of students from areas like mine, up in the interior, outside the metropolitan area, get to participate in university education, when will the minister decide to abandon his program of university cuts and bring in a policy that provides equal educational opportunity for all students in British Columbia, equal to what you can get in the rest of Canada, particularly for those outside the metropolitan areas?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, we're finding that of those who graduate from high school — this includes all areas of the province — the number going on to post-secondary education in university programs, whether at Selkirk College or at the University of British Columbia, has been steadily increasing, and now runs at about 53 percent.

The way in which people in the non-metropolitan areas have their opportunity to take university-level programs is through the 15 regional colleges which exist. They were built in various communities for precisely that purpose. For specialized programs and upper-level programs, most people will need to come to one of the metropolitan campuses to finish off, but for those who are satisfied with general programs, the Open Learning Institute is available so that they can go all the way to their degree through the Open Learning Consortium.

The calendar was published just last year. There are about 250 courses in it, and the Open Learning Institute, in terms of numbers of people who are registered, is now the second-largest institution in British Columbia. There were many, I might say, who were against this. It was opposed by Pacific Press, as I recall; it was opposed by the three universities; it was opposed by the opposition. It was opposed by everyone but this government, and now it's one of the greatest successes in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair, having been advised previously that the member for Skeena wishes to rise under standing order 35, now recognizes the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of standing order 35 to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance; namely, this statement of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland):

"There's no doubt about it, competition for timber under forest licences and tree-farm licences ended when we became fully allocated in most of the province. Small business licences are the only area with competition, and I suppose we could change that. For practical purposes it makes more sense to have the companies sort out their operating areas rather than involve the Forest Service. Competition is a thing of the past; it's ancient history."

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, as is the custom we will consider the matter raised by the member, and bring a response back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: It's a delight to take my place in voicing a few opinions and observations. Traditionally, the debate on the throne speech gives members an opportunity to bring forward concerns that are perhaps parochial, ones only in high focus in their own constituencies. I trust that that traditional opportunity will be extended to me today, because the great constituency of Chilliwack does have some faithful and supporting constituents who have seen fit, over these past 13 years, to return this member time after time. In return for that confidence they expect to be fairly represented, and I wish not to disappoint them in that regard.

The constituency of Chilliwack, in the past number of years and more recently, has fared considerably well in spite of what we have heard referred to in this House so many times as a national economic downturn. One of the reasons for not an exemption of, but perhaps a diminished impact on, my

[ Page 5256 ]

constituency in this regard is that we are an agricultural community; and thankfully, those who are involved in the production of food have a very nearly guaranteed level of consumption. All have to eat; therefore all must be provided for; therefore those who are in the field of providing for them have a fairly consistent and constant demand factor. As a result, they have been supported through economic strength in these days, for which they are exceedingly thankful.

However, having said that, they look to their member who by coincidence happens to be responsible for that sector of the economy — for consideration perhaps above and beyond what might be expected were the member not responsible for agriculture. It has been difficult for me, as their member, to play that role which I learned first to play in this House, being as impartial as I knew how in those days. I now have to learn to represent the farm community in my constituency, first as the Minister of Agriculture and then through that extra responsibility of being their member. It hasn't always been easy. It has sometimes been frustrating. I trust that I've been able to accomplish it on a very acceptable basis; if I haven't, I could not expect to be returned when we ask them to support this member again.

The constituency of Chilliwack has needs. There's no question about it. Because a high percentage of our population is involved in the food industry, it means that naturally we have a lower percentage involved in commerce and industry. When we come to divide the tax burden for a municipality or a constituency like mine, we do not have the advantages that come from high assessment areas in commerce and industry. We must seek to generate all of our local funding through the farm assessment, which, as every member in this House knows, is the sector of our economy that receives preferential treatment when it comes to tax assessment. That's a great advantage to the farmer, but a great disadvantage when it comes to a municipality that is expected to preserve for the future this great expanse of agricultural land.

I have been scratching my brow — and anything else I can scratch — to see whether or not we could come up with some constructive way of finding a balance so that those residents of the rest of the province could perhaps share in the disproportionate load which people in my constituency carry in this business of the cost of preserving agricultural land for the future. They have this concern. They voice it to me every once in a while. Every time we meet, their elected representatives at council level ask what progress has been made in this regard. It's a difficult question for me to answer, because so far we have not seen the light at the end of the tunnel in that question.

I stand to speak in support of the Speech from the Throne which His Honor delivered here not too many days ago. The reason I stand to support this speech ... the reasons are many; however, I will only be able to address a few of them.

I think paramount in the list would be the reference to economic renewal and the reference to taxation review. As you look at the speech, you don't see them in juxtaposition. They are not closely positioned in the speech itself. They are several pages apart. But they are intricately related one to the other, and economic renewal and taxation review go hand in hand. They must be addressed in order to provide a foundation for economic recovery.

I notice that economic recovery is a word that's in vogue across the floor. In order to have economic recovery, we must establish a foundation upon which recovery is possible.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it would have been very easy to have allowed the foundation to crumble, and recovery would not have the hope that it has today. It would have been very easy to allow the demand of the citizenry to come first and foremost and the reference to the revenue strength of our province not be referred to at all. We'd be taken in to the same practice as was subscribed to by the federal government, in that in order to be a nice guy you could say yes to every demand, but when it came time to pay the bill for that demand not have sufficient strength in the taxpayer to be able to cover the costs of the commitments that were made through demand.

I want you to know that the federal government is today in sad shape. They're in sad shape because they are going to be spending one-third of every tax dollar that we send them to cover the cost of previous ill-advised, uncontrolled spending.

That's not the bad part. The bad part is that since we are now sending one-third of every future tax dollar to central banking in order to fund previous extravagances, it means that we only have two-thirds of every tax dollar. The whole dollar has to be collected, Mr. Speaker, but only two-thirds of it can now go toward what you and I might call economic recovery or economic rebuilding.

I am thankful that there is a government in British Columbia that could see the end from the beginning and had the strength to say no. Regardless of how rational and how reasonable the demands may have been, we had the strength to say no. We didn't have strength enough to say no often enough. As a result, we still had to resort to that unforgivable practice of having to borrow funds to pay operational costs on a year-to-year basis.

Just in operations alone, Mr. Speaker, by the time we finish the fiscal year that we are just now completing we will be in the range of $3.5 billion and $3.75 billion that had to be borrowed in order to satisfy the demands — just, reasonable and rational demands — of our citizenry, but for which that same citizenry is going to have to pick up the tab in the future. They're going to have to pick up the tab in addition to covering the current operational costs of any future year.

I'm not too smart, but I've got this figured out. If we had difficulty in covering the expenses in any given year, how in the name of the ever-loving blue-eyed world are we going to expect in the future to be able to generate enough money to cover the operational costs of that given year and still pick up the sack for previous extravagances and, in addition to that, not just cover the cost of what we spent in former years but to cover the cost of interest on that former borrowing year after year after year?

As I just described to you a little earlier, in the federal scene it's going to take one-third of every dollar we send them just to do what I just described to you. I hope that there's never a government in British Columbia that will allow it to go to that depth on operating expenses.

Now if we had to borrow money in order to develop strength in an economy, which money was going to be returned or at least a hope of that money being returned, then I could say a reasonable and thoughtful yes. But for straight operating expenses, the answer has to be no.

There was a government who in 1982 woke up to the fact — and not that suddenly, I might add — that unless some control was placed on uncontrolled spending we could very easily enter the same arena as our federal counterparts. A

[ Page 5257 ]

policy of controlled spending was adopted, and, that policy having been adopted, this government was able to lay a foundation upon which economic recovery is more possible than it would have been if we had simply allowed the demands to dictate the expenditures.

Aside from that, if we had listened, in addition to the demands that were made by society, to the unreasonable and thoughtless demands that came from across the floor, we would not have the foundation that we have today upon which we can expect a reasonable rebuilding of our economy. No. Were the members opposite reasonable in talking to the general public about controlled spending? No. They were against controlled spending. They lost an election on it.

But more than that, they came back to the House, and when there were measures introduced in this House which would empower a government to control its spending, where was the vote? The vote from the opposite side was: "Hey, hey, hey, let's us be good guys and let's let the government be painted as the bad guys because they're going to have to say no in the interests of restraint. We'll make it sound like we're good guys and we'll say, 'give them more. Give education more. Give health a little more. Give everybody a little more."' Any request that came along — shovel it out of the back of the truck. It was unreasonable, sir. And the sad part is that there was a sector of our society that was quite willing to believe that what the opposition suggested was possible: that you can continually borrow, and that you can meet the expectation of every demand. I want you to know it's not possible. As a result we have today, because of the foundation that was laid, a reasonable expectancy for economic renewal.

[2:45]

How does the taxation review come into this? I want you to know that in my little constituency, Chilliwack, which I referred to a little earlier, I was summoned to a meeting in the Evergreen Hall in which there were 240 of our taxpayers gathered. They weren't kindly at all — I would have thought that according to the returns at least two-thirds of them were my supporters. These were taxpayers who said: "What are you going to do to reduce the tax load that we presently are carrying? If you continue to move in the direction in which you are moving, we can see no other alternative but for you to send us an even greater tax bill year after year after year. If you continue to do that and we cannot pay the tax burden today, where will that leave us in the future?" They quoted numbers to me about the number of them who were experiencing financial difficulties, to the extent that they were in soft receivership, some of them; some of them were in hard receivership — I don't care what you call it. Some of them were in bankruptcy — I don't care what you call it. They simply couldn't pay the bills, and they said: "We cannot possibly experience a higher tax burden."

I believed them. I faithfully carried that message back to this government. I believe this government took those words at face value because they had had similar messages from their own areas.

The question was easy to hear but difficult to answer. Could we continue to give heed to increasing demands for public spending and at the same time have a reducing source of revenue? Or would we have to make an adjustment in one place or the other? The answer is simple: you'd have to either have a higher tax bill or lower spending. Since a higher tax bill was not possible, there was only one option and that option was controlled government spending.

Sir, if we had listened to the exhortations and the irresponsible demands of the members opposite, we could not be in a position of renewal, as we are today. Sure we had to borrow, but we borrowed as little as we possibly could. The opposition opposite tried to generate, out there in the society, a spirit of discontent, and that spirit of discontent was sought to be seeded in a public who were unwilling to contribute more of their tax dollars but who were encouraged to believe that you can expect more even though you contribute less. What folly!

Enough of that. I want to talk about some of the other incentives that are mentioned in the Speech from the Throne about which I can get excited. It talked about harnessing the skills and the talents of the people — in other words, catch the creativity of the populace. I've said it so many times to the farm and the processing community: if we wish to expand the consumption of our product — which is, by the way, the only way we're going to expand the agricultural economy — then we must put whatever our product is into whatever size or shape is more appealing to the consumer than what we're presenting to them today. I said to them that somewhere in any of the heads out there — whether they be producers, processors, distributors, retailers or consumers — is an idea ready to be born which would affect that given commodity and put it in a brand-new size and shape which would catch the imagination of the consumer and increase consumption. After all, it wasn't that many years ago that we didn't have any ice cream in our society; ice cream was introduced at a world's fair in Chicago. That ice cream caught the imagination of the populace, and the consumption of milk products escalated.

I say to the potato people: what makes us believe that because we presently have boiled potatoes, mashed potatoes, fried potatoes, string potatoes, french fries, potato chips and instant potatoes, we have already achieved the last, the greatest and the most desirable form in which potatoes can be presented to a consumer? Somewhere out there, among all those potato growers — quite likely it will be born in the mind of someone while he's driving his tractor — is a concept that says: here is a brand-new way to present potatoes to the consuming public. It's the right way to go, and I think this is the way to harness the skills and the talents of the people.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Let me tell you, Mr. Minister, I've got you stirred up now. I can get you to the altar pretty quick.

If we can catch the imagination in every segment, in every commodity in agriculture, can you believe the amount of growth that we could experience there?

The next thing the speech suggests we need to do is encourage exports. There are exports out there, but not just for the taking. You have to go and get them, but they're there.

Let me tell you of an experience I had recently, when I went to China in response to an invitation to speak to mainland China's major kickoff of their new five-year agri-program. They are spending 30 billion new dollars on their agri-program, and they invited this little minister to come and be their keynote speaker for that occasion. I accepted. When I went, I thought it might be a good idea to take some industry representatives with me. And they came — at their own expense, I might add. As a result, we had the opportunity to visit some of the production units. One of the production

[ Page 5258 ]

units that we visited was their dairy. Their dairies used to be all communal dairies; they are now called corporate dairies. They readied one of them for visitors and allowed us to go and see what their dairies were doing — not to report here today what we found, but to report the result of that meeting. We stood in the yard of their milk-processing plant and spoke to the head director of their dairy division.

The conversation, through interpreters, went something like this. We said to them: "What do your cows produce?" They said: "Our cows produce approximately 4,500 litres a year." We said: "Fine. That's very good." The question was reversed and they said: "What volume of milk do your cows in British Columbia produce?" We were a little shy about giving the answer, and the reason we were shy is that you don't ever embarrass a host in Asia. So we said: "On average our cattle produce about 7,500." They raised their eyebrows, and the question came back: "We didn't ask what the average was. What does number one cow produce?" Mr. Aylard, who used to be the chairman of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and happened to be their representative with us, said: "Well, our number one cow produces 13,500 litres of milk per year." And they immediately said: "How much for number one cow?"

We would be silly to sell number one cow, but we might be willing to sell offspring of number one cow. Shortly after that visit a group from that country came to British Columbia, went to the various farms, selected their donor cows, and have already concluded and transported back to mainland China the first shipment of embryo for transplant; so the technology we have here is being sent to mainland China. It was November when I was there and the approach was made; this is March, but the conclusion was in February when they actually took the goods home.

Not a great number of dollars yet in terms of success, but identification of an export market that had not been tapped heretofore but which is available to us; and if we go after it aggressively, we can capture it. To give you an idea, the population of mainland China is over a billion. Some say it's 1.032 billion; it changes day by day, I understand. As soon as you get too many zeros behind a number, it fogs the mind; you don't really get a concept. But to give you an idea of the size of that market, it is five times the size of the United States, 50 times the size of Canada, and 500 times the size of British Columbia. That's the size of the potential of that market out there. We have tapped only one area, which I've referred to; only in one commodity.

The opportunities are there in other areas as well. We have a range seeder that was designed and is produced right here in British Columbia. It has its assembly line in my town, Chilliwack. The representative from that range seeder company was with us in China. Once they had seen the videotape of what that piece of equipment can accomplish, they were so interested in it that they were willing to buy not one of those pieces of equipment, but willing to put in a entire assembly line in their country.

In identifying potential for export, we need, to be cognizant of the aims and goals of mainland China. They are not to be totally dependent upon some foreign country for their supply. The aim of mainland China is to become self-sufficient. If we could be the supplier of brood stock and embryos, the supplier of technology.... Even if no dependency is established, even if a good working trade relationship is established, think of the opportunity when you identify a market that is 500 times the size of us. We could ship them every cow in the province, and you'd scarcely be able to find them in the population over there. Increased exports: it's identified in this document, and I support it.

It says that in order to assist us in economic renewal, perhaps we need to think in terms of training our young people as far as employment training is concerned. This is when I begin to feel good about training people for specific employment opportunities. For instance — and this is the member for Chilliwack dreaming — I can see that we need in British Columbia a college of agriculture, one that would at first perhaps be equivalent to Olds in Alberta; perhaps eventually equivalent to Guelph in Ontario. In British Columbia we have a diversified approach to agricultural education: there's a little bit of it in one college, and that college competes with another one; there's a little bit of it there, and there's a little drip and a drab in another college, each one very fragmented. But there's no single concerted agricultural college opportunity to study things like those my friend refers to every time he walks past me — marketing boards, marketing awareness, market development; to consider things like value of quota and its effect economically on a commodity. These are the kinds of things which need to be studied. I think they should take place in an agricultural college. I would like to believe that that agricultural college might even be in Chilliwack. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I haven't convinced anybody, but I have an idea that's where it should be. We in Chilliwack are the agricultural centre of the province, and I think that reasonably it would be a safe place for this kind of college. Train our young people via employment training to equip them for the job that's ahead.

[3:00]

It talked about an international food expo. Some time back I had the opportunity, in my quest to find a proper vehicle to develop marketing skills within our farming community, to see a trade show — not a PNE, not a "come and see how big my cabbages are" trade show, but a trade show in which you said: "This is what we have developed. This is what's for sale. This is our order book. Bring your chequebook," and trade takes place. I went to look at one of those at Anuga, in West Germany, a place where 150,000 buyers went through a trade show in a short period of six days. I said to myself: is there anything like this in the new and emerging market called the Pacific Rim? The answer was no. The next question: should there be? The answer was yes. The next question: where should it be? The answer was, on the Pacific Rim. If on the Pacific Rim, why not in B.C.? If in B.C., why not in 1986 when the entire world is coming? I want you to know I was thrilled to see it in the document. It's going to happen — pilot program, 1986, and the first full-fledged one in 1987.

MR. MITCHELL I really enjoyed listening to the Minister of Agriculture and Food while he was going over some of the myths he and this government continue to spread. I find it remarkable, for a man who has been in this House for 13 years, that he hasn't been listening to some of the speeches that this opposition has been making, speeches that go back to when this government came to power in 1976, when they had a total debt of around $4 billion. Year after year after year, the present government has continued to borrow on money-losing programs. It is because of the tactics of the government over the last few years that we are now pushing $17 billion of debt.

[ Page 5259 ]

I hope the Minister of Agriculture and Food doesn't leave the House. There are a few other points that I would like to review for him, because he might have been in the House, and he might have been listening to the speeches, but they were not sinking in. I'm sorry that the minister is leaving now, because I think it's important that when you look at some of the debt that has taken place, and when you compare the speeches that were made by the members on this side of the House.... If the government had been listening we wouldn't be in the financial problem we are in right now.

I agree with him 1,000 percent that it is that massive debt that the federal government got into with the Liberals, and in British Columbia it was the massive debt that the Social Credit got us into. Again, Mr. Speaker, I kind of feel for Mr. Mulroney, who has to pick up the mess that the Liberals left the federal government in, and I know it's the present Leader of the Opposition in the NDP who will have to pick up the mess that this government has got this province in, after the next election. That is one of the problems that we have to face.

I remember my colleague from Nelson, year after year when he kept on advising this House that if they continued borrowing to build more and more hydro dams, we would have a surplus of power that we could not utilize. Everyone laughed at him and said that we were being negative, negative, negative. Now we have come to that situation. We have that hydro debt, and we have that surplus of power. Again, that is one of the messes that this government has got us in, and it's one of the messes that this Legislature is going to have to come up with positive suggestions to get out of.

To say that it was this opposition that created the debt in this province — because we were suggesting to the public that a rich province like British Columbia could have a better standard of living, more security, more jobs, more health, more education services — is foolish. Knowing the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who is a very fine person when he's outside of the House and making political speeches, he doesn't really believe it, and he knows deep in his heart that there is a mess, created by the Social Credit government.

I would like to bring something to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and when you're in caucus you could share this information with the Minister of Agriculture and Food and some of your other colleagues. Back in 1980 and 1981, when the opposition went through the budgets that were presented, and the estimates that were presented with the throne and budget speeches, this opposition said that we in British Columbia and the world economy were heading towards a depression. We said there are going to be some hard times, and we should look at our expenditures today. We went through those budgets item by item — I'm not sure of the exact figures that we identified — and we moved amendments to remove some of that fat out of that budget.

I know one year it was about $80 million. Another year it was $76 million, $77 million, $78 million. I know the total was around $160 million, and that was only for the items that we could easily identify — items that were a complete waste of taxpayers' taxes. On every amendment that this opposition presented, the Social Credit government voted against it.

We predicted what was happening, and we predicted that we should start saving some of the money while there was still money to be saved. The government continued to say that.... They just laughed. They laughed at the predictions of surplus power. They laughed at the predictions of a depression, of hard times. They laughed at the suggestion that we should be saving some of the money for a rainy day. They continued to vote against our suggestions, and they were positive suggestions. Continually we hear from the Social Credit government that we're negative. If they want to call us negative because we're predicting the truth, we're pointing out the truth, then I guess it is negative. But I say that the truth is positive, and we must look at it and review some of the mistakes that we had made.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to have a vote on the throne speech. I would like to say yes, I am going to support the throne speech. But after listening to the alternate throne speech prepared and delivered by the Leader of the Opposition, my vote has to go for that speech — the alternative speech — because it was positive. It was positive in the same manner as the points that this opposition pointed out year after year after year. It was positive because it showed a direction that British Columbia and Canada must go in.

What it said was that we have to build into British Columbia exactly what the previous speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), said when he was bragging about his particular community. He said that his community was based on providing food to British Columbians. It was a community that had built its economy on an internal economy. It hadn't built its whole economy on exports like so many communities that are in the lumber and the mining industries had done. But it built an economy of full employment servicing an internal economy.

In British Columbia, if we are going to have a chance to leave to our youth and our citizens the feeling of hope, we have to build an internal economy on the resources that we have. We have to build and take a positive long-range view of goals for where we are going to go day by day. And in the alternative throne speech, as presented by the Leader of the Opposition, he said we have to set a goal in every community for the creation of jobs. We have to develop in every region in a manner that we can consult that particular community about what they are best able to produce and what kind of services they are best able to provide.

We have to look at it definitely, Mr. Speaker, in a positive way because we have to build an internal economy on that 70 percent of our population that is continually employed. Year after year, we cannot look at short-term solutions without looking at long-term gains. When the Leader of the Opposition said that we should set up a committee to tour this province, a committee of members of all sides of the House.... As the Social Credit government has the majority of the members in this House, they will have the majority of members on that committee. But there will also be opposition members on that committee, and they should go out into all the communities — not a road show, as cabinet is prepared to do, as outlined in the throne speech, to go here and there and make political speeches. We want a committee that is going to do the internal, in-depth studies, consultation of what our long-term goals should be for full employment. We're in an era where we can do that. If we don't do it, there is going to be far more violence out on the street than there is today. There is going to be violence if we cannot give to the youth of this province, to those who are unemployed, and to those who are trying to raise a family on welfare, hope and a sense of security and well-being, and a sense of input into our society.

[3:15]

I say to the government that we have to do that study and that consultation, because it is needed. The people want it.

[ Page 5260 ]

We can't afford the pleasure of standing up here and taking cheap political shots, and twisting facts completely out of context — that the reason we have a debt that has gone from $4 billion to $17 billion is the opposition, because they were negative. You know it's untrue, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) knows it's untrue, and the general public knows it's untrue. I don't say this lightly.

If I can bring it back to the context of my own riding, a large section of my riding has been based on the harvest of timber. Over the years from the hills of Sooke, Jordan River and Port Renfrew, millions and millions of dollars' worth have been taken. It is a big problem, Mr. Speaker. It was predicted, not in this House, going back to the thirties and now into the eighties, that we are harvesting the resources of this province and are not maintaining the ability to continue that harvest. I have hundreds of thousands of acres in my own riding — and it's not one of the larger ridings in the province — that are improperly replanted. In so many cases they were not replanted at all, and today they are full of what are commonly known as the weed species. It's been the CCF, the labour members in the past, the NDP since 1961 who have been saying that we must look at our forest as a renewable resource, that we must harvest it in a manner to maximize the production, and we must utilize that production to its highest form.

It's like the Minister of Agriculture, who in his riding has a very diversified community which is harvesting crops that they plant. We must look at our forests as crops that we plant and that we harvest. We must take a different approach than we have used in the past. We must look at where we're going so there is a future in this industry.

I find it shocking, when I get off the main roads and back into the hills, when I visit some of the groups working on various Canada Works programs. Before the last election we had the EBAP program doing excellent work of thinning and replanting, creating jobs that are meaningful for those who are unemployed. They are small groups, but this concept is something that we've got to build right into our industry, so they are not something that comes on stream just before an election. As it happened, just before the 1983 election the provincial government poured a lot of money in, and made a lot of promises of employment under EBAP. Right after the election they cut them out in the name of restraint. The federal government has picked up some of them under the Canada Works program, but they have kept a few people working and they have done a lot of experimentation — developing different systems of developing the fire roads, the thinning processes, the identification of which is the best particular tree for each particular area.

But they have been working in the dark. Each one of the methods that they have developed has been proven in other countries that look at their forest industries as renewable resources for years and years. They're not inventing the wheel, but they're forced to, because this government would rather spend billions of dollars on unnecessary programs, getting this province into debt when they would not give the leadership that should have been given.

I'll only lay the problem on the present Social Credit government when they came into office in 1952. Even in 1952 we had started to look at the forest economy in such a way: we're going to harvest so many acres, we are going to replant so many acres, we are going to make preparation down the line that when these acres have been replanted they are properly thinned out and, if needed, fertilized — or whatever other silvicultural method that is needed to guarantee the crop.

I look at my own riding. It's only lately that we have Pacific Logging, who are now replanting hundreds and thousands of acres of land that was harvested 30, 40 and 50 years ago. We're going to have to wait another 40, 50 or 60 years to get a crop off of it. We have one particular area in Port Renfrew — the San Juan valley — and, as does everyone who has been involved in any way in agriculture, they know in the valleys that where the good soil is is where crops grow the best.

Fifty years ago when the logging went through that area, they cut all the best trees out of our valleys and moved on. If we had had a policy such as was already in vogue in many countries of Europe, where they do look at the continued rotation of timber — countries like Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Germany, that are now competing in our markets for wood products on which we have always had, as we often thought, a kind of a complete monopoly.... We have abused that monopoly. We have abused it by neglect.

It's far more important, if we are going to build an internal economy, that we have to look in our own areas. I mentioned Port Renfrew, where they cleaned out the San Juan valley, and they let it grow up. Now we have two- and three foot alder and maple trees. Now B.C. Forest Products have to go in and clean it out. If it had been properly maintained they would be harvesting second-growth timber, because that is where the trees would have grown the fastest. They would have grown to their maximum, and we would have a community harvesting the second crop.

But what happened? Because of this neglect, under thirty-odd years of Social Credit and the Liberal coalition government before that, we never had any long-range goals on providing a stable community. Now B.C. Forests has moved their main operation out of Port Renfrew, and all those who live and make their homes in that community — they moved in and bought homes, knowing that they had a job and that there was some stability — are left wondering if they're going to be a ghost town like Ocean Falls, or if they're going to have to move farther on. Because no one did what the Leader of the Opposition said.

We have to go into the communities. We have to consult with the communities. We have to look at all the businesses — the large businesses, the small businesses, private industry, public industry, cooperatives. We have to go into these communities and consult, and we have to build some stability of diversified jobs. We have to not only harvest the timber — at the present time now on the coast they are shipping it out in the raw — but we must utilize it as lumber.

We must build in this economy. We must build a type of full employment that we are going to look at new products. We have to look at new employment, and we have to integrate them into the community that is already set up.

You look at the history of this province. You go up and down this coast, and you look at the many abandoned logging camps, canneries and plants. We have not looked at building a stable community, and I think this is- something that.... If nothing else in the Leader of the Opposition's alternative throne speech.... We must go out into the community; we must look at it in a positive way; we must strengthen the roots; we must give security; we must give hope that people can go in and buy a home or build a home. They give the best part of their working life harvesting the resources.

[ Page 5261 ]

We can't afford to continue to say: "Too bad, we've cut all the trees down. We're going to move on." We can't afford that. We can't afford it for our youth and we can't afford it for our economy, because if we continue to do what has taken place in the past, if we continue to refuse to listen to the suggestions of this opposition.... The debt that this opposition, when we become government, are going to assume and the horrible consequences that we're going to have to correct will be the same as Mr. Mulroney is trying to sort out on the federal scene — the mess that the Liberals had left behind them.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we have to take a new look. We have to do what the opposition has been suggesting: we have to look into the community for a lot of the answers, We cannot, in spite of what the cabinet, with all their wisdom.... They think that they can centralize everything in Victoria, that they have all the answers. They don't. They don't have all the answers, because when you look at their job creation.... I know that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) says that we're against all the megaprojects. He says that we're negative, we're whining. You look at these megaprojects. It's been brought out by other speakers before me, Mr. Speaker, that there's a fair investment in northeast coal. But for every $1 million that's gone in there, it's created one job.

It's interesting that when you compare that one job for $1 million with figures that have been released by the U.S. labour department.... In the figures that they have released, they said that if you're spending $1 million on military spending to build up part of our arms race.... For every million dollars that you spend there, you create 28 jobs. I really don't think they used the ALRT as a basis, but they said that for every million dollars spent on public transit, it created 32 jobs. They said that for every million dollars that was cut back in taxes.... When you cut back taxes a million dollars and the public have that million dollars to spend on personal consumption.... For every million dollars that you freed out of the tax, you created 57 jobs. But the best one is the one that is really taking the beating in this province. The best investment of $1 million to create the most jobs is in education. For every million dollars given in education, it creates, with the spinoff effect, 71 jobs.

[3:30]

I think if we're going to do any long-range predictions of where British Columbia is going to go, we have to look at a lot of facts. We just can't react and jump into this because it looks good in a political pamphlet. I don't deny that the domed stadium in Vancouver looks good on a political pamphlet. I don't deny that all the millions of dollars we were spending on advertising before the '83 election — building B.C.; they were blowing up rocks; all about northeast coal; all the money.... It was quite spectacular.

HON. A. FRASER: Are you against the stadium?

MR. MITCHELL: I'm not against me having a yacht, but when a yacht is going to break my family, when a yacht is going to take food off my kids' table, when a yacht is going to make me unable to afford to pay my mortgage, yes, I'm against the yacht. I say there are a lot of these programs that we are not against, Mr. Speaker, through you to my interjector, the Minister of Transportation and Highways. There are a lot of items that we all think are great, but we have to get the priorities on the record. The most important priorities of this province are that we look toward to full employment, giving every child the maximum education and preserving our health care services. Within the framework of this budget, within the framework of the massive amount of wealth we have, I say we in the NDP can do it. I know that the Social Credit have failed to do it.

MR. MICHAEL: It is with pleasure and pride that I rise to express my support for the throne speech. That message from our Premier demonstrates to all British Columbians their government's firm confidence in the future and faith in the power of all the people's personabilities. In any endeavours, the government is committed to providing forward-looking and creative leadership. Such leadership and such confidence in the future is not based on vain hope; it rests upon a clear understanding of the challenges that we face as a productive province and upon a clear appreciation of the human and natural resources with which we have been blessed. An understanding and appreciation of our challenges, our resources and our potential enables our government to formulate, present and bring into full being practical and specific measures which will create jobs, stimulate investment and improve the quality of life for all British Columbians.

All our creativity, skill and attention to new innovation must come into being in the days ahead. We have spoken of a global recession that has shaken our economy with rapid changes. Yet as that recession is fading — as it is now — neither the world economy nor our own will return to the way it was even as our productivity and prosperity reaches even greater heights. The world economy has quickened its pace and has developed both new opportunities and new challenges needed to be hurdled.

Our own British Columbia economy has diversified, entering into new industries and rebuilding existing ones. British Columbia faces many global economic changes, some of which could possibly be destabilizing. Simply put, unless we respond to them with increased vigour and foresight in constantly improving our productivity and efficiency, they might well slow our growth.

One such trend is the rapid, unrelenting, increasing value of the American dollar. The dollar's rise is not so much indicative of the strength of the American economy but of the unevenness of economic growth throughout the world, especially in the newly developing countries that have suffered far more than we in the global recession.

These countries, many of whom we can compete with in the international marketplace for natural resources, expanded rapidly in the 1970s and in doing so incurred large debts, often as large as their annual gross domestic product. When the recession came, they found themselves dangerously over-extended. To cover even the interest on their loans, they appealed to international agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In the cases where the World Bank and the IMF agreed to help, they often imposed harsh conditions, such as the significant devaluation of the country's currency and the increase of export sales of resources at reduced prices with the sole purpose of gathering hard currency necessary for debt repayment to western banks.

[ Page 5262 ]

The effect of such currency devaluations and overproduction upon our own British Columbian industries can be most readily seen in the example of the copper industry. Whereas in the last two years the Canadian dollar has been devalued by 8 percent, from $1.23 to $1.34 to buy an American dollar, the Chilean peso has been devalued by 100 percent, going from 74 pesos to 146 pesos to the U.S. dollar. That fact, coupled with the Chilean increase in copper production, has led to a 40 percent drop in copper prices, which has quite obviously placed great strain on our own copper industry as well as our provincial economy. In gold, a similar situation exists with South Africa increasing its production, despite a 20 percent fall in prices, to cover the costs of its own domestic economic problems.

British Columbia's pulp industry provides a related though less drastic example. Our own pulp manufacturers, who supply approximately 60 percent of Canada's total pulp production, compete with Swedish manufacturers in the North American and northern European markets. For a variety of reasons, wood-pulp prices began to drop rapidly in late 1982, bottoming out after a 25 percent decrease. The Swedish pulp manufacturers have gained in competitiveness through a 20 percent devaluation of the krona during a period when, as I said, the Canadian dollar was devalued by only 8 percent. When our competitors lower the value of their currency, it makes their goods cheaper relative to the goods of nations such as our own, whose money value remains stable. We must not forget that the Canadian dollar is actually growing in value compared to almost all other currencies; it is only the American dollar that is increasing compared to our own. So while it is true that our resources and manufactured goods are becoming more competitive in the United States, B.C. exports are becoming more expensive in all other countries with a weaker currency than our own.

Although some might argue for a devaluation of our currency dollar to match that of our competitors, they forget that Canada and B.C. are believers in fair trade — trade conducted without exploitive and ultimately self-defeating manipulations. As Canada has asked the United States not to put quotas on our forest products, which are benefiting from a currency devaluation not of our making, we cannot in good conscience seek as well advantages made through politics rather than through the marketplace and our own initiative. The fairer course is also the most successful in the long run, when we are confident in our talents and creativity, making the most of our resources.

Confidence in our own ability to create continued future economic development through hard work and professional means stands out clearly in the throne speech. We must increase our productivity and lower the cost of extracting, developing and processing our forest and mineral resources; if we do not, they will simply be wasted, both to us today and to future generations. We must remain competitive in the world marketplace if we are to retain our impressive share of the global market and resources. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are not standing still. B.C. business is constructing new facilities and modernizing old plants to ensure that we retain our competitiveness and keep British Columbians working. This is due in part to the climate of opportunity and investment fostered by our Social Credit government.

The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) can tell the House of the incredible modernization process underway in our forest industry. In 1984 total capital and repair expenditures were $1.25 billion, an increase of 34 percent over 1983 expenditures. The commitment to keeping B.C. sawmills among the world's most efficient and productive for many years to come has been impressive. Major capital expenditures have been made or committed for mill construction, upgrading or expansion in 1984, which total $589 million. That's almost $600 million spent on economic renewal in the past year in the forest industry alone. This was not government money. It did not come from the taxpayers' pockets. This was money invested by the private sector in an effort to keep B.C.'s forest industry in the forefront of the latest technological advances and remain as productive as any other country in the international market.

At the Federated Co-operatives plywood plant at Canoe in my home constituency, the installation of a $1.7 million high-speed lathe will be complete in August. The Crown Forest Industries sawmill in Lumby was virtually destroyed by fire last June. When it reopens in early April, it will boast state-of-the-art equipment that will ensure a higher recovery of lumber. Even more impressive, the new mill will employ 100 people, about as many as the previous one; all of the people who lost their jobs because of the fire will be rehired. Tackama Forest Products spent $12 million on a new plywood plant in Fort Nelson. L&K Lumber Ltd. in Langdale invested $15 million in their sawmill expansion. West Fraser Timber Co. in Williams Lake modernized their sawmill at a cost of $9 million. Almost three dozen mills have implemented, or are undergoing, major modernization or expansion programs, proving that B.C.'s lumbermen have the confidence to compete in world markets against any and all international competition.

[3:45]

Let me give you another encouraging example of how our private sector is moving to meet the challenge of changing international markets. Westar Timber operation offers a good example of how industry can adapt to the competitive new reality. Productivity is on the rise at all of Westar Timber Ltd. sawmills; coupled with an aggressive selling effort overseas, the payoff is strongly growing lumber sales. The company's offshore lumber sales have climbed from nothing in 1981 to 160 million cubic feet last year, 30 percent of their annual production. In January and February of 1985, the company exceeded its entire 1984 sales of $16 million board feet of lumber to Japan. An important factor in the growth of shipments was in cutting lumber to sizes and standards specifically required by the Japanese. Our government is proud of the initiative displayed by these B.C. entrepreneurs, and to ensure that our valuable forest resource is available for development by future operations of free enterprisers we are increasing our commitment to reforestation and silviculture. In 1982-3 some 87 million trees were planted, and in 1983-84 some 106.3 million. The Ministry of Forests is committed to expanding the number of trees planted on Crown land in future years and anticipates that we will reach the 160 million per year level by 1988-89.

I would like to applaud the decision of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland) to appoint government representatives to assist the initiative by Vancouver Island mayors, led by North Cowichan mayor Graham Bruce, in their efforts to complement the government's forest renewal program. I share his enthusiasm for this constructive program.

I'm looking forward to a coming initiative of the provincial government working together with business and labour to ensure that B.C. remains competitive and prosperous. A

[ Page 5263 ]

commissioner of critical industries will be appointed to facilitate the dialogue and cooperation necessary to retain and expand jobs in our basic industries. The independent commissioner will offer his good offices, when invited, to negotiate on important matters involving taxation, energy and transportation costs and labour. The commissioner will be another link in the partnership for economic renewal.

A province with little confidence in itself or in the future would not attract the investment of its own residents and others. Therefore I am pleased to point to the strong investment in our province made by the mining industry and particularly the coal industry. Total investment in mining in 1983 was $1.6 billion. In 1984 some $912 million worth of coal was produced. The 19 million tonnes produced in 1984 was a jump of 91 percent in one single year, mostly due, of course, to the start of shipments from northeast coal's Bullmoose and Quintette mines. Recent sales of $30 million worth of coking coal from mines in the southeast coal project are opening up another new market for B.C. coal in Japan. The development of new international markets — and it seems like new sales are being made every day — is largely due to the aggressive marketing policies of our government.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the new Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips) on his appointment to this vital economic development position and wish him much success in his efforts at creating new markets for British Columbia products.

If B.C.'s natural resources and manufactured products are to reach their foreign destinations, it is essential that a modern transportation network be in place. The investment in infrastructure signals a confidence in the future and our confidence that we can compete in the world marketplace, and pays dividends in both immediate construction jobs and long-term employment. One of the most ambitious transportation construction programs is the $600 million project to double-track the CPR line from Calgary to Vancouver. The line passes through Shuswap-Revelstoke, and I've had the opportunity to witness first-hand the job creation and economic development that this project is bringing about. The Mt. Macdonald tunnel — the longest in North America — is the centrepiece of the project, which removes the bottleneck which has impeded the increase of shipments through B.C.'s ports. Along with the CN expansion program and the northeast coal infrastructure, the CPR double-tracking conveys the pattern of growth and development that is part of economic renewal.

Mr. Speaker, there are other examples of economic renewal active throughout the province. Our growing high technological industry is creating new products and making new scientific and commercial discoveries every day. One example worth particular note is that of the Moli Energy Ltd. The company grew out of the accidental discovery of an innovative battery process using lithium and molybdenum. The inventor has received support from both private investors and the provincial and federal governments. In 1980 the provincial government, through the Science Council of British Columbia, provided nearly $500,000 so that Moli Energy could carry out the applied scientific research necessary to make the process commercially successful. To ensure that the moly battery discovered and developed here in B.C. would also be manufactured here, thus benefiting all British Columbians, the B.C. Development Corporation, under the direction of the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications, pledged $5 million to assist Moli in its start-up production and marketing costs. The federal government, as well, has assisted under the industrial and regional development program. Construction has already begun on Moli Energy's manufacturing plant in the new industrial park in Maple Ridge. The plant will ultimately employ 230 people, and bring a $5 million payroll to the area. In addition, under Moli's agreement with BCDC, a molybdenum distillate processing plant will be built in the Kamloops area, and will create another 20 jobs. Moli hopes to capture a significant dollar share of the multi-billion dollar battery market.

Mr. Speaker, it is evident that economic renewal is underway in British Columbia today. We can see this renewal in that more British Columbians were employed in 1984 than in 1983 and in that between November 1983 and November 1984 B.C. created jobs faster than any other province, with an average increase of 3.7 percent — compared to the national average of 2.4 percent.

A positive partnership between a confident business community and a confident provincial government will contribute even more to renewal. The throne speech reaffirms that our government is confident in its policies and programs and in the intelligence, creativity and determination of all British Columbians. That confidence is born of a realistic appraisal of B.C.'s natural and human resources, and the conditions in the increasingly complex and competitive world economy. The throne speech and recent trends and examples illustrate that B.C. has faced openly the challenges of the marketplace, and responded with a spirit of determination, with a respect for innovation and fairness and — I do not hesitate to say it — with a quiet courage.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm pleased to take my place in this debate on the throne speech. It's a document that sends us mixed signals. It's a document that talks about a sense of optimism at the same time that it talks about the necessity for restraint. It's a document that talks about partnership at the same time that we have a government that has alienated nearly every individual and organized group in this province.

It talks about a sense of optimism and about a time of economic renewal. Now that would be great. I would love to feel that I could have a sense of optimism about B.C.'s future. There's no one who would like better to be optimistic about what's going to happen to our young people, our working people and our small business people in this province. There is no one who would rather see a reconstruction of our very beleaguered economy. I would like to believe what the Premier, through the throne speech, is saying.

But I have no reason to believe that that is correct, that those statements....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Just a minute, Madame Member. Our House leaders make it impossible for the Speaker to hear your speech. Possibly they would.... You may proceed.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, that's half of the Assembly now gone, Mr. Speaker. And I'm not going to count the numbers.

As I was saying, and I will repeat for your benefit, I would like to believe that this was going to happen. But I don't find anything to encourage me to believe that. It would be nice to believe that this government really had some positive programs in mind that were going to enable us to have a sense of optimism and to have economic renewal. I don't know on what basis they say that's going to happen. I

[ Page 5264 ]

can't understand on what basis, when all the economists that I hear and all the reports that I read indicate that's not going to happen. That's discouraging.

In its recent report the Conference Board of Canada concluded that B.C. had the worst performance of any province in Canada during the whole recession, and that recovery in B.C. is weaker than in the rest of Canada. It goes on to say that the reason for that is the B.C. government's policies. The data that the Conference Board has put together show that Canadian unemployment has declined by 0.6 percent, from 11.9 to 11.3, between 1983 and 1984. At the same time, the unemployment rate in B.C. actually increased from 13.8 to 14.8, a full percentage point, despite a dramatic improvement in our basic export markets.

So economists are telling us that what the throne speech tells us is not so. Bankruptcies tell us that what the throne speech tells us is not so. Capital investment tells us that what the throne speech tells us is not so. And certainly unemployment statistics tell us the same thing.

The number of people in receipt of unemployment insurance and the number of people in receipt of social assistance is, for all practical purposes, half a million out of a population of two and a half million. That's disgraceful. That's a direct result of the policies this government has pursued for the last few years. In economic terms that means that for every one of those people who is unemployed in this province we have lost the potential of $4,000 per year in output, in productivity. In social terms that represents irreparable damage. During the past few years this government and this Premier have deliberately imposed a cruel and unnecessary regime on British Columbia. Wages represent 80 percent of our economy in B.C. When we reduce the payroll by the amount that we have, by the amount of unemployment that we have in this province, we begin to destroy the economy. Restraint does not stimulate the economy. Restraint in itself restrains the economy. The loss of $4,000 potential productivity from each of the unemployed is just one example of that.

[4:00]

You see, Mr. Speaker, the government's approach is based on the premise that deficits cause recession. But since restraint causes recession, it also causes deficits. We have ample proof of that. When this government took over, there was no operating debt. They may argue with that. They'll try to tell us there was $271 million operating debt — the fancy footwork, the transfer of the rubber cheque to ICBC.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. SKELLY: Borrowed it back the next day.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right. But even if you accept that $271 million of operating debt, what is it today? Four billion dollars. That's the result of restraint. Restraint creates deficits. If you look at the total debt over the last ten years, the total debt of this province has grown from $4.7 billion to $17 billion. That's a fourfold increase.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: That's the total debt. I've talked about the operating debt, Mr. Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), if you'd been listening. The total debt has grown fourfold. But your operating debt is $4 billion, as compared to nil when you started. So restraint causes deficits.

You see, the government's premises are wrong. Their whole direction has been wrong. It has been a sorry price that the people of British Columbia have paid for that cruel and harsh regime that they have insisted on placing upon the backs of the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, every economist will tell you that the public sector should help promote recovery through a broad range of initiatives instead of by pursuing the policies that this government has pursued. Governments should stimulate demand during recessions. In that way they compensate for the downturns in private investment. If they don't take that action through public spending and the maintenance of a safety net for working people — the citizens of British Columbia — what they do is lock the economy into an indefinite recession.

Economic theory also shows that those kinds of programs in an economy such as British Columbia's, which is an open economy, are particularly foolish. Anything that we do in cuts in spending in a jurisdiction as small as British Columbia has no effect at all on interest rates. Therefore any capital that we free up for this simply leaves the country, instead of staying here to stimulate our own economy.

Economists also tell us that to rely on the market is just as hazardous. We in British Columbia are dominated by a limited number of very large multinational corporations, most of which are externally controlled. Noranda is the one outstanding example, and you will remember how it got to be this way: the Premier — who said that B.C. was not for sale — agreed to sell MacMillan Bloedel to Noranda. And what do they control now as a result of that?

MR. MACDONALD: Thirty percent of the forests.

MRS. WALLACE: And 50 percent of the mining. By virtue of those powers, their whole investment policy has no concern for British Columbia's economy. Their decisions are made in boardrooms outside of this province; their investments are based on entirely different concerns than whether or not the B.C. economy prospers.

There's another theory that economists advance: they tell us that the idea that spending on economic infrastructure is not superior to social spending.... That concept is incorrect; that's the concept that this government has been pushing over the years. But those economic studies tell us that the social infrastructure, particularly education, is extremely important. Those studies show us that spending on social programs, particularly education, is extremely important. Why is that so? If we are going to ensure that we have a population that is able to deal with the demands of this highly technical society, then we must have an educated population.

With this government we have seen a real onslaught on young people in this province. We've seen university and college fees go up; we've seen the public school system eroded, we've seen a restriction in entrance to universities, and we've seen a reduction in programs.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Do you want us to borrow some more?

MRS. WALLACE: You're borrowing for the wrong things, Mr. Minister. You're not listening to what I'm saying.

[ Page 5265 ]

If you would listen to what I'm saying and to what economists are saying, you would realize that you're moving in entirely the wrong direction.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm surprised that the Minister of Agriculture and Food seems so upset this afternoon. He's usually a very quiet little member who sits there, and the only time he has anything to say is if he has some concern about the rules of the House. I would suggest to him, Mr. Speaker, that if he just sat quietly and listened to what.... He had his turn in this debate, and if he just sat quietly and listened to what I had to say.... He's a nice, bright chap and he might be able to absorb some of the arguments that I'm making. But if he keeps interrupting me, and I have to repeat my train of thought, it is going to be not only difficult for me but even more difficult for him because he will never understand what I am saying.

One of the arguments that has been put forward by economists certainly refutes the concept that the large megaprojects are the route to go. Also, the centralized control of decision-making is the wrong way to go. Consultation and cooperation are essential if we're going to maintain investor confidence.

You know, the throne speech has mixed messages. It talks about the continuation of restraint, and yet it talks about some expanded programs. Well, we won't really know what those are until tomorrow when we hear the budget. But I suspect that what we're going to see is some kind of a strategy which will combine continued cuts in the public sector with subsidies to the private sector. That will be the net result.

What happens when we give subsidies to the private sector? Certainly if you give them to concerns like Noranda and other major concerns — and even the smaller concerns, but particularly the larger concerns — they have no effect on the economy whatsoever. To have an effect, those subsidies would have to provide a stimulus to the B.C. economy. But what usually happens is that the subsidy is given to a company to undertake some operation which they would have undertaken anyway, whether or not the subsidy had been given. The firms that are attracted by those subsidies are usually very slow-growth firms. In its 1982 budget the government did its own analysis, and that analysis indicated that that strategy of subsidies would simply reduce economic activity. The figures that they gave were that for every $100 million cut in government spending there would be a loss of 3,300 jobs. So even if the whole $100 million was used to finance tax cuts, there would still be a net loss of over 800 jobs.

You see, the problem with tax cuts is that they're not necessarily expended in this economy. One of the reasons is the lack of confidence in the economy. Financial papers and financial institutions are advising investors to bypass B.C., that it is not a good investment area. The people of British Columbia are so insecure in their future that we have record savings. I think there are $23.5 billion in the banks and saving institutions of British Columbia. The people are afraid to spend because they're afraid of their economic future.

That lack of security, which has been a direct result of this government's policies, is simply aiding and abetting this recession and is the reason that the Conference Board has come up with a report which indicates that the government's policies are the reason that the economy is not recovering in British Columbia as it is in the rest of Canada. It can't be blamed on external forces, Mr. Speaker. In 1983 B.C. exports increased dramatically. B.C.'s basic industry, the forest industry, attained a record output last year. No one will deny that. So we can't blame it on external forces. It comes right back home to roost on the shoulders of this government. It's their direction. Their premise has been entirely wrong, and it has taken the people of British Columbia down a long and sorrowful path with untold human suffering, social disruption and family disruption. There is a better way.

[4:15]

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will come to order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: It will be nice when he gets out of the House. I'm used to this, though. I'm not used to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, but I'm used to that minister. He always interrupts me.

Yes, there is a better way. You see, if we as a government and as people work together in consultation, we can come up with a better way. I know the speakers on the other side of the House will say that that's what the throne speech says — that we're going to have consultation — but I'll believe that when I see it. I think it's going to be a great PR job. I don't trust that government, and I don't trust that Premier. He's often been known to break his word. That government has often been known to break....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm afraid I'll have to ask the member to withdraw that reference to another hon. member. A simple withdrawal, please, with respect to the statement made about another member of this House.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I don't trust the government, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you please withdraw the statement with reference to a member of this House.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't trust the Premier's policies. I will withdraw the reflection to the Premier.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Please proceed.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't trust the Premier's policies. It has been proven on many occasions that he says one thing and does the other. That government says one thing and does the other. I don't trust them, and I don't think the people of B.C. trust them, Mr. Speaker.

What should be happening is a spirit of cooperation between government and local regions. We should think about setting up regional councils, which would be responsible to the people in those regions, to study and identify the needs and the functions in the regions and to work with government to ensure that the things that were needed in those regions were available to them.

We should consider including employees to investigate ways that workers could be involved in the whole process of management and decision-making. After all, it is their lives which are affected far more than any one else's. It is their lives that are on the line here in this recession.

[ Page 5266 ]

We should set up an investment fund. The people over there will scream: "Oh, you're going to spend more money." I think it far better to set up an investment fund to be spent on the advice of and with the knowledge and information that would be available from people in local regions than to simply squander it on some major project that the government happens to think is of immediate concern.

You see, I don't believe that all the wisdom in B.C. sits in those 21 chairs over there. I don't believe that. I see the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom) agrees with me. I think that government would be well advised to take the people of British Columbia into its confidence, to try to heal the wounds that they have created with the various local bodies and various groups and give them the opportunity to have real and meaningful input into how we get out of this mess that the government has gotten us into.

The government is obviously bankrupt of ideas. They are so committed to this direction of restraint and to the idea that the way to stimulate the economy, if you do stimulate it at all, is to give subsidies or concessions to major industries. It has been shown so many times that you never really get that back into the B.C. economy because of the very nature of our economy. The information that I have provided the House relative to the various economists that have made these studies has indicated that that is not the way to stimulate an economy. You put the money in at the bottom in the form of tax credits or jobs, into the pockets of low-income people. They're the people who will reinvest it. That's how you spark a consumer-led recovery.

I see that my green light is on. I'm just started. That's unfortunate, because I have a great many things I wanted to discuss.

In closing I will just talk very briefly about the youth program. This is the year of the youth, and we just received the first message from the new Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty), a little note that said: "I'm sending you something from the federal minister." The federal minister says that this year they're going to give $19.4 million to a youth employment program in B.C. Do you know what they gave last year, Mr. Speaker? They gave $19.7 million. So big deal; less this year than before. We don't know what the provincial government is going to give, but last year they only contributed $9.1 million. I'm not holding my breath to see them come down with any more. That program last year created 24,000 jobs. That's not to be sneezed at, but it certainly isn't enough in today's situation when you have 25 and 30 percent of our youth unemployed. It's shameful. I would hope that when that Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) delivers his budget tomorrow he matches dollar for dollar what the feds are putting out this year.

Perhaps I should read into the record the editorial on the throne speech from one of my local papers. It says: "Try as he might, artful though he be, the recipient of the news proffered from the Speech from the Throne is unlikely to glean more than a glimmer of gold from that miserly missive." The article goes on to say that this government is bankrupt of ideas, and I agree.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Might I have the leave of the hon. members to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge in our galleries today a person who is no stranger to this House: the former member for Saanich and the Islands, John Tisdalle.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to tell you that I'm regretfully going to support the positive alternative throne speech of the Leader of the Opposition, as against that paper-thin one that came down from the government side, as thin as the piece of ham you used to get in the restaurants in the Depression days; if you didn't eat it quickly and somebody opened the door it would blow away.

I want to pay respects before I say anything more, but I won't pay the traditional respects; they have been paid. I pay respect, though, to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), who brings a sense of humus into this House. I pay respect to the government back bench — not to the 21 ministers and their handypersons. You know, Mr. Speaker, there was a time when we used to turn to the trained seals on the government back bench and say: "Whoa, you've got to change your vote." Now we have only one to appeal to — one back-bencher unfee'd, especially by the government, and he wrestles with his conscience every few days but always loses. I wish the leader of the United Party was in the House today, with his feet firmly planted in mid-air, because I always enjoy his speeches. He says — and I took down his words — that he was in search of a strategy for economic recovery. I think what we've got is a search party, really: searching for a policy, searching for members, searching for a leader. He betrayed the people of his own city; they ordered turkey and they got ham.

I see opposite me the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), and I commiserate with him on the loss of his right-hand man when he was in the city of London and his right-hand man was fired by somebody in the Premier's office — of course the Premier knew nothing about it. I'm referring to Maury Gwynne, who years ago used to live on E. 43rd Street in Vancouver East, and voted for me — although he didn't make a habit of it, I'm afraid. He made a harmless little joke, and for that it was: "Off with his head!" I say that with some feeling, because I think there's a mean spirit operating there that doesn't have any place in this province of British Columbia.

I don't see the Premier in his place. He said that those who favour the abolition of the Senate — and he included Mr. Mulroney in this — were teenagers. I want to assure you that I'm one of the teenagers who fully agree with the total abolition of that bastion of privilege and patronage,

But it's a little bit more difficult to pay tribute to the state of legislative democracy in this chamber in the province of British Columbia these days. We get plain bills coming forward, where the English is perfectly plain, and where there are no reservations expressed by anyone about the meaning of those bills or what's going to happen to them; they're legislation of the highest lawmaking authority in the province of British Columbia.

. Yet, Mr. Speaker, at about 4:15 in the afternoon of February 15, 1985, the Premier of the province of British Columbia came into this chamber and cast a false vote, having already decided. The office was set up to do it: to refer what he had voted on — and was supposed to be believing in, and didn't believe in; it was a duplicitous vote — to another office for canvassing.

[4:30]

[ Page 5267 ]

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is a little bit upset.

I'm going to be a little bit serious for a moment, Mr. Speaker. I have to watch that clock, although I haven't got that much to say. I pick up here, sort of the state of the economy of the province of British Columbia, and I can't understand how appalling it is, if these figures are true. I pick up the unemployment insurance claimants in the province of British Columbia, in February 1985. I'm not talking about people on social assistance, and other people who are in dire straits who are not able to claim either one — social assistance or unemployment insurance. The unemployment insurance claimants totalled 239,740 people. That's an incredible figure. You add social assistance recipients to that — they're not getting both — and we have a crisis of staggering proportions in this so-called free enterprise economy of ours. I don't even believe the figures that I see, where unemployment is supposed to be 16 percent and.... This is almost by itself. Ten percent of the workforce, or more. It gives the six regions of the province, and breaks it down. No economy can possibly stand that kind of extensive unemployment.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

We see the wearing away of the productive secondary industrial base of this province. I intend to give some examples. The secondary industrial wealth-producing base of this province, which is primary to service industries and businesses and social services, is being eroded. As one example, Mr. Speaker, I refer to a small industry in Vancouver East, on Wall Street — I mentioned it a little bit the other day — Westroc Industries. It's a child of a multinational — there's nothing wrong as such with that — British Plaster Board, which also had a plant in Calgary for the production of wallboard and gypsum products. On June 7 of this year 57 men and women in the bargaining unit will lose their jobs — and if you include the sales force and everything else, it comes to about 84 — and the building on Wall Street will become a warehouse.

What happened was that while this government was asleep at the switch, in terms of the kind of productive sector I'm talking about, the parent company decided to modernize the plant in Calgary and not the one in British Columbia. The result is that they are now producing the wallboard in four-foot-wide strips at 135 feet per minute, while the old machinery on Wall Street was 75 feet. Where was the Minister of Industry when that happened? About six months ago a disastrous neglect took place by this government, and now we have 84 more people out of work, to add to that list of UIC claimants.

It was not a question of wages, because the United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers are certified and have contracts at both plants, with the same terms and conditions.

We can't afford to live in a province that doesn't make its own wallboard, when we're a forest province. That's the kind of thing that is happening in our economy.

I take another example: the question of bread. Would you believe that the province of British Columbia is increasingly not baking its own bread? You can see, in part, what is taking place if you look at the contracts even of the Vancouver Parks Board, where they order their buns from Seattle. You go into McDonald's Hamburgers, which buys a lot of buns, and you find they're imported from across the line; they're trucked in in giant trucks. If you go into your Safeway and see the slogan, "Safeway's Got It," and what they've got increasingly is American bread. Some of it, unbelievably, is trucked in from as far as New York — because the heavy bread lasts quite a long time — and some of it is frozen; some is from California, and quite a lot of it is from the state of Washington to our south.

Now here we do have a problem in terms of our costs, our efficiency and our quality, because the wage levels in British Columbia are about 20 percent higher and the cost of flour is about 40 percent higher because we have our marketing boards and our Wheat Board — and there are other factors involved in that. Then you have the flour companies, and heaven knows what their profits are.

But we get to the point where a staple of life such as bread is not being fully produced in this province. It should be a first priority of government to look at these productive industries which, in addition to the great natural resource industries of this province, are essential to our economic health and absolutely essential if we are going to have anything approaching full employment in this province of British Columbia. We have to diversify, expand or die insofar as that vital secondary-industry, value-added portion of the province of British Columbia is concerned.

I'll take another example. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who is not in his place.... I don't want to say anything about him in a personal way. That would offend the Chair, I'm sure. Anyway, what he lacks in common sense he makes up for in brilliance.

Two years ago that minister announced 700 jobs in Sidney assembling microchips. It was to be done by Dynatek Corp. Dynatek is owned by.... The promoters come from Asian Reliability of the Philippines. Of course, they wanted public subsidies out of the public treasuries of the province of British Columbia and, I suppose, also of Canada. But the promoters of that company are now.... Two years later, when there is no $49 million plant anywhere in sight, the promoters of that company are now found to be in trouble with the government of the Philippines for diverting government funds that they had received for some project outside of the borders of their own country for their own use.... Really, Mr. Speaker, are we getting to the point where we're going to have to rely upon high-flying international wheeler-dealers for our secondary base in this province of British Columbia?

The people of British Columbia, according to one figure, have $36 billion in savings. I'm a little suspicious about all figures. They say that is term deposits and interest-bearing savings accounts. Some of that money, no doubt, is usefully employed in terms of mortgages and other things. But the necessity of diverting enough investment capital into the productive side to make this economy hum in a secondary way, in a manufacturing way, will never be more imperative than it is today when you look at the UIC figures that I referred to earlier.

Another example I take, Mr. Speaker, is Sooke Forest Products, which is not very far away; it has its sister company, Lamford Cedar, in New Westminster. Here you have, through Hershell Smith and his son Glenn Smith, a very progressive management. For example, because they handled cedar they were determined not to butcher and waste a great portion of that wood, which takes 500 years to grow. You know, we're going to see the end of those great cedars

[ Page 5268 ]

that were such an ornament in the province of British Columbia. They're going.

You look at the growth rings on cedar, and in about three-quarters of an inch, you get just two or three rings, whereas if you look at hemlock or pine or something of that kind, you might get 20 years in three-quarters of an inch. So it takes 500 years, and they wanted to have the best saws to recover the most in terms of that precious wood which is fast disappearing from the forests of the province of British Columbia.

So they modernized their mill. Lamford Cedar is now equipped as one of the best mills anywhere in the world, and it's bankrupt. I find out that there is a $30 million loan outstanding from Canadian commercial banks for the modernization program, and for some reason — I don't know why it's this high — the interest rate is 19 percent. You know, a strong company with good credit may get an industrial expansion loan for prime rate or slightly above prime rate.

Even that is a killer, Mr. Speaker — even that 11 percent or 12 percent. The countries of Scandinavia would not be able to compete in the world as they're doing today if their credit for industrial expansion was from 12 percent to 19 percent. And so you say we should go in and subsidize that industry? It's almost too late; we'd be subsidizing the bank. It's very difficult to recover when you allow that productive base to run down the way we have in the province of British Columbia.

I'll give one more instance, and that's the B.C. Hydro story, because if there was ever a story of mismanagement and a disaster of staggering proportions, it is the story of B.C. Hydro in the last few years. B.C. Hydro now has in debt, loans outstanding in American funds, $3.9 billion, and of that $2.9 billion were run up in the last eight years. Another loan made for B.C. Hydro, I'm proud to say, was made by a Jewish Premier from an Arab state. Do you remember the trouble we used to have about that? But it's repayable in Canadian funds.

In nine months, from April 1984 to December 1984, with the falling Canadian dollar in relation to the American dollar, B.C. Hydro had additional finance charges amounting to $50 million a year, and I haven't covered the whole period of the falling Canadian dollar.

So what we have is a tremendous financial haemorrhage in the province. An additional $50 million in finance charges is more than the Minister of Industry and Small Business used to spend orbiting the globe. It's a lot of money. The only country he has never landed in is Russia, which rather surprises me because he's the greatest Bullshevik of them all. Now that you've changed your portfolio, will you go to Moscow? You've been everywhere else, and now you're covering the world twice-over.

The result for the Hydro customers has been tremendous bills for natural gas and electricity. The number of employees in B.C. Hydro drawing paycheques and doing good work — not on the list of the UIC people; they were not a charge on the public — has gone down in the last couple of years from 10,000 to about 7,400 today. Surely we have come to the point in Canada where we can finance the electrical projects we need. We've always been able to do that, but instead we run to the money markets of New York. We have no planning; we rely on the private enterprise system, and it has led us into this kind of disaster.

[4:45]

The Leader of the Opposition had this to say in his alternative throne speech, and he was talking positively about the secondary industrial base I'm talking about. He said there were two basic features of a successful provincial reconstruction policy: a B.C. development fund to apply resource revenues to economic development projects, and the investment of provincial funds for economic redevelopment on an economic rather than a partisan political basis.

In Sweden, where I spent ten days last year, they now have in existence five regional funds. They call them wage earner funds. They are controlled by public people appointed by the government for the various regions. So that the Swedish industry will not lack that necessary infusion of capital to modernize and give them a cutting edge, they receive 0.2 percent from incomes and 20 percent from corporate profits over a certain level. They also have this; they are an investment by ordinary people in the country and in its industries. It gives ordinary people a piece of the rock. We can't transplant any such ideas wholesale to Canada, but we have to find ways to finance and re-equip our industries so that they have a cutting edge.

There are two basic philosophies operating in the world at the present time, and one of them is operating here in British Columbia. You might call one of them Reaganism. We look south of our border, and we see a country being segmented into three-thirds. In the top third you've got very privileged people; in the middle third you have people who are doing quite well and aspiring to do even better; at the bottom you have a third of the people of that country who are reduced to penury and political impotence by Reaganism.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt — and I'm reminded of this because the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam), although he didn't credit his name in what was one of the best maiden speeches in the Legislature — said a long time ago: "I see one-third of a nation ill-fed, ill-clothed and ill-housed." That's true today. Yet this province is blindly following Reaganism in its economic approach, at a time when Reaganism, Thatcherism and Bennettism are morally and socially bankrupt.

In contrast, you can look to some of the more progressive countries of the world that have taken the social-democratic alternative, particularly the countries of northern Europe, the Scandinavian countries. There they pursue three goals, with far greater success than has occurred anywhere else in the world. Their first goal is social equality, based upon a fair sharing of both sacrifices and benefits. Their second goal is low price rises, based upon government, representing the public, and labour, representing working people, and business, representing management, getting together in a consensus as to what the country can afford, and how best to distribute what the country earns fairly and equitably in the name of social equality. Thirdly, they have achieved very close to full employment. They are appalled when they think in terms of the kind of unemployment we tolerate in Canada, and particularly in the province of British Columbia. As I said, by a necessary infusion of productive capital formation to modernize their industries, particularly the small labour intensive industries, they give their export industries a cutting edge in the markets of the world.

The Leader of the Opposition had this to say in his alternative throne speech. He said that social justice and equality are not only worthwhile in themselves but also good economics. The fact of the matter is that you cannot have full employment and low inflation without social equality. There must be spending power among all of the citizens. None of

[ Page 5269 ]

them should be left behind to line up in food banks, as we are doing in this province. We are so far behind.

Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation whatsoever about where this great divide comes in the world between, on the one hand, Reaganism, Thatcherism and Bennettism and, on the other, the social-democratic approach toward full employment, social equality and low cost rises. I have no doubt where every member in this House should be, because as I said, when the Premier had not taken his seat, Reaganism, Thatcherism and Bennettism are morally and socially bankrupt.

The Leader of the Opposition has presented practical alternatives. He has presented alternatives that demand examination by everyone in this province. They are the beginning of the road toward the kind of economy of which we can be proud; the beginning of the road back from things like the great Hydro debts that are everywhere about, from things like these figures on unemployment insurance — 239,000 claimants on unemployment insurance alone. There is no possibility, under this kind of unplanned economy without public direction, of reversing that trend and bringing to every person in the province of British Columbia the abundance that scientific and technological change have made a perfectly practicable matter.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We've had a good throne speech debate — one of the more interesting debates that I have been able to witness, both from my seat here in the chamber and, when tied up in my office, by using the facilities of the Speaker and in the evening the text of Hansard. The debate this year, for the most part, has a new element. It has alternative proposals from the Leader of the Opposition and some new directions from the independent member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea).

I'm not going to reject these proposals out of hand or criticize them in the traditional political sense, as is usually the case. I will be interested, through the course of this session, to listen to the Leader of the Opposition and his party put a price tag on these proposals — cost them for the people of British Columbia; deliver, in fact, the type of budget that these proposals would entail in order to do something for the economy or show where they would be more beneficial than the programs this government is advocating during a very difficult time.

But I do know this: it's easier today for the opposition to offer proposals to deal with our economy, to deal with British Columbians, when this government has done the most difficult part of the task in containing the cost of programs — not the essential elements of the programs for the most part, but the heavy demands for compensation increases that were out of sight in 1982. Yet we were vilified and called all sorts of names when we tried to protect those programs. Whether for the education of our young or education within our universities, or for government services, when we asked those who were hired to deliver those programs to moderate their demands along what other British Columbians were having to face in a very harsh marketplace, we did not have the support of the opposition. We did not have the reasonable alternatives they talk about today. On the one hand we had their allegiance to unlimited compensation increases for special interest groups, not decreased spending or efficiency so that our budgets would reflect our ability to pay in an economy that, through no fault of our own, through international economic circumstance, was structurally changed. At the same time, they asked for increased spending, and they targeted the difficult areas of trying to go through a tough situation.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Over those three years it was our responsibility, as the government, to make the decisions to bring us to this point. Given that our budget, our taxpayers' ability to pay in the future for essential programs, is structurally within our limits, we can now talk about additions to the programs that will expand our economic base, not embark on proposals that would shovel money out, and make-work programs that, as persuasive and pleasing as they seem at the time, and however much they appeal as the instant answer that people want, leave behind greater problems, greater debts, greater difficulties for government and the people who will follow, and for those who would receive services in the future.

So I guess that today I would like to say yes, we can have alternatives from the opposition now, but I wish they'd been there helping with the solutions in '82, '83, '84 and '85, when a fast mouth and a quick idea were not going to solve the problem. I wish that during those tough years we'd had the type of reasonable cooperative debate they talk about now. Their record during those three years is not a proud one. The newspapers, the clippings, the Hansards of this House recorded the criticisms, the lack of friendly and positive cooperation that was needed so much in this province and this country at that time. It's a record that those who today.... I accept the offer of solutions now, when it's easy, but I will not forget that they were not there with those solutions when it was tough. In fact, the problems became greater for the government, as political activity became more important than guiding our people through the difficult time. While we didn't have economic and political leadership, we did have partisan leadership from the opposition, who chose to divide this province into sections and groups at a time when we needed our people together more than ever; in adversity the partnership of people must go beyond all those usual lines that divide us — partisan, economic and geographic lines.

[5:00]

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that period is behind us. But I had to remind this House today, in supporting this throne speech, that I wish the feeling of cooperative partnership and working together, the feeling of making a more harmonious House, the feeling of offering alternative solutions, had been with us starting in '82 when the international recession hit us, and the difficulties we faced grew worse every year. Today I am feeling positive about this province and about the debate I heard in the House.

I am not going to canvass all of the areas that were in the throne debate. It speaks for itself. It speaks for itself in covering the areas in which we will form a partnership with our municipalities, and we will solidify and extend the partnership that we have with the federal government. It will be, at least at the elected level, a country working together in all its parts, trying to encourage ordinary people, small business, large business, financiers and others to have some confidence in programs that will give them confidence to invest in their country, to invest in business, to employ our people, to take a chance, to take a risk. This throne speech provides other opportunities as well which will be spelled out later in legislation and in the budget which the Finance minister will deliver tomorrow.

[ Page 5270 ]

A number of members have focused, both in this debate and in question period in this House, on a couple of key areas which I would like to deal with. In a way, I would like the opposition members of this House to know that there are some areas in which we should not seek to play politics, in which the future of our....

The first is Expo 86. I know members over there and many members of the public, including the present mayor of Vancouver, opposed Expo when it was first proposed. I'm pleased to say that one of the very earliest converts to making Expo work is the present mayor of Vancouver. I'd like to say that he did it before it was fashionable. Expo 86 can be a great opportunity for success. It will need the cooperation of everyone. But it can be a lesser success than it would be if there are those who would see it fail. If there are groups in British Columbia that want so desperately for Expo to fail, they can do it. They can at least limit its success. They can talk about problems that don't exist; they can see that problems arise. They can create and foster outside the borders of this province an image about Expo which is not correct. They can be less than enthusiastic about making it work. They can be part of a team that, in ignoring it, helps limit its success. But if they do any of those things they are not helping British Columbia. They're not helping the people who will have jobs there. They won't help British Columbia's image among the business people — the international business people and investors and those with technology who will be a part of the fair and visiting the fair, and people who will be making investment decisions, major ones of an international nature, that will employ our people in the future. They may limit their ability to want to consider British Columbia, even though we will have them captive during that fair in an attractive city in an attractive setting. It may, unless we work together, limit the success we can get from Expo.

I was pleased to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that they now support Expo, and they want to see it work. I accept that, and I would recommend that to every British Columbian.

There is another area out of the throne speech and out of the debate where I think we should work together. That is not in the area of provincial programs, which we can argue and debate within this House. You'll have a fair shot at criticizing those programs from the opposition. Not our budget items — you can criticize those. But there are programs that are part of the federal-provincial partnership which, for their success, will need the support of all members of this House in helping to give support to the 19 members in the government caucus in Ottawa who don't negotiate with us, but compete for limited federal dollars with their Quebec caucus, their Ontario caucus, and the caucuses from the other parts of the country who have greater numbers and have traditionally had success in getting greater allocations for their areas.

One area I would like to mention is the Vancouver Island gas pipeline. It's going to need support from opposition members in this House — not just lip service but active public support that will convince and give ammunition to our British Columbia members in the government and in the opposition in Ottawa. It's going to have to give them the type of support that they will need to let the rest of Canada know — and particularly inside their own caucuses — that all British Columbians want to see this pipeline.

It's very easy for the Quebec caucus or the Ontario caucus to say: "Look, British Columbia is divided." It was an election issue in Nanaimo. Ted Miller, the federal NDP candidate, lost what was considered their safest seat because he opposed the pipeline. But if you're now for it, why don't we get the federal MPs from the New Democratic Party in Ottawa, who are supposed to be representing British Columbia....?

I didn't vote for them, but they're the only representatives I've got, along with the Conservatives on the government side, and maybe they could all speak up for British Columbia for a change rather than playing some silly game that will leave British Columbia with less because some partisan games at the federal and provincial levels suit their purposes greater than showing a unity and commitment together that this would be good for all British Columbians.

I'm prepared to tell the people of the interior that it's good for them for this part of British Columbia to have natural gas. I'm prepared to tell the people of Vernon and Kelowna and Penticton, who already have gas, that this was an old commitment and part of the National Energy Program and they should understand this. Part of that program was to build pipelines to make us less dependent on imported oil. The federal government put a tax on our gas and one of the commitments from the former government under that program, which is a national commitment, is that it would build pipelines in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces and one in British Columbia to connect Vancouver Island.

There was a specific commitment and they have collected hundreds of millions of dollars from our taxpayers. The pipeline was built in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. It was never delivered to British Columbia. I would suppose that in the last government, which had no elected representatives from British Columbia, it was easy for the Quebec members of the government caucus to get that allocation for their area. We had no one — at least no one who was elected from British Columbia — to fight inside government for us.

I want to say that as a British Columbian I had good support with senators, who are not elected but were trying to represent our province. Senator Perrault and Senator Austin did their damnedest. I've always said they were disadvantaged, because while they could publicly try to represent British Columbia in the hard in-fighting of a government caucus, they were not present. They had no voice, so everything went to Quebec in that regard. But the commitment to British Columbia was never met. We kept fighting as a provincial government, and it's still owing.

I know that that government is gone, but because of that commitment we in British Columbia went ahead. We held the public hearings through our own public Utilities Commission. We had different applicants make submissions on the route. The economics were discussed, and before the last federal election, in which the government changed hands, all of this information was made public. The amount of the federal financial contribution was made public. It was after that commitment that the present Prime Minister of this country, on July 5 last year in Lethbridge, Alberta, committed his government to that pipeline. Other members of the government from British Columbia are committed as well, but they need our support. They need our support, as British Columbians, now more than ever to give them clout within Parliament and within their caucus.

I would hope that when the Leader of the Opposition says that they now favour the pipeline, that will include him doing a selling job or raising that commitment to New Democratic Party MPs in Ottawa.

[ Page 5271 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Phone your brother.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, he can phone his brother.

MR. SKELLY: Don't you have a...?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I do. I like your brother.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Anyhow, I would hope that they would get our federal MPs from the opposition on our side giving support for British Columbia to get this important project. We for our part will continue to support those 19 Conservative MPs — three cabinet ministers — to help them in their fight inside their caucus to get this important allocation. It's important that we stand together, and I'm glad the leader of the New Democratic Party in this House is committed to the project.

MR. SKELLY: Conditionally.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[5:15]

HON. MR. BENNETT: You can't be a conditional British Columbian; you've got to be all the way.

Next I would like to talk again about programs that are federally inspired but provincially shared: those under the ERDA program. There have been a lot of questions in this House as to whether this government has an agreement in the forestry sector or in the tourism sector, or in technology or in industrial development, in new processing and manufacturing areas which will broaden our economic base. No, we haven't concluded those agreements yet, but not because there is a failure of the government. First, the programs are under discussion, and I think members of this House may know better than most people the process that governments go through. The ministry develops its priorities. They negotiate and discuss with their federal counterparts. Then, when that is done, it has to go to cabinet — planning and priorities — and finally, to Treasury Board, where final approval is made.

Our federal government is not yet ready to present a budget; they're still in the budget-making process; their Treasury Board process has not been completed. They're talking about a budget for the end of April. Everybody publicly knows that they're still in consultation. They have a major conference of Canadians — labour and business — with their government, dealing with economic initiatives that may be included in their proposals. Therefore I can't speak.... I am not saying it is a failure on their part for them not to have concluded all of the agreements of the package, nor to have put a number on it yet, because I know where they are in the process.

I want to tell this House very clearly that we as a government have concluded our ministerial, our political and our Treasury Board process. It will be contained in tomorrow's budget, and the figure has already been announced. I'm not breaking any confidences. We have passed all of the necessary amounts to meet the forestry agreement, a tourism agreement, a major agricultural agreement, and in the areas of science and technology, mining and industrial development. We have made all those allocations, and we have found the money. I'm hopeful that during the weeks and months ahead, as they come to the hard decisions, the federal government will be able to match our dollars and conclude agreements that have been discussed for many months at the ministerial level.

It would be helpful, though, if rather than try to divide or embarrass the federal government by questions in the federal House and questions in the provincial House to see if there is a difference of opinion, the opposition could for once say that all of those areas are priorities. Forestry is important, but so is agriculture — you can't leave it out; so is tourism; and so is industrial development in its many facets, which must take place across this province. It would help our 19 British Columbia MPs and those three outstanding British Columbia federal cabinet ministers, who are fighting for British Columbia. It's the first time for many years we've had elected representatives inside the government in key positions. It would be nice if they had some support from other British Colombians who've been elected to represent us in Ottawa, even though they're in the opposition. It would be nice if people in this province let them know and gave them support, told them that those programs are necessary to help British Columbia as it goes into a new era of renewal, that they are important to our people. You can't just stand up here and say: "There's more unemployment. There are people walking the streets who want jobs." The solution is to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. When we've only got 19 caucus members in that federal caucus out of.... They've got 57 from Quebec and 67 from Ontario. You've got to know that when it comes to numbers they need a lot of support. British Columbia can't look divided. We're going to need help from the federal representatives down there, who should go down now as British Columbians. There's no election for many years there. They have nothing to gain but good results for our people by playing a responsible, cooperative role. And so I thought that in just these few areas I would try to follow what has been the theme of the throne speech and will be the way in which our province can prosper in the future — that is, that the partnership is not just between governments; it's between legislators. The partnership is not a one-time thing; it is a continuing thing in which there are things that can be done in which partisan politics should not be played.

There is a purpose to this throne speech: it's to develop our economy, attract investment and employ our people. That's why in making these remarks I want to tell the members of this Legislature that the people of British Columbia are tired of quibbling and arguing and tactics. They want solutions. They will not penalize the New Democratic Party for agreeing with the Socreds. They will not penalize you at the ballot box for supporting our good proposals. They won't hurt you at the ballot box for standing up for British Columbia in the House of Commons. They won't penalize your MPs — the few you've got left back there — from becoming British Columbians before they're New Democratic Party members and giving British Columbia a chance for a change in federal allocation.

And so I say that the partnership we want to build in British Columbia can be a positive partnership. This throne speech points the way, the budget provides the fuel, but the people must do the job.

MR. HANSON: The Premier talked about the period of time when we could have been working jointly in this province. When we appealed to him on behalf of all of the

[ Page 5272 ]

people of this province, he turned a deaf ear to the people of this province. He moved punitively on everyone. It wasn't a fair package at all; it wasn't a fair treatment of the people of this province.

When we look at the situation surrounding the young people, the young people who do not have jobs and the thousands of young people who have no prospects of employment with the existing policies of this government, who are looking now for an educational future and for prospects of training and educational upgrading.... And what do they get instead? They get a Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), a minister who has demonstrated his insensitivity to the people of this province by saying that our educational institutions are going to be more elite, that those with the means will be allowed to go to them. That is not what the people of this province want, Mr. Speaker. He was on television last night, with statements attributed to him that the young people of this province.... And may I say, Mr. Speaker, that the facts have been stated very clearly in this House: to our disgrace we have the second-lowest participation rate in post-secondary education of anywhere in Canada. Shame! Newfoundland is the only other province with an equal statistic.

Yet at the same time this Premier is telling us now, on the eve of a new budget, that there's a new era of promise. At the same time his minister is saying to the young people of this province that their future is going to be limited and that fewer people will be allowed to go to post-secondary education in this province. Shame!

There have been many, many proposals put forward in the last few years that could have alleviated the economic downturn within this province. For example, in my own community here of Victoria we had employment surrounding the fishing industry. We asked for plants to remain open, saying that all it would take would be regulatory authority administered and exercised by the provincial government. Did they do it? No, they did not. We lost jobs in our community.

And here we are, the capital of our beautiful province, with 16.5 percent unemployment. And when they had an opportunity to take positive steps that would have done something to alleviate the misery that small businesses are experiencing, by exercising their own authority and having the B.C. Steamship Company have the Marguerite sail on May 3 — when their own staff reports indicated that that was the time they should sail — what did this government do? Nothing but roll it back one week. Now as an afterthought they're going to allow it to sale on May 9.

When the opportunities existed for positive steps to be taken, initiatives that could have benefited our community here — a deaf ear, Mr. Speaker. All we get is the glitter language of the throne speech and various kinds of fixers that come in on the basis of poll results and try to manipulate the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a province in this country that deserves fair election processes, fair democratic processes, it's British Columbia. We are anarchistic in our election processes. You know, the federal legislation has spending limits, and we moved amendments just recently that that level of modern sophistication around elections should be in place. We moved amendments in this House that there should be financial disclosures and spending limits around elections, and they were defeated.

We asked in this last session that the people who are 18 years of age be entitled to vote, as they could in the federal election. They were turned down. On what basis? Probably now our elections legislation in this province is going to be in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it is going to discriminate against the youth who are entitled to vote.

Mr. Speaker, we hear many grandiose suggestions from this first minister. When push comes to shove in this Legislature — when positive proposals are put forward for action, whether it's the sailing of the Marguerite to save small business, whether it's the opening of fish plants to save employment in this province, or whether it's amendments to existing legislation to bring our legislation in line with federal authority — it's not done.

The words have a very hollow ring to them. Mr. Speaker, our leader presented an alternate throne speech because it is so direly needed in this province. He suggested harnessing the talent and energy of the people of this province. Mr. Speaker, our alternate throne speech talked about real cooperation — not buzzwords developed by pollsters — talked about trusting the people of this province, opening up and asking them in an authentic way with authentic process for their ideas and their confidence, to provide stability in this province.

Mr. Speaker, we hear about opportunities in the future, and yet the apprenticeship programs are curtailed. Real job training for young people is curtailed. Bursaries and loans for students are curtailed or eliminated. We have less investment in our young people, in our future, than any province in this country.

[5:30]

Mr. Speaker, other members on this side of the House have pointed out that the real economic strengths of this province have been ignored at the expense of glitter programs to ingratiate yourself to a margin of the electorate to try to ensure your victory.

Where is forestry in this province, Mr. Speaker? This government has been in power for almost ten years, and here we are with a backlog of unregenerated forest lands of something in the order of 650,000 hectares. That's a travesty, Mr. Speaker. When people in the various regions of this province can be put usefully to work in silvicultural activities, this government has turned a blind eye and looked at the glitter golf balls instead. When they've had the opportunity to take action and restore our strongest and most important industry, they have not done it. Mr. Speaker, they had the opportunity to increase our nursery capacity, to provide seedlings that are required, to do the thinning and spacing and fertilizing and all the other aspects to make sure our children have a forest as a basic resource. But this government mines our forests. In their view it is a sunset industry. To the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, the forest industry is the future of our province.

They've adopted this same approach with our fisheries. They've been totally ineffectual in dealing with the federal authorities to make sure we have a good, strong, viable fishing industry in this province — programs that they could have carried out provincially in stream enhancement, all the nursery programs and other kinds of stock enhancement that they could have done. They've ignored it in favour of the glitter golf balls in the middle of the parks. When they've had chances to take beneficial measures that would help our small businesses, they really have turned a blind eye.

They always adopt the blinkered, narrow approach of the balance sheet. They look at every balance sheet separately,

[ Page 5273 ]

and they're incapable of looking at an integrated approach. Let's just take again, for example, the question of the Marguerite. Because the fuel costs and operating costs may exceed the actual fare-box return for the Marguerite, they were unwilling to see that the.... The million-dollar expenditure that would be made, through sales tax and other kinds of investment in the province — purchases and so on — would more than offset the fuel costs, the wages and so on of the Marguerite. But they couldn't see that, and that's the way they operate: in the narrowest possible balance-sheet, blinkered, economic way, and it's a disaster. It's a total disaster.

This government has been an economic failure. They've mismanaged our economy in a totally and completely inept way.

Let me just talk briefly about the B. C. Ferry Corporation. The B.C. Ferry Corporation, which is the lifeline between one region of our province and another, has been penalized with punitive ferry rates which have hurt and bankrupted small businesses on Vancouver Island. The government could have adopted some relief for commercial traffic on the B.C. ferry system, which would have kept many small businesses alive.

Just to pick up on a comment made by the Premier, he talked about the gas pipeline. In this House we all want decent and fair energy prices for all the people of this province. If the lead time on a gas pipeline is some years in the future, then give relief to the people on this Island who need that relief. Stop playing political games constantly with the real....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, hon. members. The first member for Victoria has the floor and should be afforded every courtesy in being able to put forth his position.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, it's been pointed out by our leader that there is a solution available now for the energy requirements of the people of Vancouver Island — prior to the construction of the pipeline. That proposal goes as follows. We have a surplus of electrical power within this province because of overbuilding.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's spilling over the dams.

MR. HANSON: Water spilling over the dam, and there's power being exported into the United States cheaper than the citizens of this province have it available to them. If this government wanted to make good on its proposals, it would make electrical power available to the people of Vancouver Island at the same price that it's available to the people on the mainland now. In this region many people bum synthetic fuel air butane or air propane — and pay 3.5 times for an equivalent heat value than is paid on the mainland.

There are many small businesses in this region that have gone bankrupt because of energy costs — restaurants, laundromats, buildings, and so on. The energy bills in this region are usurious. In my short time in this House — six years — Robert Bonner, the former chairman of B.C. Hydro, constantly requested additional borrowing authority. In every single budget there was a miscellaneous statutes bill which asked for an increase of $500 million or $1 million or $1.5 million in borrowing authority to B.C. Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: Billion.

MR. HANSON: Billion, sorry — $500 million or $1 billion or $1.5 billion. Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the borrowing authority is something in the order of $9.5 billion to $10 billion — the indebtedness of B.C. Hydro.

It was pointed out by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) that the added interest charges on B.C. Hydro, just as a result of the devalued Canadian dollar, is something in the order of $50 million, and we're paying for that because of the inadequate projections done by B.C. Hydro and the foolhardy borrowing that was conducted while the chairman of B.C. Hydro was speculating in land and not paying attention to the proper administration of B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, what could be done immediately would be to provide off-oil subsidies and off-oil mechanisms for the people on Vancouver Island. Give them electricity, give them access to gas, whether it's shipped in at the same price, and let the small businesses and the residents thrive on Vancouver Island.

Mr. Speaker, it's been said many times on this side of the House that the government does not trust the people of this province. It does not draw on the skills and the initiative and the enterprise and the willingness of the people to really put their minds to work to build this province as the beautiful and resource-rich province it is. Our biggest problem is Social Credit government. That is our problem.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Get out of the way.

MR. HANSON: That's right, Mr. Member: if we have these people out of the way, this province will flourish and thrive, because we have everything in the world going for us. We were blessed with an abundance of resources in fibre, and we will restore those forest lands after we form the government after the next election.

We will properly invest in our educational system so that rather than education being seen as a balance sheet in the blinkered narrow way that they view everything else, we'll see education as an investment in our future, an investment in our children's opportunity to create abundance and added wealth in our province. That is our objective.

We put forward an alternative economic strategy that was to lay out the basic goals and objectives: to re-establish trust between the people of this province and the people's government. We know we can do it based on cooperation and consultation.

It's not good enough for a government to pummel and pound and bash the people of the province for years, and then ask in the home stretch before a provincial election, which may come as early as this fall or next spring, to then ask for consultation and extend an olive branch after you've got your foot on the throat of the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, they are too intelligent and too sophisticated to buy this any more. You can come in again with another bill and add another 20 seats, even in North Peace River, or wherever you want to do it, and we'll still throw you out of power.

Every time the Member of Parliament from Kamloops is mentioned in this House, immediately the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) comes running in with his shirttails like this, and says: "I don't know what you said, but I want to correct any suggestion that the member of Parliament is the best that Kamloops has ever had." He certainly is.

[ Page 5274 ]

When you look around and see that Minister of Tourism, you're really looking at an apparition in a time warp who is going to vaporize after the next election. We'll see two New Democrats sitting on that side of the House, right where that Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is sitting, because he's going to be vaporized as well. That Minister of Intergovernmental Relations cries himself to sleep every night. When he wakes up his pillow is soaking wet because he sees the abolition of the Senate just when he was on the home stretch.

I'm sure he'll be supporting any motion to abolish the Senate; it's certainly something that's near and dear to the heart of our party.

In concluding my remarks, I want to say that the real hope for British Columbia.... It's recognized in the hearts of the people of this province more and more every day that the hope for a future based on sanity and stability, on rational decision-making and a process that will utilize the abundance that we are blessed with, rests with the New Democratic Party and not the Social Credit government. It's ironic that even with the enormous debt we're encumbered with, with B.C. Hydro and other Crown agencies, and the monthly borrowing that goes on to pay operating costs by the provincial government through its bond issues and so on, British Columbia has been able to withstand that situation. It's a tragedy; if the money had been properly planned, if the Minister for Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) hadn't spent $100,000 on that tunnel study between Vancouver Island and the mainland, if the other hundreds of thousands of dollars that were used to gussy up the liquor stores and put in B.C. Spirit clocks, and mirrors on the ceilings, all of these frivolous and silly things....

HON. MR. GARDOM: What liquor store is that?

MR. HANSON: There's one in Oak Bay with mirrors on the ceilings, sculptures and marble.

If the government hadn't been totally preoccupied with shovelling the important and valuable tax dollars of our province into capital sink holes, without any proper planning and discussion with the public, without any proper disclosure of cost-benefit studies, without any proper discussion and participation of the public, then we could have utilized the enormous wealth that has been wasted, and could have really withstood this recession in a far more effective way than anywhere else in this country would have been able to do it. Our sights are on the future. Our party is starting a dialogue now with the people of this province, because we're asking for their assistance — not phony buzzword partnerships, but real ongoing relationships based on mutual respect and trust.

[5:45]

I thank you for listening so attentively to my remarks. I want to say to the young people of this province: "Come with us; your future is with us."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the time under standing orders.... It is now appropriate to call the question, the question being that we, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS —19

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) advised the Chair prior to the afternoon sitting that he intended to raise a matter of urgent public importance under standing order 35, and I commend him for observing the courtesy implicit in practice recommendation No. 8 of our standing orders.

The guidelines governing motions under standing order 35 are well known to this House and are stated in Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 17th edition, at page 364: "What is contemplated is the occurrence of some sudden emergency." It is the Chair's opinion that a remark attributed to a minister of the Crown from an unknown origin can hardly qualify as a definite matter of urgent public importance within the specific words or indeed the spirit of standing order 35. I observe that standing order 35 has been significantly amended under the new rules, presumably to encourage the Chair to exercise some latitude in deciding whether tendered statements are in order. However, in this instance the statement submitted by the hon. member for Skeena is so clearly outside the scope of standing order 35 that the Chair can be of little assistance to him. Accordingly, as stated above, it is the opinion of the Chair that the statement as submitted does not even remotely satisfy rules relating to motions for adjournment on a matter of urgent public importance.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, before moving adjournment, I'd like to announce to the House an understanding we have reached, namely that there will not be a question period tomorrow, and secondly that on this particular Friday — the day after tomorrow — the private members' statements will not be called.

[ Page 5275 ]

Mr. Speaker, I move the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 o'clock tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On the motion, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: I would take the opportunity to confirm that this subject matter raised by the government House Leader had been discussed earlier and that it's perfectly agreeable.

Motion approved,

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.