[ Page 5817 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

B.C. a nuclear weapons free zone. Mr. Macdonald –– 5817

Cottle Hill transmission tower. Mrs. Wallace –– 5818

Northeast coal. Mr. Williams –– 5818

Tabling Documents –– 5819

Private Members' Statements

Belcarra Park highway. Mr. Rose –– 5820

Hon. A. Fraser

Canadian disarmament. Mr. Stupich –– 5821

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Cocke

Immigration. Mr. Davis –– 5822

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Barnes

Peace march. Mrs. Dailly –– 5824

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Davis

Legislative Assembly Allowances And Pension Amendment Act –– 1985 (Bill 26). Committee stage

On Section I –– 5826

Mr. Cocke

Mr. R. Fraser

Division

On section 3 –– 5827

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Lea

Division

Third reading –– 5828

Ministry Of International Trade And Investment Act (Bill 20). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 5829

Mr. Williams –– 5829

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 5833

Appendix –– 5834

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am greatly honoured today to share with all hon. members a unique experience in our British Columbia history. For the first time ever seated together on the floor of this Legislature are four previous Speakers of our Legislative Assembly, going back some 27 years. Seated on the floor of the House are Lorne Hugh Shantz, Speaker of this House from 1958 to 1963; William Harvey Murray, Speaker from 1964 to 1972; Gordon Hudson Dowding, Speaker from 1972 to 1975; and Dean Edward Smith, Speaker from 1976 to 1978.

It was my pleasure last evening to host a small reception in honour of the contribution these men have made to the parliamentary process in British Columbia, at which time a commemorative ring was presented to each of our former Speakers.

Would members please join in giving our distinguished guests a warm, genuine and well-deserved welcome.

HON. MR. McGEER: I see that only two members rose here following your introduction of these distinguished former members of the House, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and myself, who are the only two members of the House who have served under all of these four Speakers and two others. I can tell you that they never had any difficulty from that member. Oh, they're giggling, Mr. Speaker, if you could credit that.

It's a tremendous honour for our Legislature to be able to recognize in this way the services of those who contribute so much to the traditions and the decorum of our Legislative Assembly. Of all the people who serve here, those who sit in the Chair, as you do, Sir, are the ones who are most charged with the responsibility of maintaining the traditions of the House and seeing that it serves the public in the way the public intends. So it not only brings back many fond and pleasant memories of those who have sat in the chair, but gives us great pleasure to recognize the service that they have given to the people of British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, as the other surviving member who has had the pleasure of sitting under all of the opposite quartet of speakers.... Maybe I should say "gaggle of speakers," because the minister and I are the only two members presently in the House who have been brought short by each and every one of them — in my own case, in spite of the fact of the lifelong study that I've made of May Bourinot's book. [Laughter.] But you know how politics sort of slowly eases out of the scene with the passing years. I look upon the four across as friends and was very pleased to have had a chance very briefly to see them last night.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On the same issue, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask one question: which one of you kept the hat? [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, in our midst this morning is a retiree, and now for a few clues. He first tasted journalism with the University of Victoria. He became editor of the Martlet, and he apprenticed at the Victoria Colonist; thence to the sunny skies of Skaha Lake and eventually to the rarified ozone as city editor of the Penticton Herald. But the lure of the sea and the love of the spud was just too compelling, so this individual returned to Disneyland North to run a fish and chip shop. You know, in retrospect, if he'd only just called it McDonald's! But to make ends meet, Mr. Speaker, he represented five small dailies on the side.

I think a banner year for him was 1977, when our mystery person linked into national wire, joined the Canadian Press and headed to Europe to cover an economic mission, and achieved a lifelong ambition in Paris. He achieved the office of M. le President of la Gallerie de la Presse. He survived four elections and yet is still finding the time to broadcast weekly en français.

Today he's signing off — "CLV, Victoria, have a pleasant evening" — for the last time, because on Monday it's anchors aweigh with B.C. Steamship Company. Whether he intends to hydrofoil or Princess Marguerite it indeed remains to be seen.

But, Mr. Speaker, it's the gallery's loss, it's this assembly's loss and the public's loss. I'd say with every sincerity that every member of this House would thank him for his fairness, for his integrity, for his pleasant demeanour and for his balanced reporting. Au revoir and bonne chance, Charlie LaVertu.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on the same topic — notwithstanding a little problem that Charlie and I had a minute or two ago — we on this side of the House do feel that Charles has served this Legislative Assembly very well, and we certainly wish him every good fortune. This is the second time we've done it; Charlie, let's not have to do it again. In any event, best of good luck, and we on this side share the government's view.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it's a bit of a rare occasion, today being a Friday and our Deputy Clerk is at his place. That in itself is not a rare occasion, but I'd like to recognize his long-suffering spouse, Louise, who is in the gallery.

[10:15]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, several people who have come to British Columbia and then gone away in difficult circumstances have chosen to come back again. In the gallery today are two executives of Conoco Canada Ltd.: Mr. Simmons, the president and managing director, and Mr. McKitterick, vice-president of exploration. As a result of changes in government policy, Conoco Canada has decided to come back to British Columbia.

Oral Questions

B.C. A NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE ZONE

MR. MACDONALD: In view of the fact that tomorrow, April 27, is Peace Day and that most members will be marching — it’s a matter of great moment — will the government House Leader consider calling Bill M203, which is a private member's bill to make B.C. a nuclear weapons free zone, for debate today?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair at this time would have to indicate that such a question placed at question period generally exceeds the scope of question period. I think

[ Page 5818 ]

the member is well aware of that. Therefore the question is out of order.

COTTLE HILL TRANSMISSION TOWER

MRS. WALLACE: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, responsible for B.C. Hydro. There is a hill just behind Nanaimo known as Cottle Hill, which houses transmitters and communications equipment for various groups, including B.C. Hydro. I wonder if the minister can tell me whether or not he is aware of the transmitter that has recently been installed on Cottle Hill by the U.S. Navy.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I mustered out from the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1964, and that's the last I had to do with the military. I'm afraid I don't know anything about it. I'll find out for you if you like.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is taken as notice.

MRS. WALLACE: Then I might try the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. Cottle Hill is partially owned by B.C. Tel, and they have communications equipment on Cottle Hill. I wonder if the minister is aware of a transmitter recently installed on Cottle Hill by the U.S. Navy.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker. That doesn't mean to say that it isn't there.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'll try the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, seeing that this involves the United States. I might advise him that there is such a transmitter installed by the U.S. Navy on Cottle Hill for the purpose of transmitting to nuclear subs in our waters. Is the minister aware of this, and if so, has he taken any steps in this regard?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I don't know.

MRS. WALLACE: A very facetious answer, Mr. Speaker. The agreement allowing.... Mr. Speaker, it's interesting how facetious the government benches seem to think this question is.

The agreement which allows those nuclear subs to come into Nanoose expires in June of next year. Has the minister notified the federal government that British Columbians do not wish that agreement renewed?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, to whom was the question directed?

MRS. WALLACE: To the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. Has he notified the federal government that British Columbians do not want that agreement renewed?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Madam Member, I think you'd better address yourself to my last response.

MRS. WALLACE: Is the minister aware that if that nuclear sub base were converted to peaceful purposes, for every dollar spent on military funds...? You can create 25 percent more jobs in construction and nearly 2½ times more jobs if you spend the money on education. Is the minister aware of that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I am not aware of that, nor am I aware of the correctness of your premise.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of International Trade and Investment. This week in the Financial Post, which I am sure the minister reads assiduously, a director of British Columbia Resources Investment Corp. said: "As a result of northeast coal we've had three price cuts and two volume cuts from the Japanese." Is the minister aware of this statement, and does it cause the minister to reflect on the quality of contracts with the Japanese, and the matter of excess coal supply relative to demand and how this has hurt the industry in British Columbia?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I have not seen the remarks made by the president and chief executive officer of BCRIC.

AN HON. MEMBER: The director.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The director.

However, I would like to think, and I am of the opinion, that the high prices in the contract for northeast coal helped to bring up the prices for the coal in the southeast. Indeed there have been and are almost on a monthly basis additional contracts being signed for the coal producers in the southeast. Last year we shipped some eight million more tonnes of coal out of British Columbia than we did before, and I anticipate that in the very near future we will be shipping additional tonnes of coal out of British Columbia as the market grows, providing that we are looked on as having a stable government in British Columbia.

The policies of the opposition, should they ever become the government of British Columbia, would change the policies so that we wouldn't be a reliable supplier. The greatest threat to the economy of British Columbia and the coal sales today happens to be those members of the opposition, who are sitting over there and undermining our efforts in the international marketplace to bring stability to the province of British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's pretty clear where the stables were yesterday, Mr. Minister.

With respect to the question, the director of British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation — if the minister is listening — said, in fact, that they have had three price cuts, not increases, and two volume cuts from the Japanese. Doesn't that make the minister reconsider his previous naivety in terms of dealing with the Japanese, when he said: "Six inches of contracts are firm and can never be changed. Prices can never be changed. Volumes won't be changed"? Doesn't he have some kind of reason to reflect on the decisions the government has made in the last couple of years?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the naivety on behalf of anybody in this Legislature rests on the other side, who completely misunderstand the international marketplace; they always did and they always will.

[ Page 5819 ]

As I have said, the province of British Columbia and this government do not control the international price of commodities; they don't control the price of two-by-fours; they don't control the international price of copper; they don't control the international price of pulp; and they don't control the international price of coal. If there have been any price reductions in coal, it's been due....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, shut up and listen, will you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're always yapping over there.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, clearly when the scope of question period goes well beyond what was intended and we begin to enter into debate, we then lose all value and intent for that question period. I would commend that both the questioner and the responder bear the rules in mind that guide us during this specific period.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I was saying, British Columbia does not control the international price of commodities; they haven't in the past and I doubt if they will in the future. The sooner we realize that people are no longer beating a path to our door to buy our resources, that we have to be competitive, and we have to be looked on as a reliable supplier, the sooner we'll get on with the job of building the economy of British Columbia and the sooner we'll put our people to work. That's what the whole policy of this government is for, and that's what the opposition are trying to undermine. They're doing a pretty good job of it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, Denison Mines Ltd., the major owner in Quintette Coal Ltd., this week announced that it has no further financial obligations with respect to northeast coal and Quintette; that in fact it could abandon the operation. There have been secret meetings in Toronto between representatives of the 56 banks — the consortium that provided the lending funds with respect to Quintette Coal Ltd. Can the minister advise whether he has had any consultation with the representatives of Monenco, the consultants for the banking consortium, or the other parties involved?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's question is no, but I'm quite prepared to listen to Stephen Roman, the chairman and chief executive officer of Denison Mines Ltd., which is a truly Canadian company with operations in many other countries in the world. He says that the Quintette operation and Denison's exposure in the Quintette operation will continue and will be a success. A lot of the doomsdayers, like the member opposite, who are going around badmouthing the project will be eating crow, and I'll take his word for it and not yours.

MR. WILLIAMS: I have another question, Mr. Speaker. Because senior ecologists within this administration were not listened to, and, in fact,the hole is in the wrong place with respect to the Quintette mine, it is now clear that an additional $300 million in funding will be required to relocate the hole. Can the minister advise us whether there has been any consultation in terms of additional money from the provincial government for this project that has already cost $3 billion?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, that's socialist arithmetic. The figures that I have heard for relocating the mine, if it is necessary — and as I have told this House before, the government didn't tell Quintette Coal or the Japanese steel industry or anybody else where to put that hole.... As I've said. the bankers involved before the project went ahead certainly hired a consulting firm and everybody went over the plans, and this sometimes happens.

The figure I am given to understand is somewhere in the vicinity of $100 million. If the private sector and the banks have to come together and put up the additional funds, that's a private sector to private sector operation, as I have told the member opposite, and certainly has nothing to do with the provincial government. We won't be putting any more money into the relocation of the mine.

But I do want to advise the House, so that all the negativism that seems to be centering around this.... The main investment in the Quintette mine, which is in the silos, in the coal screening and cleaning operation and indeed in the drying operation, is quite capable of processing approximately 30 percent more than the contract, and it's in good shape. It's merely at the mine itself that there is some difficulty, and I understand a number of people are looking at that. I would hope that the banking system, because interest rates have come down since the project was put together, would come to the party.

[10:30]

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the minister aware of quotes that I've seen on some Japanese telexes that it has been the equivalent of mining dirt, so the relocation clearly is necessary?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, there again we have more facetiousness on the part of that member. I certainly have never seen any telexes that talked about the things he's talking about.

I say again, the problems at the mine are private sector problems. The project is continuing, and the Japanese have advised us and are standing by their commitment. So I would think that we would be better advised in this Legislature to start talking about some positive things, and stop undermining our image in the international marketplace, because it certainly doesn't help those in the private sector who are out there trying to sell their goods and services.

Hon. Mr. Pelton tabled answers to two questions on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the annual report under the Trade Practice Act for the fiscal year 1984.

[ Page 5820 ]

Private Members' Statements

BELCARRA PARK HIGHWAY

MR. ROSE: I'll probably tread water for a minute or two while everybody makes a graceful exit. That usually happens when I stand up to speak, but I understand that I only have....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Gone back to Golden to get some more snow. I almost adjusted my set when I saw him.

Mr. Speaker, my statement today has to do with a very local matter. It has to do with a highways project in the very beautiful part of my riding called Belcarra Regional Park, which is the largest regional park in.... It's part of the GVRD. For those of you who don't know where it is, it's really on the eastern shores of Indian Arm, or just opposite Deep Cove. It's extremely beautiful. It's a picturesque marine and land park, and it's also, though, the home of the village of Belcarra, in which a number of people reside. I'm not certain of the precise population, but it was enough to allow this government to allow for the formation of the village status about five years ago. In anticipation of that, there were some highway funds allotted by the government to upgrade Bedwell Bay road. That grant was gratefully appreciated, but that is now at an end.

The representation that I'm making on behalf of the residents of the village of Belcarra is that they would like their Bedwell Bay road to be declared a secondary highway. The reason that they want it declared a secondary highway is that by changing its title it would then qualify for continued provincial government assistance — approximately 50 percent in capital development and about 40 percent provincial for the sharing.

The classification is everything here, just as the classification of our new riding boundaries is everything in determining whether you get one or two members, which doesn't really have much to do with geography or population — but that is another story.

They have been turned down on previous requests for a classification on the grounds that the highway really doesn't go anywhere. It merely dead-ends at Belcarra Park, and that is the main reason for the turndown. However, the argument against that is that Belcarra Park attracts approximately 100,000 visitors each year, who are really of no benefit to the residents of Belcarra but put a severe strain on the road network within that community. They maintain that they are too small a community to keep up their share of an investment which is really not theirs since there is no gain to them, there being no commerce in the area. They feel justified by the fact that some 100,000 people or 30 percent of the traffic over the year is generated not by the villagers themselves but by a lengthy list of visitors who attend that very popular resort area each summer. I have here a list of some of the groups that have used it over the last year, and it's immense. The RCMP sends people there; the Power Squadron had groups of 50 and 60; Evergreen Girl Guides 150; Lofgren family picnic.... I've got a list here that runs about two pages. So I think it can be documented quite readily how much traffic is generated not by the villagers themselves but by groups visiting that very popular park.

That's the counterargument to the fact that it can't be declared a secondary highway because it doesn't go anywhere. This is the representation made on behalf of the village of Belcarra. They say: "Well, look, this isn't going to be a major amount, but it's probably a little too heavy for some of the residents." I readily admit that there are some pretty highly assessed homes in that area, too. I can probably be convinced as well that whether they should qualify for a village or be part of another one is another question. But it's not for us to debate that at this time, because that matter was settled some years ago.

Mr. Speaker, to give you an idea of the cost associated with the projects, the village hired Associated Engineering, and they came up with a capital cost of something like $136,000 to upgrade the road. A 50 percent share in that would be $68,000 with the province, and if you amortize that over 10 years it would be approximately $7,000 a year. The maintenance is $25,000 a year estimated, and the province's share would be roughly $10,000. So what we're talking about here is a total project costing the province perhaps $15,000 to $20,000 — let's say $17,000 a year. So I don't think it's a great one. But borne locally on a very limited tax base among relatively few taxpayers it's a pretty hefty burden.

Mayor Drew and the planning consultant with Associated Engineering would like approval for this project, Mr. Minister, but if you're not able to give us that assurance today for one reason or another, then we certainly request an early meeting with you to discuss it in greater detail.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's bringing this subject up. As the member says, we've had discussions and letters about this.... I guess we'd call it an aggravating problem for a small community. I'd like to inform the House that rightly or wrongly, they were incorporated as a village on August 22, 1979. Their 1981 population was 430, and the 1983 municipal estimate of population was 450. The length of the road we're talking about here is seven kilometres; that statistic is taken from municipal statistics of 1983.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

When the village was incorporated, the government, through our ministry, entered into a sharing arrangement for upgrading and maintenance, which is government policy for all municipalities that are newly incorporated or the extension of boundaries and so on. There is a formula in place. For the information of the member, we started on that agreement in 1979-80. On maintenance in the '79-80 year we spent $17,560; in 1980, $36,000; in 1981, $36,000; in 1982, $36,000; in 1983, $36,000; in 1984, $18,440; for a total of $180,000. On the capital side under the agreement, in 1980 we spent $19,415; in 1981, $60,585; 1982, $40,000; 1983, $37,860; 1984, $37,525; and 1985, $4,615. This is a total of $200,000, and a grand total, as you can see, of $380,000. So it isn't a case of us forgetting them. The problem, as the member pointed out, is that the agreement has come to an end, and this small community finds it costly.

I'd just like to make the observation that it's my understanding it is the regional park that attracts this traffic. I'm not sure whether Belcarra is a member of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, but I assume they are. I have written to them and said that in view of the fact that it is a regional park,

[ Page 5821 ]

maybe they can get some financial assistance from that source.

The problem we have is policy. Because of traffic counts, it doesn't qualify to be upgraded to a secondary road. In other words, what I'm saying is that if we did declare this a secondary road in a municipality, then of course we'd probably have 150 requests for the same thing.

I understand that the member said they've had consultants. I don't want to take a negative position on it. I would suggest that they have those consultants get in touch with our senior engineers. Usually when the senior engineers in our ministry get a consultant's report, the first thing they do is drop the consultant's estimates in half right off the bat to achieve the same thing. In other words, there might be a lot of things in the consultant's report that are not necessary, but you can achieve the same results.

So I would start off with the offer that the member have the consultants contact our people — if you want to use my office, that's fine — to see what the consultants are recommending to that village. Our senior people can have a look at it, and we'll take it from there. Up until this present time, I think we've been quite fair with the community.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to indicate that the village and the residents therein are not grateful for the efforts and the money that's been invested in this village. That's not the point at all. The point in terms of traffic counts is that if they're spread over the whole year, they perhaps don't amount to large enough numbers, but it's the intensity of traffic between June and August that is a very serious problem.

The fact is that much of that road is highly mountainous, tortuous, twisty and narrow. Because of all those combined things, it is a fairly costly thing to maintain. They want shoulders and ditches, and all that kind of normal road maintenance.

The minister is very encouraging when he says that a consultant's report is probably overblown by at least twice. Then we're not even asking for as much as we thought we were. So I would think that we're not asking the minister for $17,000 at all; maybe we're only asking for a piddling little $10,000 a year. I'm quite sure he could find that; he's got all kinds of highway money for Coquihalla and all the rest of it — and bridges and that sort of thing. I do appreciate his offer for the mayor and engineers to contact his senior engineers. They'll be contacting your office, if not concurrently, at least subsequently — within the next month or two.

[10:45]

CANADIAN DISARMAMENT

MR. STUPICH: Tomorrow, some millions of people all over the world will be participating in peace marches, and I wish them well. They've been doing this for several years; it's an annual event. But in the meantime we go on spending for war. It has been estimated that the money required to provide adequate food, water, education, health and housing for everyone in the world would be $17 billion a year — the amount that the world is spending on the arms race in less than two weeks.

There's a quotation from a paper to the effect that when President Reagan took office the United States was spending $18 million an hour on defence. By 1988, if the president has his way with his programs, the U.S. will be spending $44 million an hour on defence.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not a pacifist. I served in the Air Force for five years, and by the time I joined the Air Force that was the only answer; we had to go to war then. The mistakes had been made prior to that. Nevertheless, I was at that time, still am, and have been ever since a high-school teacher of mine won a prize for writing a letter on the subject, a strong supporter of unilateral Canadian disarmament, without any strings at all, without any conditions — total abandonment of our spending on national defence. Canada is one of the participants in this $18 billion every two weeks. We're proud of our record.

I have a quotation from the Province just yesterday: "Canada is in the arms business, and its newest product is a success; so successful it ruined a test." A new rocket was tested on an old tramp trawler off Halifax Harbour. "It worked. It blew a hole in the trawler and sunk it almost immediately. And, the test showed, it would have killed everybody aboard." Mr. Speaker, aren't we great? That's our contribution. If we withdrew completely from the arms race, it would make little difference to the total that is being spent by the world.

But I'm not suggesting that we wait for everyone to agree to a disarmament plan. I'm not suggesting that any other single nation in the world can do what we can do. Canada is in a unique position. We are large enough to make a difference. We are large enough that if we put our effort into other works — into trying to serve people's needs rather than trying to destroy people — we would be noticed.

We are a very large nation with large industrial capacity, a nation that is sandwiched between the two strongest nations in the world. Neither one of them will attack us. We are a great no-man's-land: in the event that there is a war between them, they would use us to fight over. We cannot pretend to defend ourselves from either the nation to the north or the nation to the south. We are the one nation in the world that is in the position where we could abandon defence totally — because it's accomplishing nothing for us — and say that we were going to do something different: spend everything that we are currently spending on national defence — so-called national defence — in programs to help needy nations of the world, and invite other nations to join us. But we are not going to wait for that to happen; let's prove to them that it can work. There's no nation as large as Canada that is in the unique position we are in and that can do it — that could dare do it. But we could in Canada. And as I say, we are important enough and big enough that we could make a real difference.

We could pick those countries in the world that are not engaged in wars right now. Every day, people are dying in wars, in spite of the peace march that will take place tomorrow. In spite of all these peace marches, the world is spending all of this money and all of this effort on war, and Canada is developing new weapons of war.

We could really make a name for ourselves in the world community of nations if we said that from here on in Canada is no longer going to participate in the race to see who can destroy each other first, and we are no longer going to participate in this mad arms race in which, if it does result in a nuclear war — which it is almost certain to do if we keep it up — the total species will be destroyed. That may happen. It may happen regardless of what Canada does. It will certainly happen, in all likelihood, if we continue to participate in the arms race. But if only one nation in the world big enough and

[ Page 5822 ]

important enough to make a difference were to say: ''From here on in, we're no longer part of it; from here on in, whatever the rest of the world does, we are going to do everything we can do in Canada to show that there is a way for people to live together rather than to die together."

I urge people to think seriously about the tremendous contribution that Canada, due to its uniqueness, could make to world peace. I wish the peace marchers well, but, Mr. Speaker, it isn't working. It isn't enough. I hope they continue to march. But there is something that Canada can do that no other nation in the world can do with real effect.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on June 11, 1982, this assembly recorded its unanimous views concerning nuclear arms reduction, and there was a motion passed that the assembly recognized the horrors of nuclear war and holocaust and urged all world governments to increase their efforts to end the nuclear arms race and to reduce and finally eliminate all nuclear weaponry.

It was illustrated at that point in time — and it is as true today as it was then — that the people of the world are essentially divided into three camps or some combination of them: those people who are convinced that everyone eventually will be destroyed through the use of nuclear weapons; those who believe that no one would ever be insane enough to initiate a thermonuclear conflict; and finally those who believe that every effort — every effort — has to be expended to end the nuclear arms race and reduce and eventually eliminate all nuclear weaponry.

The statistics are absolutely horrifying. Over 44 nations have what is called the mad technology. Fifty thousand nuclear weapons — I suppose as a minimum — are estimated to be fused and ready in countries of the world. That amounts to about three tonnes of TNT for every man, woman and child. That is madness, and there has to be an end to the proliferation of nuclear arms and an end to nuclear arms. Until all those devices of war are dismantled, there has to be a most carefully and precisely developed and meticulously monitored balance of nuclear power; but most of all, Mr. Speaker, the sabre has to be sheathed as soon as possible and eliminated finally and forever.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say one or two words, and that would be on credibility.

The member for Nanaimo talks about our leadership in the world. As long as we are doing what other nations are doing vis-à-vis armaments and so on, we lose credibility. The very small nation of Switzerland has, throughout my lifetime, shown leadership in this whole area: that is, they will not get involved regardless, and they've been respected for it. We on the other hand could, by virtue of our geographic and economic relationships, show some real leadership in the world by renouncing this madness for ourselves. We could provide that leadership for the rest of the world. I congratulate the member for Nanaimo for his position.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I said I wasn't a pacifist, and I'm not. As a matter of fact, when I saw the amusement generated among the government members by the serious questions put to the government by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), I couldn't help but have a fleeting thought that if there were to be a nuclear explosion, wouldn't it be poetic justice if it were to hit them first. But Mr. Speaker, you and I would be here too. So that won't work.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations told us what we did in 1982. Mr. Speaker, I have to ask you: did anybody notice? Those of us who were here at the time and took part in it realized that it happened, and that was it. We went on to further business that day, and it was forgotten even in this House. The minister had to read it off a piece of paper. He didn't remember it.

Mr. Speaker, there is only one way we can really make an impression upon the world community of nations, and that is to do something different. We're not doing anything different by saying we'd rather be blown up by a Canadian-made rocket, or murdered by the shrapnel that it distributes, than be burned by a nuclear bomb. I suppose if we have to make that choice, I don't know what difference it really makes to the people who are killed.

Mr. Speaker, that's not good enough. If we're going to make any progress, as a nation we have to do something different. B.C. passed that resolution. Has B.C. tried to influence the federal government in any way at all with respect to any of this? That's what I'm asking for. I'm asking the B.C. government to support this idea, to take it to Ottawa and try to convince Canada that there is a different way. None of the other things has worked. All of the efforts to promote peace, to curb the arms race, to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons, have accomplished nothing, because the race goes on faster and faster. It's just not working.

There is one way that could work. We're important enough. We're unique in that we can afford to do it where other nations can't. We are big enough. If we were to renounce completely all spending on national defence and were to spend an equivalent amount of money, it would be great for our economy — better than the arms race — and great for the world. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we could through time persuade other world nations to join with us in a move that would make a real contribution to world peace.

IMMIGRATION

MR. DAVIS: I want to talk briefly on a tender topic: immigration. We are all of us, to one degree or another, immigrants. Less than 5 percent of the population of British Columbia can trace their origin back more than several generations in this province. We live also in a world of increasing mobility. People are able to move around much more readily than they could a few decades ago, indeed a few years ago. When my parents came to western Canada from Europe it took them several weeks. The same journey nowadays takes less than ten hours by jet. It's readily financed today. It called for the savings of a lifetime to make that kind of move 50 years ago.

So people are moving about. They're moving about increasingly. We have in this country — the northern half of this continent — one of the few relatively uninhabited parts of the world remaining on the surface of this globe. We have in Canada, and particularly in this province, habitable areas, areas which, in terms of temperature, climate, resources, certainly cultural and other amenities, are a few of the most attractive spots on earth.

We have a tiny population in this province — less than three million souls. In the world there are more than 4,000 million people. Across the Pacific there are more than 2,000 million people. There are at least 500 people across the

[ Page 5823 ]

Pacific for every one in this province. Most of those people — certainly up to half of them — would move to North America if they had the opportunity, to here, to what is admittedly one of the most desirable places not only in Canada but on the entire earth, to live and to live well.

[11:00]

We're going to see more people here. We're going to see not three million, as we have now, but possibly six million by or shortly after the turn of the century, and a multiple of that by the year 2020. Certainly by 2050 we could have 20 million or 30 million people living in British Columbia, and if current trends continue, the bulk of them will be living in the lower mainland or in certain favoured areas on Vancouver Island.

Assuming the existing lack of policy, we'll have wall-to-wall people throughout the area from the Georgia Strait through to Hope, the mountain people on the agricultural lands of the province crowded in certain areas — I hope not also crowded in certain racial ghettos. But that is a prospect which we must face.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I would argue that this has to be a matter of concern, not just to the government of Canada but to the government of the province of British Columbia. We should have an immigration policy — at least views on immigration — as well as a labour policy. We should have a manpower and immigration policy. We should be concerned with the rate at which people from outside this province, and certainly from outside Canada, arrive here, and try to ensure that there are jobs for most of them and ensure that they don't underbid those who are here, taking jobs from those who, as a result of our educational system, their family background and so on, are not prepared to take some jobs. Through the elimination of base rates of pay and so on, the recent arrival is exploited but nevertheless becomes part of the mosaic which will be the British Columbia of the future.

I'm arguing that we shouldn't leave immigration policy totally to the federal government. We shouldn't leave it to a Prime Minister, Mr. Brian Mulroney, who comes from Baie-Comeau, because immigrants by and large aren't headed for Baie-Comeau in Quebec. People, on balance, are leaving Baie-Comeau. He doesn't experience immigration in his constituency firsthand.

The Minister of Labour in Ottawa, the Hon. Flora MacDonald, comes from Kingston, Ontario. The population of Kingston is declining, if anything, and not rising. Their firsthand experience, especially in many parts of eastern Canada, and I'm talking about parts of Canada outside of the southern extremes of Ontario.... They aren't faced with large numbers of immigrants arriving, the consequent impact on the labour market, the problems of assimilation, the jarring effect of large numbers arriving in few places where there are few enough job openings already.

Under our constitution, Mr. Speaker, the provinces have concurrent jurisdiction. It's spelled out in the British North America Act. While the nation controls immigration, having the absolute veto, a province has a concurrent veto on immigration. Naturally the nation must control it, but the provinces, by and large, are responsible for meeting many of the costs — particularly of education, health and so on — which relate to immigration, rising populations, highly localized unemployment and so on.

Quebec has entered into a formal agreement with the government of Canada. Quebec exerts a veto over immigrants. Quebec has its own immigration officers at Canadian embassies abroad to screen immigrants. I suggest that British Columbia, with its much greater exposure to immigration, in future years should consider doing likewise: having a ministry or at least a portion of a ministry concerned with immigration, to have a plan as to how in the long term we're going to deal with rising numbers of immigrants, and particularly to concern itself with assimilation, employment and so on.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I thought that that was quite a thoughtful statement that the member for North Vancouver-Seymour made. There are, of course, some problems in the whole area of the province becoming involved in immigration. A province on its own has some difficulty, because when a person immigrates, let's say here, conforming to our rules and then can move elsewhere where there are no rules — that is, immigrate into a province where there are no rules and vice versa.... That I see as one of the roadblocks. But it would be, I think. excellent if the federal government would cooperate with all the jurisdictions in the country and at the same time try to populate the areas the member for North Vancouver-Seymour outlined.

In B.C. we have a very sensitive area. We have some areas in the lower mainland that are as densely populated as Holland. Yet we have other areas in the province, possibly now because of lack of amenities and so on, equally hospitable if in fact we could only get things moving in these general directions.

As a government, however, I think that this government has to look at relocating or encouraging relocation of industry and commerce to other areas in the province of British Columbia. To some extent that has been done, but not in a major way. I noted with some glee that the lottery operation was moved to an interior city — Kamloops. Frankly that is a good move. But I think it has to be done to a far larger extent. The area around Prince George, and all of the northwest, is an area that I think could be encouraged to grow. But we can't encourage it to grow unless we have some form of policy.

Governments that say, "Well, we have to keep out of business; we have to keep out of planning because that's just another socialist wedge in the scheme of things," are crazy, in my opinion. I think that the world is so complex today that government must involve itself in the planning of the future of its economy. That's probably the best way that we can go, along with, as the member points out, some kind of policy that will involve all jurisdictions in this country and let us all be partners to the extent that we can be partners with a senior government overlooking that particular area.

I'm glad that there are people who are worried and who are thinking in terms of the future, because there is no question about it, we are a very attractive place — paradise by comparison to much of the world.

MR. BARNES: I really wasn't prepared to participate in this debate. Unfortunately, had I checked the orders of the day I would have had a chance to get some notes. But what I wanted the speaker to address in his closing remarks.... With respect to multiculturalism, the member has in the past made references to the impropriety.... At least, he has not been impressed with the expending of funds for multicultural agencies and societies. In light of the multicultural mosaic in Canada and the trends, as we well know, in British Columbia,

[ Page 5824 ]

where many of our citizens speak English as a second language.... This is a trend that seems to be increasing. I would hope that he would just refer to his statements which have been quoted in the paper, calling the idea of funding multicultural programs the "multicultural mess" — I believe that's the term. Perhaps he could remark on that.

MR. DAVIS: As a free-enterpriser and free-trader, I naturally have some difficulty with the word "planning." But I think governments have an obligation at least to lay out the broad parameters for the long term. At least let us know what the likely projections are and what the consequences would be of certain events occurring. I'm asking for parameters and some long-term projections — something about a very large influx of people to this part of the world over the next few decades.

I'm restive about a program which would direct people once they're in Canada, once they're citizens, to any part of the country. I agree with the charter where it says that Canadians should have full mobility. I have some problems with a prospective bill to direct doctors to different parts of the province. I want people to be as individually free as they possibly can in this country.

The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) asks why I am against government funding of multiculturalism. I am against anything that divides people into categories. I'm against directing them. But I'm very much against funding policies which identify groups for religious, ethnic or background reasons and encourages them to preserve their differences — in fact, pays them to preserve their differences, even maintain historic animosities, and so on. I think that is contrary to the spirit of this country, to a basic attitude which says that each and every one of us should be judged on our own merits, on our own accomplishments and on our own personality, and not on the race we apparently belong to, on our historic background and so on. Government funding of these different religious, ethnic — whatever — groups is at best backward- looking, and certainly divisive. I would like to see us all viewed for ourselves and on our own performance and attitudes, rather than perpetuate those Old World problems, problems we may inherit but should do our best to dispose of. We should have within our country a community which is not characterized by ghettos, by separate groupings easily identified, but is democratic in essence and essentially individualist in outlook.

PEACE MARCH

MRS. DAILLY: Tomorrow, April 27, thousands of Canadians will be walking or marching for peace, and that is why I too have chosen today to talk about walking for peace. Mr. Speaker, I have before me what I consider a rather disconcerting survey that was taken in the lower mainland. It was a poll done on disarmament by United Communications. I don't want to spend my whole time reading you the whole poll, but I want to make a couple of points here and relate it to my remarks coming up.

The question, "Have you ever participated in a peace walk?" was asked — 12.6 percent said yes. "Do you intend to go this year?" — 19.8 percent. "Do you believe that Canada should participate in Star Wars?" — 18.5 percent were strongly in support; 22 percent, somewhat; 18 percent were somewhat opposed: 29.5 percent were strongly opposed; 12 percent were neutral. But it is the next one which I find very discouraging.

[11:15]

"If new jobs were guaranteed for Canadians, should Canada participate in Star Wars?" — 27 percent strongly in support; 23 percent, somewhat; 12 percent were somewhat opposed; 29 percent were strongly opposed; and 8 percent were neutral. So what is this poll telling us? The most significant thing about it is that it uncovered that support for participation in Star Wars increases if there is an assurance of job creation in Canada as a direct result of Canadian participation.

That is why I wanted to devote my next couple of minutes to Star Wars. When we walk for peace tomorrow — and I sincerely hope that all the members of this Legislature will be doing so; after all there is no more important issue facing us in the world today.... When we walk for peace tomorrow, I think it is important to try to get across to the people who are perhaps somewhat neutral about this whole area of taking part in peace walks that it is becoming even more important to march today than ever before. One of the reasons that is so is because of President Reagan's obsession with Star Wars.

Unfortunately most people have not had an opportunity to analyze the Star Wars concept. President Reagan of the United States has very cleverly, and with his usual folksy rhetoric, lulled people in his country — many of them; not all, fortunately — into believing that Star Wars means peace. I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that if Star Wars takes off the way the President wishes it to, we are going to have the opposite.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I want to give you a few points on Star Wars. It was already pointed out by one of our members that the five-year program for research for Star Wars is going to cost $30 billion. That makes me react to the questionnaire which shows that people unemployed today are so desperate for jobs that they're willing to take on and participate in something that can bring about their ultimate destruction. It's a tragedy. The irony of the whole matter is that people are out of work, many of them because of the billions of dollars that are spent on so-called defence, which is ultimately simply going to lead to complete annihilation of all.

Back to the Star Wars. What the president's defence initiative reflects is just a fantasy that nuclear danger can be eliminated through some wonderful new invention. It's purely a mechanistic approach that denies the reality that the world will never be free from nuclear threat until there is some reconciliation of interest, some agreement on coexistence between the nuclear powers. That is the answer, not Star Wars. Star Wars will not be purchasing security for the world and for the American citizens, but it will be purchasing nuclear escalation. By building space-based defences, and thus foreshortening the response times, the United States would be forced to entrust to computers rather than the human mind decisions that could threaten the whole survival of mankind. Star Wars means an increased reliance on computers.

Pursuing Star Wars will turn outer space into a major new battlefield. It will increase the risk of conflict and it will enlarge man's ability to destroy civilization. There's no way that anyone can expect the Russians to sit back and say:

[ Page 5825 ]

"That's it, the ball game is over." They are going to be at risk now by this new initiative and will have to retaliate.

Let me remind everyone here that winning a nuclear war is simply like saying: "Your end of the boat is sinking." The goal of peace can no longer — and I'm going to say this as a politician, Mr. Speaker — be left to politicians. It must become the demand of every citizen in the world. Peace is neither the absence of war nor the presence of a disarmament agreement. Peace is a change of heart. Remember, if we take vengeance on vengeance, vengeance will never end. Remember also that the front line of nuclear war is every person's backyard.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to conclude with a statement which I heard the other day made by a retired Canadian general. I think we must give great credit and credence to the fact that people who have been involved in the military are now coming out and speaking out strongly against nuclear warfare. This retired general said something that I think we should all reflect on. I'm just quoting it as closely as I can. He said: "I am 65 years old, but I want to tell you that my lifespan and the lifespan of a newly born baby are exactly the same if the inevitable march to nuclear warfare is not stopped." I say to everyone: let us therefore march for peace.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Throughout the whole of the world, Mr. Speaker, in every continent, every country, every city, municipality, town, village and hamlet, people must be able to express their views and express their dissent, freely and openly, without fear or without favour. The hon. member across is talking about Ottawa; I'm talking about certain areas of the world where you could be shot for speaking dissent to the government. This is what distresses me. That fundamental right of freedom of expression and lawful opposition and dissent is not practised or permitted in huge areas of the world today.

I call upon the people who live in those areas of the world, and the governments in those areas of the world, to permit that to happen. Peace marches, Mr. Speaker, should certainly not be the private reserve of democratic society. I'd like to say that everyone must — not should, but must — hear the cries of the men, women and children of peace, all of whom demand that entitlement for all of society and all of mankind. That level of dedication and good will has to be attained, because only that kind of a course will ever be able to save the day. I would like to see that dissent, which the opposition that the hon. members in this assembly are talking about and that they have supported unanimously in earlier resolutions in this House, permitted in areas of the world where today it is not permitted.

MR. MACDONALD: I think I have one or two minutes. Following the eloquent remarks of the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), I just want to make one more serious point about Star Wars, in the very brief time that I have.

In 1963 the anti-ballistic treaty was signed, which allowed ballistic defence on a very limited scale among the national capitals of the two powers. That's all. That antiballistic treaty was approved by Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon — and of course by the Russians too — and they did it for the sake of stability. They knew that once you start building up defences, the other side builds up defences, and then both sides begin to build the new offences that will overcome the new defences. The idea that you can catch all the possible nuclear missiles descending on a country was, they realized, ultimately absurd.

Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson; not just these two hon. members who spoke so eloquently. That's what's being destabilized in a furious triggering of an acceleration of the nuclear arms race. This Legislature should be thronged with members, and everybody in British Columbia and in Canada should be taking cognizance of what is being said here.

MR. DAVIS: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) should be congratulated for raising the topic of Star Wars. I'd like her to tell us what really is involved: very few people seem to know. I wonder whether nuclear weapons are directly involved, whether these platforms in space will be firing laser beams, rockets, whatever, that include nuclear warheads. I doubt very much if that's the case, but there was an inference in her statements that that was so.

MRS. DAILLY: I don't think that is the issue. The issue is that this is a false security. That's the point I'm trying to make. It is irrelevant whether nuclear weapons were being used in the defence system. The point is that there is a false security, that a new weapon is being created which is going to forever stop any further warfare. But it will not. All it will do is increase the Russians' insecurity. They will be then forced to go ahead and create more weapons themselves.

I would like to say to that member, who has the kind of mind that would enjoy reading this, that there is an article in Science and Technology — which I'll send across to him — which analyzes Star Wars in detail. I can't give him that here in the short time that I have. It explains, from the economists'.... I'll send it across to him.

I would like to reply to the House Leader, and say that I respect him and his sincerity when he says that he also, as do we in the official opposition, wants peace. But I must say that the kind of statement that he made in response to mine is the very kind of statement that prevents us all from getting together to create peace. When that member stands up here and asks if we can trust the other side — are they able to speak out.... Is he unaware that Russian, American and European scientists — scientists from all over the world, including the communist countries — meet together with the same concerns that we have, and that the physicians meet together? Did he not see a program emanating from Russia in which they were having a debate on nuclear warfare with the citizens of Russia, with American citizens involved — on public television?

HON. MR. GARDOM: How many peace marches will you find there tomorrow?

MRS. DAILLY: You'll find peace marches. The people there are parents; they have children. I agree with him that it's the politicians who may mess up the whole thing — on both sides. But the point is that if you say that, and continue to say that, you are creating an aura of cynicism which we can no longer put up with. I'm saying to all of us: let us stretch out our hands to the people, the citizens, of all countries so that we can all march together.

[11:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. That concludes private members' statements.

[ Page 5826 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 26.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ALLOWANCES
AND PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 26; Mr. Ree in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment on the order paper, which is now in my name.

On the amendment.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, I'm not doing it on behalf of anybody, because then it would be out of order. I have an amendment that is in my name. It's the same amendment that you'll find on the order paper; however, it's now in my name. Mr. Chairman, that amendment is that in lines 3 and 4 "shall be $15 " be struck out and "shall be $1" inserted; and strike out "$30" and insert "$1."

Speaking to this amendment, I have no hostility whatever toward.... I'm not making any value judgment in terms of what's entailed in this bill, or the previous Bill 46. I'm not going to make any value judgments with respect to that, because, as I outlined yesterday in second reading, we should no longer be making these decisions in this assembly — period, amen. The public has no real perception of what's happening here. If they felt that an arm's-length tribunal — again, as I said yesterday, not specific people but positions — should be appointed to oversee legislative allowances, expenses, etc, then at long last the Legislature could get away from the charge: "There they go again." Three years ago there was not one word about us taking a 10 percent decrease. Nobody gave us any criticism on that — or thanks, or anything else. A capital city allowance comes along, which depends on...whether we're on Bill 46 or 26, and all hell breaks loose. It's time for an independent tribunal. We've called for it before; we're calling for it again. That is the implicit reason for this amendment. So we are just saying, let's get rid of it as an obligation of this assembly and give that obligation to an outside tribunal.

MR. R. FRASER: Speaking against the amendment, I would suggest that there isn't a member in the House or a member of the general public who wouldn't rather have more instead of less. I would also suggest that the money that is earned here by the MLAs is not overly undue. In fact, it is not undue; it is completely due. I do not feel that we are overpaid at all. In fact, as a new member to the assembly from 1983, I have been astonished at how much it actually costs one to be an MLA when you travel around the community, going from one function to another. It really is incredible.

I happen to believe that using a tribunal is a smokescreen, unless you are going to transmit to that tribunal absolute power of authority, and take none for yourself. If you put together a totally blue-chip committee to come down with suggestions for either increases or decreases and then have to make the decision yourself, you might as well just make it for starters and get it over with and face up to the fact that you have to make the decision and take credit or otherwise for the decisions that you have made. So I would vote against the amendment so far. I believe that every cent we make is earned, and more would not be a problem for me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, hon. members, the last two speakers were not directly relevant to the section in committee. When dealing section by section, comments should be relevant to the appropriate section. The Chair from time to time allows certain leeway at the opening for members to develop their comments, but when they rise they should be cognizant of the section under debate.

MR. COCKE: I'm not going to speak any more about the tribunal. I talked about it yesterday; if the member wants to read the Blues, I suggested that we give them absolute authority. But aside from that, this does not call for more; it calls for less. The member somehow or another is begging the question when he suggests that a reduction from 15 to 1 is more; it's less.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Essentially what this section addresses is the capital city allowance. It's one which addresses or reduces the allocation for the capital city allowance provided under Bill 46. The amendment that is put forward further reduces the capital city allowance contained in this bill. I have some difficulty in accepting the opposition's amendment on this particular section, and I have some difficulty understanding their position on this issue, because they voted for Bill 46. After it had been reviewed by the compensation stabilization chairman, it has been reduced, and it reflects what he considers as an appropriate capital city allowance. Mr. Speaker, I just can't understand why Bill 46 would be supported and then an amendment would come in on Bill 26.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

NAYS 21

Section 1 approved on division.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The division we just had on a proposed amendment leaves me bewildered. This is an amendment that's been proposed from the floor, and attempts to.... No, this is a different one. Sorry.

[11:45]

Section 2 approved on division.

[ Page 5827 ]

On section 3.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I submit an amendment to section 3 (a), which is to strike out $2,000 on line one and insert $1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

Amendment negatived on division.

MR. COCKE: I amend section 3 (b) by striking out $1,500 and inserting $1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Once again, I am bewildered by the opposition's position on this proposed amendment. Is their position because they can't get all of what was under Bill 46? Is that why they are prepared to reduce it to $1 ?

MR. COCKE: I outlined our position very clearly yesterday, and I outlined our position again today. An independent commission is the only way we can take this whole mess outside of the Legislative Assembly. If the government doesn't recognize that, then they have overlooked what has been going on in this province for a long time. Mr. Chairman, it's justified, and it should be reduced until such time as the independent tribunal have an opportunity to take a look at what's going on here. The minister really knows that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm surprised that the opposition have taken such radically different positions. First of all, they are bringing into question the ability of one of their own members to make a recommendation after he sat on a committee of this Legislature. They are also suggesting that in fact an independent commission would be better. That committee made a recommendation. However, during these times in this province we've had a compensation stabilization commissioner who has tried to deal equally and fairly in rates of compensation increase for all those who are paid by the public. Even though the capital city allowance deals with costs, it also is calculated as compensation. Therefore any compensation changes in the Legislature quite properly should have been subject to the review. The extent of the amendments, of course, follow the recommendations from the commissioner, Mr. Peck. I find it inconsistent that when I saw reports in the media of members of the New Democratic Party saying they wanted and were justified to have all of the raise.... Now, in what appears to be just a political tactic, they say if they can't have it all, they'd only want a dollar.

I think there's been a rational approach to this going through the CSP. It has been equitable, it is fair, and it's understood by the public. Therefore I quite frankly am having great difficulty in watching what is just a foolish political tactic of the NDP, who already have looked extremely bad on this issue. I don't think it will regain you any political credibility; it will take away what shred of credibility you have left. It will take away the last vestiges of credibility that you may have. Quite frankly, you've looked very bad on this issue, and today you're looking worse.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, this legislation, when it was first passed. received the unanimous support of this House. Was there a member of this House, the first time we took a vote, who voted against something they believed in, or did they vote for something that they thought was proper and fair? If they voted for something that they thought was wrong, then they have no business being in this House. I voted for it because I believe it was justified, and I'm now not going to go around this province snivelling and saying: "Oh, I've changed my mind." We voted for this bill the first time unanimously, saying that we thought it was justified that the raises and the positions be put in place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. At the moment, Mr. Member, we are really talking amounts, and debate should be relevant to that. We're dealing with the amendment, not the overall bill.

MR. LEA: That's right, Mr. Chairman. I will say something about this particular one, and I want to echo some thoughts by the member for North Vancouver- Seymour (Mr. Davis).

I wish I'd had more time to think before I voted, or maybe I should have thought more before I voted. It's not the amount of money; it's the positions themselves. Part of the livelihood of everybody in this Legislature at the moment, with the exception of one back-bencher, is dependent upon the whim of government. That takes away from the independence of private members of this Legislature. I agree with the member for North Vancouver- Seymour that from a democratic point of view we are treading on dangerous ground. I believe that. I wish I could go back and take back my vote — not on the amount of money, but on the positions themselves.

I think it is dangerous, Mr. Chairman, that with the exception of one government back-bencher, part of members' income is reliant on government. From a democratic point of view, I think that is fundamentally wrong. I think it leads us down the wrong trail. How can those people who are parliamentary secretaries and getting money from government, at the whim of government, be totally independent as private members of this Legislature? It's one of those times where you vote for something and you wish you could.... It's like saying something sometimes; you wish you could bite your tongue afterwards and take it back. I wish I could take back my vote on that particular aspect of the legislation that we voted, but I voted the one way when I voted.

In terms of the money, though, for all of these amendments, I think we stood up in this House and voted for what we thought was proper, what we thought was fair. We should stick to our guns on that or we're all going to look foolish. We voted on principle. We voted on what we thought was proper, and to take it back now in terms of the money I find incredible.

MR. COCKE: I can't believe what I'm hearing. The Premier gets up, having never read the amendment, and gives a speech on an entirely different subject. That subject went by some little time ago. This is purely dealing with whips, house leaders and so on; it has nothing to do with anybody else, and we haven't come to an amendment yet on the parliament secretaries, which I propose to put forward very shortly.

I'm not going to answer all the irrelevancies, because those are irrelevancies and totally out of order, and I don't

[ Page 5828 ]

understand how they ever got to the floor in this Legislative Assembly.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, the poor minister from New Westminster.... The whips' salary was covered under the CSP commissioner's report. It was one of the areas under review and I understand that.... I would hope he understands that those areas were under review by the CSP commission.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, if we're going to get into that kind of a debate, as far as I'm concerned this House unanimously adopted 46 because of a committee that was not at arm's length but at any event was a committee of this House. The Premier arbitrarily sent it to this magic-maker, Mr. Peck, and changed the rules. As far as I'm concerned, it just shows you can't even trust yourselves. But aside from that, it gets back to where....

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't trust the Premier.

MR. COCKE: That's right.

It gets back to a point, Mr. Chairman, where our position on an independent tribunal vested with the authority to make the rules should be the way to go.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, the member again is incorrect when he says I arbitrarily sent it to the CSP commissioner. I invited the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the United Party to join me in what I thought and believed very strongly to be a fair review that all others who work in the public sector come under, and that is a review by the CSP commissioner. I met with both the leaders, and the leader of the United Party, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), agreed with me that it be sent. The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Skelly) did not. So it wasn't a unitary action. It was an opportunity to try to see if we could work together in this Legislature, inviting them together to send that review. And I was very pleased to have the acquiescence and support of the member for Prince Rupert. I was surprised that the leader of the New Democratic Party wants one rule for public servants and a different rule for his party. But that's between him and the people.

Amendment negatived on division.

On section 3.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I put forward the following amendment. Section 3 is amended to add: (c) in subsection (6.1) by striking out "$6,000" and substituting "$1." The reason for that is that the parliamentary secretaries placed....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, they weren't in the bill. I'm adding them. Is that okay? It was interesting to me that they weren't in the bill. It was interesting to me that their stipends were reduced from $6,000 to $3,000, and it wasn't done in this Legislature; it was done in contrast with and in opposition to a bill that this Legislature had approved, whether right or wrong. I rather share my colleague from Prince Rupert's position; I believe that was what he was talking about when he was talking in terms of a previous amendment.

In any event, as far as I'm concerned this is really the area of discrimination. Imagine a legislative assembly where all but one person on the government side is in the direct employ of the government. Need I say more?

We put this forward. It could be that an independent tribunal would say: "Yes, they're worth it; yes, the position should be there." But not under these circumstances.

[12:00]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 10

NAYS — 21

Section 3 approved.

Section 4 approved on division.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 26, Legislative Assembly Allowance and Pension Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just don't understand this business of "on division."

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just a moment. The member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) wasn't here for the last division. He just meandered in. How do you count him? Present or absent?

MR. SPEAKER: He's not counted in either case, hon. member, but possibly....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Doesn't count? He's a member of this House; he has a right to be counted.

[ Page 5829 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure that the member....

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to support the member.

MR. SPEAKER: I would commend to members the reading of the specific practice recommendation. It simply indicates; it doesn't actually specify.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 20.

MINISTRY OF INTERNATIONAL
TRADE AND INVESTMENT ACT

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This government is committed to the renewal of the British Columbia economy. If we are to be successful in meeting this challenge we must increase the export of goods and services abroad and create a receptive environment to attract investment. That is the key to job creation in this province now and in the future. I take considerable pride in introducing the Ministry of International Trade and Investment Act. It is further evidence of this government's leadership and indeed boldness in furthering the economic interests of British Columbia around the world,

There are three aspects to the mandate of this new ministry: international marketing, investment promotion and trade policy.

The vitality of the British Columbia economy is directly linked to our ability to export goods and services. One quarter of world production is now exported, double the proportion of a decade ago. Over the past 20 years exports increased from less than a fifth of Canada's output to almost a third. British Columbia is one of the leading trading provinces, with export reliance being double that of Canada as a whole. The nature of British Columbia and our aspirations for economic diversification demand enormous amounts of investment capital. Much of this must come from outside of Canada. With an improved business environment as a result of our new budget, my new ministry intends to bring to the attention of the world businesses and investment community the opportunities for investment in British Columbia.

British Columbia wants to be an active partner with Ottawa and the other provinces in ensuring that the trade policy environment in Canada reflects the aims, aspirations and interests of all regions of this country. The British Columbia government cannot do the job alone. My new ministry will intensify its interactions and consultation with the private sector to ensure that all of its programs and activities reflect their interests and are geared to opportunities that they can address.

We will also increase and enhance our relations with the federal trade and investment people at home and abroad to make them effective marketers on our behalf. This small, lean sales ministry located in Vancouver, in concert with the private sector, will aggressively market our province and its products and services around the world. When we are successful, all of our citizens will share the reward. I take great pleasure in moving second reading.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: It makes you think about the army, doesn't it? What happens when you are incompetent in the military? Why, what do they do if you are a corporal is they make you a sergeant, and they move you up the ladder. And when you are incompetent in this cabinet, what do they do? They do it just like the army. They move you up the ladder so you can tour the world, fly around with your credit cards and the works, and be the top of the pyramid.

Well, it's just like the army and the Peter principle. I guess it's not just the army; it's the Peter principle as well. This has to be the original Peter, almost, in terms of being promoted to one's level of incompetence, and that's clearly what's been happening. What are the qualifications? The qualifications are there for all of us to see and review. What's the biggest project this minister's ever dealt with? Why, it's northeast coal. They used to bellow and talk about it and say: "The greatest industrial project in the history of the nation." And it's failed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the member who's speaking on the principle of this bill knows the rules and regulations of this House. He's been here before. He wasn't here very long, but he was here before. Aside from the fact that he would like to talk about my abilities in this Legislature, I do think that he should speak to the principle of the bill and save my personality and the great successes I have had in the international marketplace for another day.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken, Mr. Minister.

MR. WILLIAMS: I was certainly dealing with the principle, Mr. Speaker — the Peter principle. That's what's involved in this bill. It's a principle indeed, There have been many books sold on the subject of people in the higher levels of our society moving to their level of incompetence. Boy, some move quite a bit above it, and this is certainly the classic example.

But let's talk about what the bill does. It establishes yet another ministry for this government. How many have we got? There are rows and rows of empty chairs there — all of them sometimes, maybe once a day or every other day, occupied by ministers. We're not a big province in British Columbia. Two and a half million people — that's all. And look at all those rows of ministries, with the perks of office, with the credit cards, the travel accounts, the fine offices, the chandeliers, all that stuff.

[12:15]

We're adding one more — not to mention the junior ministries, the parliamentary secretaries, of whom a couple are around today. Clearly what this administration sees in terms of developing wealth and growth in British Columbia.... They see it as a simple selling job. Put old Don on the 747, and everything will turn up roses in British Columbia. The world doesn't work that way.

We are dealing with the most sophisticated people in the world in terms of our various trading partners on the Pacific Rim, the most sophisticated people in the world. And who do we throw into the breach to deal with these super-competent people? The member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips). A while ago Nakasone said, in effect, that he was not

[ Page 5830 ]

impressed by the western world sending less-than-competent salesmen who don't even speak their language. I'm not surprised. But that's our decision. The way we build wealth in British Columbia under this administration is not through dealing with what's really important in terms of our natural resource base, nor through developing sophisticated analytical management and marketing techniques and the rest. We just hire a fancy traveling salesman.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There is abundant material around from our top university people. Now one of the top scholars in Sweden, a scholar whom the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) dismissed with his juvenile comment yesterday, has said that our major industry is in for a catastrophe unless they smarten up on the other side. Who did the Minister of Forests dismiss with respect to our major basic industry? The man was Prof. Nilsson, who is a professor of economic planning at Sweden's Royal College of Forestry, with at least a decade of forest industry consultation around the world under his belt, and who spent two years studying our basic industry in British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: At this point, hon. member, I'll remind the assembly that we are debating Bill 20, Ministry of International Trade and Investment Act. We are not debating ministerial estimates, nor are we debating a bill to do with the Ministry of Forests. I will also remind the member that standing order 40 reminds us that we shall not be irrelevant in debate. To the bill, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the question is establishing another ministry which is presumably geared toward improving the status of British Columbians, increasing wealth in British Columbia, and the like. The question is: is this the way to do it? It's a very relevant question indeed. I think the point has been made by Prof. Nilsson from Stockholm, who studied here for two years, that this is not the way to do it. Not only the Swedes would tell us that, but also our trading partners on the Pacific Rim. There is a level of sophistication required that is far beyond the capability of this administration, let alone this minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That offends the rule of personal reflection on a member of this House. To the bill, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Ministry of International Trade and Investment. It sounds great when it rolls off the tongue. What is it? It's an $8 million department — $4 million of it taken from the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, $4 million in new money. Yet in this same budget we have cut $4 million out of silviculture, the very stuff Prof. Nilsson is talking about. That shows where our values are. Our values are in that glittery stuff, in traveling in 747s, and not in getting our feet in the soil and changing the nature of British Columbia right here at home. It tells us about the sense of values in this administration.

What are they anticipating in terms of this ministry? How much are they going to spend on travel? They're going to spend 13 percent of their budget on just travelling around — over a million dollars on just travelling around. They're going to spend 30 percent on professional services and consulting — not building up a research staff here in British Columbia, not building up long-term strength and credibility in terms of analytical capabilities with respect to our resources and international marketing, which is especially complex; but 30 percent on consultants and short-term consulting fees, and only 30 percent on regular staff. So it's pretty clear what kind of department we're going to have here: not very significant. It's simply a booting upstairs for the minister.

It seems clear that the ministry will be weak in terms of capability with respect to targeted marketing. What we need desperately in British Columbia is targeted marketing. We turn out products in British Columbia that are bottom-of-the-line products. It's kind of sad. From the great forest resources of British Columbia we turn out bottom-of-the-line products. We turn that out in each sector. We turn out bottom-of-the-line two-by-fours in lumber instead of sophisticated dimension stuff, which is what the Japanese and our Pacific Rim trading partners are primarily interested in. They're interested in stress capabilities and strength of product, and we turn out two-by-fours and bottom-of-the-line lumber. The job has to be done in terms of sophisticated analysis and retooling of plants in British Columbia. That's what Prof. Nilsson, Peter Woodbridge, the experts — Peter Pearse and the others — along with Prof. Reed, have been saying for some time now: that we've got to change in these areas. We can't really develop sophisticated marketing capabilities unless we first have here at home the kinds of changes that would respond to the realities out there in the international trading world. So it isn't just a simple thing of putting on a kimono and drinking a bit of sake when you hop off the jet. It's a matter of retooling in British Columbia, after you've understood the detailed requirements in terms of those markets out there.

Most of our industries in British Columbia during this period of cutbacks and restraint — so-called — have cut back on their marketing capabilities. They've cut back in those departments. They've cut back in research. That's where we have to do it all. The Swedes foresaw these problems decades ago, when they had problems with high-cost wood in Scandinavia. They concluded that the only answer was to use their brains and develop technologies at home so that there would be higher-value products that they could sell abroad. We have not done that in British Columbia, either in the public sector with these birds, or unfortunately, I'm afraid, in the private sector either. Prof. Nilsson says that. We do not have competence in this area. We are now generations behind. The last major technology in our pulp industry was acquired by H.R. MacMillan himself — would you believe that? — when he built Harmac; 1950 technology, acquired from the Swedes, that has now been reproduced like cookie-cutters around the province in terms of all our pulp mills. But that is 1950 technology — 35 years old already.

Look at our newsprint industry in terms of marketing papers abroad. Where do we stand there, Mr. Speaker? If we're going to become sophisticated international marketers, then we have to be able to compete, and we have to have the technologies and products. But what do we produce? Again, like two-by-fours, we produce the bottom-of-the-line product. We turn out market pulp and newsprint, not very sophisticated stuff in today's world. It may be sophisticated to this minister, but not to the outside world.

Let's look at the age of our newsprint machinery in British Columbia. Fifty-eight percent of our newsprint machines are pre-1950.

[ Page 5831 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realize that the member opposite thinks he knows something about the forest industry. I would suggest that he save his comments with regard to the state of the forest industry in this province until such time as the forestry estimates are before the Legislature, and that we stick to the principle of international marketing, which I realize he doesn't know much about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. The bill, even in principle, is quite specific as to its intent. I would ask the member now taking his place in debate to relate his remarks to the bill in front of us and not to debate what might be better considered under another minister's estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS: The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of question falls between the stools. These birds think that....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, once again I'll ask you to avoid language such as that. It is unparliamentary.

MR. WILLIAMS: "Birds" is unparliamentary?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a personal reference to other members of the House. Clearly that's what the Chair is hearing.

Perhaps I'll just take a moment to remind the second member for Vancouver East of standing order 19, contained on page 5 of our Standing Orders, which states:

"Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole shall order a member whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House or Committee of the Whole for the remainder of that day, and the Sergeant-at-Arms shall act on such orders as he may receive from the Chair in pursuance of this Order."

It does pertain to irrelevance in debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Irrelevance?

MR. WILLIAMS: Using the term "birds" is disorderly, Mr. Speaker, and comments by the Minister of Forests yesterday are fine. Well, if "birds" offends the Chair, then so be it. I'll withdraw the term "birds."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. It offends the parliamentary process.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would hope that the Speaker could check this out, because I can't believe there is any parliament in the British Commonwealth, or the republics that have survived thereafter, where "birds" is termed unparliamentary. Could the Speaker give the House some assurance that he will check the various sources and report back on this very important question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The source I will cite, hon. member, is that I find that reference to another hon. member or members of this House to be unparliamentary. Will the member continue on Bill 20.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

If we're going to be marketing in the international sphere, Mr. Speaker, then we have to have the products of the day that do well in the new world of international economics. Our problem in British Columbia is that we don't have those products anymore. That's our problem. It's because our technology has not kept up; we don't have the products. We have not added the value to our basic products so that we can have a more sophisticated product for marketing. That is the kind of dilemma we face.

We have, in fact, almost run a generation and a half behind in terms of developing products for international marketing. When you've got machinery most of which — in newsprint — is 58 percent pre-1950, and when the Scandinavians have only 7 percent pre-1950, it gives you a dimension in terms of our inability to compete. Now the Scandinavians are competing in traditional British Columbia markets; they're competing in the Pacific Rim, which we in forest-rich British Columbia thought was our pond in terms of this kind of thing. But the Scandinavians are beating us even in our own marketing area. Now, they're even intervening in the American market, which we have traditionally considered our market in terms of international marketing.

[12:30]

It's because of the lack of sophistication, competence and capability in terms of developing technology and product. That simply hasn't happened under this so-called business administration. They're too busy playing politics and not spending enough time thinking long-term. As Professor Nilsson says, unfortunately the industry itself has not spent the time long-term. You can't say that about the Scandinavians. That's why they're whipping the backsides off us around the world. They don't have people like this minister doing the high-flying number. They do the work at home first. They do the thinking, they do the analysis, they do the research, they develop the products, so then they can market, and that isn't happening in British Columbia at all.

What's the minister's budget for research in this new ministry? The Scans have shown us that research and technology is the way. But what's the minister's budget for research? It's 0.1 percent. That will impress the Japanese to no end. The people that have developed robotics and all the rest of it are sure going to be impressed by 0.1 percent of $8 million as our budget for the new, important Ministry of International Trade and Investment. It'll impress them in the Pacific Rim, indeed.

In terms of where his staff is going to operate, it will not be in the capital city. They're all getting their orders to move to Vancouver. In terms of their data base, where's that going to stay? Well, if you don't worry too much about research, I guess it doesn't really matter where the data base is — where the library and all the material is. Why, it's still in the Ministry of Industry and Small Business. But where are they located? They're over here in Victoria, so that will make for an efficient operation, just in case there is the odd person that's interested in research. They'll spend half their time going back and forth to Victoria to check out the data.

So it's pretty clear. You know, there's a similar name that exists, and I suspect that somebody in the Ministry of Industry and Small Business or one of the bureaucrats working for the minister was impressed by that. In Japan they too have a Ministry of Industry and Small Business. I think it would be worth looking at what the Ministry of Industry and Small Business is responsible for in Japan. Maybe there are some lessons there in terms of how they do it. Ministry of Industry

[ Page 5832 ]

and Small Business in Japan — oh sorry, Ministry of International Trade and Industry, MITI. What does it do? Firstly, it coordinates trade policy for Japan. Well, that makes sense. Secondly, it coordinates trade policy with the economic planning agency. Economic planning agency — interesting idea. Do we have an economic planning agency in British Columbia? There's a minor spinoff in MISB, which this minister was responsible for, and that was northeast coal. We've discussed how that has done, haven't we? It's a mammoth, blundering failure.

They coordinate with the ministry of agriculture, the ministry of forestry, the ministry of fisheries and the ministry of transportation. Well, it looks like they take it seriously. They carry out joint work with the ministries of post, telecommunications, health and welfare as well. They're not only responsible for imports and exports, but they're also responsible for all domestic industries. It looks like quite a significant agency.

MITI acts as a coordinating agency in terms of dealing with conflicting policies between various major elements of both the corporate sector and the public sector within Japan. So it's clearly been a major instrument in the evolution of Japan as a great trading nation.

MITI's major foreign trade operates smoothly and efficiently, according to various sources. What else do they do? It mainly develops a consensus among the industries receiving its advice, it has power to grant a range of licences and it influences the Japan development bank as well. It facilitated the early development in nearly all major industries in the country by providing protection from import competition. They also provided a base in terms of technological intelligence for the country; technological intelligence as well is a major factor for MITI in Japan.

But our technology is now almost two generations behind in our major industry, Mr. Speaker. In the pulp sector, we have only one new pulp mill in the Cariboo that is using state-of the-art technology. What do they achieve there? They achieve the same production with half the wood. Just think of that. If we had had technological capability as a function within this ministry, or some other ministry of government, we might have been on top of these things. We needn't have been two generations behind. Imagine doubling all of our pulp capacity in the province. That is wealth creation. We're not doing it. They're all telling us we're going to run out of trees. There's new state-of-the-art technology that tells us we can double our production, and it isn't happening. So there isn't that kind of technological intelligence proposed for this ministry at all. Only 0.1 percent; that's the budget.

It's clear: we still haven't learned the lessons of the international marketplace, which is what we get parroted from these hon. members — not birds but hon. members. But you know, we're dealing in a sophisticated world, and we're not in their league. The people from BCRIC said it, as I mentioned this morning: we end up victims because of our naivety and our rural view of the world. There's no way in the world that we can deal with those major players to the extent that we benefit and create genuine increases in wealth in this province.

Scandinavians produce four times the wealth out of an acre of forest land what we do. In the last decade, in terms of new products for market, they've increased the value added on all of their forest-related products by over 80 percent. What's it been from Canada? It's been 16 percent, and the bulk of that is eastern Canada, not British Columbia. We tend to think that we're at the head of it, that we're in the state-of the-art business. We're not. Quebec and Ontario are significantly ahead of us in terms of producing finer market products for more sophisticated markets. Check the numbers out. They are there. They'll be in your library, which you're abandoning for Vancouver. The data is there.

High-value product is the name of the game. Value added is the name of the game. Specific market targeting is the name of the game. We do none of that at the government level, and hardly any of it at the corporate level. Ironically, the ones who have been innovative in this province are the smaller-scale industries. They have had to go out and hustle. They are genuine entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, as Professor Nilsson says, the big corporations tend to become like bureaucrats: they're not really out to maximize profits; they work toward some sort of target, as bureaucrats do. That's not the real world. So we're not coming anywhere near what even eastern Canada has achieved. Historically, we were always ahead of them when we had genuine entrepreneurial capabilities and governments that let it go and let the free markets work. We don't have a government here that lets free markets work. It's the last thing they try to encourage within our basic industries in British Columbia. And so we get inefficiencies within the corporate sector, as Prof. Nilsson says.

You know, if you really believe the parroted stuff about free enterprise, you would be transforming our basic industries so that they were genuinely competitive and turning out new product. That is not happening in British Columbia. That is not happening from our major companies at all. There are some significant minor exceptions. M&B has done some retooling, but began a generation late, after most of the funds were frittered away in failures abroad.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I hate to keep rising on points of order, but I do wish that the member opposite would talk about the principles of the bill which is before the Legislature and not keep trying to tell us how much he knows about the forest industry, which isn't too much, I realize.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill, hon. members, does specifically deal with international trade and investment and marketing, and I am sure the member speaking can relate his remarks to that principle and avoid discussing debate that might be better considered in another minister's estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, it might well be discussed in countless ministries estimates because it's endemic. It's a problem that's endemic to this blessed land of British Columbia, and it shouldn't ever have happened if there was a level of competence over there in terms of dealing with the real world, the international world and the competitive world, which they only pay lip service to.

So you see, the Japanese know how to do this. They've shown through generations now, since the Second World War, that there are lessons to be learned from them. We have not learned those lessons, and it shows in the form of this legislation. Even in the old world, in Europe, they too have learned these lessons. They've had to because they've had similar problems that they've dealt with over generations, in terms of their land base, in terms of their technology and training. That's where the real modern world is at. We're still cutting back in terms of technology.

[ Page 5833 ]

I should note, Mr. Speaker, that I'm the designated speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll also point out to the hon. member that it is a courtesy to give notice that one will be designated prior to taking their place in debate. That's just a recommendation. Please proceed.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was unaware of that in terms of the new rules, and in the future will make a point of that.

So there we are. More and more experts are telling us that we are not doing our work at home, that we're falling down in terms of our basic products. There aren't the entrepreneurial skills, there isn't the technological capability, there isn't the marketing capability. What we need is some kind of new grand alliance, because we've fallen a couple of generations behind. We need an administration that understands these things. We need an administration that does not think some simplistic flying about will solve our problems — some simplistic flying around the world asking others to solve our problems. That's what's really embodied in the principle of this bill — the idea that somebody else can solve our problems. It doesn't work that way. Ask any average citizens in this province: "Do you really think the answer is to get somebody else to solve your own individual problems?" The answer will almost universally be no. Given the opportunity, most citizens would like to do it themselves for themselves and get the satisfaction of using their minds and their arms and their skills.

You'd think we might have a government that would reflect that. They parrot that stuff, but they don't mean it. The opportunity is here in this blessed province to do it all. Instead we've moved down into the basement with Newfoundland. Doesn't that shock you? We have a Premier running around trying to tell us that we're a poor province. The only problem is we're a poorly managed province. That's the problem in British Columbia. Nothing epitomizes it more than this ministry and this minister.

[12:45]

The greatest lemon salesman in the world wants to carry it further. Northeast coal, the biggest lemon ever produced in British Columbia, was sold to the sophisticated Japanese; sold to 56 bankers, who are now running around in secret meetings trying to patch the mess up; and sold to a bunch in the cabinet who clearly didn't understand what they were getting into. They sold a $700 million bill to the taxpayers of British Columbia. What an achievement. Every used car salesman in the world would like the chance to sell a lemon that big, and this one had the opportunity. And he did it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's with some concern that we look at this legislation. We do need sophisticated capability. We do need competence. We do need new technologies: we're now two generations behind. We do need fine marketing. Indeed, we have all of the opportunities in this wonderful landscape of British Columbia — if they were competently managed. It hasn't been happening, and by putting this minister in charge of this ministry we can be assured we will get more of the same, and we will remain behind for these two generations and longer, I'm afraid. So it is with concern that we see this appointment and this ministry, designed in this manner, so that it is a signal to the sophisticated marketers, traders, technologists and academics around the world that we're still going to be rubes in this tough territory. We've got a long way to go. It's a very expensive education that we've been paying for at the hands of this minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the assembly is advised that the minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's very difficult to close a debate and talk to the principle of the bill and answer the questions that the member opposite raised, because he really didn't speak to the principle of the bill. Of course, that's about all you could expect. I suppose, from a socialist retread.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

With regard to discussions on the budget, those will be discussed. And the budget for travel — there will be lots of opportunity to discuss that when the estimates for the ministry are on the floor of the House. But I do want to point out to the member that he should do his homework before he talks about the budget for travel. and have an understanding. I'll be pleased to enlighten him during the debate.

With regard to his long dissertation on the state of the forest industry, it's always nice to bring in a piece of paper that some professor from another country has written; he spent most of his time on that.

What we are doing here is we are moving ahead and we are getting ourselves into a position to do more for the small manufacturer in British Columbia, to get out there and to invite investment into this country. The members opposite have been against bringing new money and new ideas into this province. They have chastised this minister, when I was Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, about foreign money coming into this province. They've been against that. They supported Ottawa against it. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, we have to go out in this ministry and tell the world that British Columbia is indeed open for business, and that we want investment, we want people and we want new ideas. That man over there stands and chastises us for not having new ideas and new investment in the forest industry, and it's those socialists opposite who were against it. I'll tell you, if our forest industry is in any difficulty today, it's because all that member did was run around and buy up losers; and he precluded people from coming into the province and investing.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 20, Ministry of International Trade and Investment Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave for a brief introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, earlier today the government House Leader recognized the departure of Charlie LaVertu from the press gallery. Today also marks the

[ Page 5834 ]

last day on the job for a member of the gallery who is a former president of the press gallery. I would ask the House to wish Ron Thompson, CBC cameraman, well in his endeavours after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I see by notice that there's a proposed meeting of the Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services Committee on Monday at 3 o'clock, and I'd ask leave that the committee may sit while the House is in session.

Leave not granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:57 p.m.

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

7     Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Environment the following questions:
                    During the fiscal year 1983/84 —
                    1. What pesticides did the Ministry purchase in each year, in what quantities and at what cost?
                    2. What quantities of each pesticide were used in each year, for what purpose and what was the total cost of each program?
                    3. What amount of each pesticide remained in storage or was disposed of at the end of each year?
                    4. What pesticides, in what quantities, are presently in the possession of the Ministry?

        The Hon. F.C.A. Pelton replied as follows:

"The Ministry of Environment has utilized pesticides for two purposes in the 1984/85 fiscal year. Rotenone is used for coarse fish control in fisheries enhancement projects and 1080 is used for reactive predator control."

"Fisheries Enhancement Program

"1. In 1984/85, 2,135 U.S. gallons (8 080 litres) Noxfish Fish Toxicant, unsynergized rotenone, emulfiable liquid. Active ingredients: Rotenone, 5%, other cubé extractives, 10%. Inert ingredients, 85%. This product fully registered for use as a pesticide in Canada: Pest Control Products Act, Registration No. 14558. Obtained from Penick Corporation, Lyndhurst, New Jersey. Cost (including customs and freight): $51,838.08.

"2. In 1984/85, the only piscicide application was on Cherry Lake in the Kootenay Region (Cranbrook area), in which approximately 990 U.S. gallons (3 700 litres) of Noxfish was used. The purpose was to improve the sport fishing on the lake by eradicating successfully competitive sucker and shiner populations and then managing the lake as a rainbow trout monoculture. The treatment was funded by the Habitat Conservation Fund, and cost a total of $37,544.59.

"3. Piscicide inventory in storage in Kamloops at end of 1984/85 fiscal year same as indicated in April 17, 1984, response to Mrs. Wallace with the addition of the following: 1,145 U.S. gallons (approximately 4 335 litres) of Noxfish. (935 U.S. gallons/3 539 litres of this total was acquired in 1984/85 for the proposed treatment in 1985 of the Champion Lakes, near Trail, under the Habitat Conservation Fund.)

"4. Same as for No. 3.

"Predator Control Wildlife Program

"1. No chemicals purchased in the 1984/85 fiscal year.

"2. 4. 1 grams of 1080 used in reactive control of wolf and coyote problem animals in the 1984/85 fiscal year. The baiting program was conducted by regular Ministry staff. There was no additional cost in excess of normal wages and normal support costs.

[ Page 5835 ]

"3. Stored at this time are 50 grams of sodium cyanide and approximately 2.5 pounds of 1080.

"4. As in No. 3.

"Water Management Program

"1. No pesticides were purchased in fiscal year 1984/85.

"2. No pesticides were used in fiscal year 1984/85.

"3. Approximately 45.2 kilograms of Aqua-Kleen® (containing 2, 4-D butoxyethanol ester) from two broken bags were placed in the 'Hazardous Waste Material Storage Site' in Kamloops for disposal; approximately 3 929.8 kilograms of AquaKleen® remained in storage.

"4. Approximately 3 929.8 kilograms of Aqua-Kleen® are presently in the possession of the Ministry.

"The Ministry of Environment has utilized pesticides for two purposes in the 1983/84 fiscal year. Rotenone is used for coarse fish control in fisheries enhancement projects and 1080 is used for reactive predator control.

"Fisheries Enhancement Program

"1. In 1983/84, 375 U.S. gallons (1 420 litres) Noxfish Fish Toxicant, unsynergized rotenone, emulfiable liquid. Active ingredients: Rotenone, 5%; other cubé extractives, 10%. Inert ingredients, 85%. This product fully registered for use as a pesticide in Canada: Pest Control Products Act, Registration No. 14558. Obtained from Penick Corporation, Lyndhurst, New Jersey. Cost (including customs and freight): $8,666.22.

"2. In 1983/84, the only piscicide applications were on Kwtzil (gravel pit) Lake in the Omineca-Peace Region (Prince George area). This lake was originally treated in June 1982 (outlined in previous response to Mrs. Wallace, July 18, 1983). Unfortunately, groundwater spring activity in this lake hampered the effectiveness of the treatment, and retreatment was scheduled in 1983/84.

"A. September 19, 1983 — Kwtzil Lake (located 40 kilometres west of Prince George) was retreated. Five U.S. gallons (approximately 19 litres) of Noxfish were used to remove remaining redside shiners and lake chub so that a pure culture rainbow trout fishery could be restored. Post-treatment results indicated that a further application was required.

"B. October 24-27, 1983 — Final treatment of Kwtzil Lake. Eighteen U.S. gallons (approximately 68 litres) of Noxfish were applied. A complete kill was confirmed following this treatment.

"Summary: Total chemical applied to Kwtzil Lake in 1983/84 — 23 U.S. gallons (87 litres). Product: Noxfish, 5% rotenone unsynergized. Rationale for repeat treatments: Despite treatment difficulties (necessitating repeated applications), the decisions to retreat were based on (1) the relatively low cost of the treatments due to the lake's small size (0.8 ha); (2) close proximity to Prince George and excellent access; and (3) past success with trout production from the lake. Total 1983/84 project cost (two treatments): Approximately $2,000.

"3. Piscicide inventory in storage in Kamloops at end of 1983/84 fiscal year. Same as indicated in July 18, 1983 response to Mrs. Wallace, with the addition of the following: 352 U.S. gallons (approximately 1 332 litres) of Noxfish, 55 U.S. gallons (approximately 208 litres) of Chemfish (barrel of old chemical awaiting disposal).

"4. Same as for No. 3.

"Predator Control Program

"1. No chemicals purchased in the 1983/84 fiscal year.

[ Page 5836 ]

"2. 4.1 grams of 1080 used in reactive control of wolf and coyote problem animals in the 1982/83 fiscal year. The baiting program was conducted by regular Ministry staff. There was no additional cost in excess of normal wages and normal support costs.

"3. Stored at this time are 50 grams of sodium cyanide and approximately 2.5 pounds of 1080.

"4. As in No. 3."

22  Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Environment the following questions:

In relation to the Pemberton flooding which took place last October 1984 —

1. (a) How many claims have been filed for damages resulting from the flood, and (b) what was the total of the claims filed under (a) ?

2. (a) How many claims have been paid; (b) what was the total amount claimed under (a) ; and (c) what was the total amount paid under (a)?

The Hon. F. C. A. Pelton replied as follows:

"1. (a) 400 claims have been filed, and (b) $3,643,829.89.

"2. (a) 277; (b) $3,203,829.89; and (c) $2,622,834.77."