[ Page 7345 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 7345

An Act To Protect Long Term Tenants From The Impacts Of Expo 86 (Bill M201).

Mr. Blencoe

Introduction and first reading –– 7346

Oral Questions

Meeting with Metro Education Association. Mr. Rose –– 7346

School district budgets. Mr. Rose –– 7346

Omineca Enterprises Ltd. Mr. Lea –– 7347

Landlord-tenant relations, Mr. Blencoe –– 7347

Voters' list. Mr. Hanson –– 7347

Mr. Howard

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Parks –– 7348

On the amendment

Mr. Howard –– 7352

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7354

Mr. Barnes –– 7358

Hon. A. Fraser –– 7362

Mr. Skelly –– 7365

Division –– 7367

Hon. Mr. Segarty –– 7368

MONDAY, MARCH 17, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to tell you that we have in our gallery today His Excellency SJS. Chhatwal, High Commissioner of India, and Mrs. Chhatwal. They are accompanied by Mr. J.C. Sharma, consul-general of India, and Mrs. Sharma. Will the House please make them welcome.

MR. HANSON: I wonder if the House would join me in applauding the tremendous achievement of the University of Victoria Vikings basketball team, which this last weekend achieved its seventh consecutive national title by winning the top award for a basketball team in Canada. The achievements of the coaches, Ken Shields and his wife Kathy Shields, who work with the Vikings and Vikettes, have truly made the greater Victoria area the basketball capital of Canada; and it is clearly also the sports capital of Canada in terms of those teams and individuals, both elite and amateur, who are making outstanding achievements.

HON. MR. SMITH: I join the member for Victoria in congratulating the Vikings. I was just on the phone now to invite them down here on behalf of the Provincial Secretary and the Legislature. Maybe we'll have them in the gallery tomorrow, if we can get them here. It's quite an achievement to have seven consecutive national championships, and to win the last two or three when they were not ranked or rated number one during the year by the experts, but had to fight hard to win their spurs. Also, to be comfortably up in the final game, only to have their lead clipped in the second half from 14 points to one, and then in the last five minutes, with the kind of reserve that apparently only Shields gives these teams.... You know, Mr. Speaker, when they work out, they do a two-hour practice and then they run outside for an hour — uphill. So I tell you, it's a tough team.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I have a pleasant duty to perform today. I don't very often have people from the Cariboo riding, but today in your gallery Miss Hanna Krause is here from Puntzi Lake in the Chilcotin with Miss Melissa Gruenwald from Anahim Lake. These young ladies are down here taking their first year at UVic, and I would like the House to welcome them.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, along with other members of the Metro Education Association visiting today in the House are my constituents Anne Kachmar, a Coquitlam trustee; Karen Phillips, a Coquitlam parent; and Mike Lombardi, teacher and president of the Coquitlam Teachers' Association. Would the House welcome them too.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody and welcome our mutual three constituents to the House.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming those on the floor of this House and in the public gallery who were fortunate enough to be born Irish.

MR. DAVIS: In the galleries today we have from North Vancouver representatives of the parents, the school trustees and the teachers: Lauren Hems, representing the parents; Dorothy Lynas, long-term school trustee from North Vancouver; and Andy Krawczyk, president of the North Vancouver Teachers' Association.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, very quickly without making a specific introduction, I want to take great issue with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and the member for Victoria, who alleged, quite in good faith, that greater Victoria was the amateur sports capital of Canada, when we have had no fewer than six members of the national men's and women's ski team hailing from Rossland-Trail constituency, all world-class athletes, not just outstanding Canadians but outstanding Canadians on a world-class basis.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are two constituents of mine and their son, Mr. and Mrs. Al and Lennie Clark and Monte, who is studying political science at the University of Victoria. I would ask the members if they would kindly welcome them to the House today.

Mr. Speaker, while I'm on my feet, if you and the other members would indulge me for one moment, I have a little athletic award to speak about myself.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, and members of this Legislature, that after 32 years of trying very, very hard, the Maple Ridge Senior Secondary School basketball team, the Ramblers, over the weekend won the B.C. AA boys' basketball championship. More than that, it was a double-header because the boys' basketball team from the secondary school in Mission, which is also in the wonderful riding of Dewdney, also finished in the finals. Would everybody congratulate them.

MR. WILLIAMS: I must revise my plans, Mr. Speaker; clearly the election is closer than I thought.

I'd ask the House to welcome Ms. Mary Hogan and Patricia Chauncey, who are district parent reps from Vancouver East who, I'm sure, are pleased to work with Vancouver's new school board.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, Les Lee Lowe, a hardworking member of the education community of Burnaby Edmonds, is in the gallery. I would like the House to bid her welcome. I regret that she hasn't won anything over the weekend.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, visiting the Legislature today are 80 grade 11 students from Delta Secondary School, with their teacher, Mr. B. Putnam. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled a report on amounts remitted or refunded under the Taxation (Rural Area) Act during the calendar year 1985.

Hon. Mr. Ritchie tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for the fiscal year 1984-85.

[ Page 7346 ]

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO PROTECT LONG TERM
TENANTS FROM THE IMPACTS OF EXPO 86

Mr. Blencoe presented a bill intituled An Act to Protect Long Term Tenants from the Impacts of Expo 86.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a bill standing in my name intituled An Act to Protect Long Term Tenants from the Impacts of Expo 86. I ask that it be introduced and read a first time now.

This bill is introduced to protect low-income tenants in Vancouver. There is an immediate need for provincial assistance. We had hoped that the government, given that we have been back in session a week, would have introduced their own piece of legislation. The sponsors of this bill, and others, anticipated the long-term tenant problem in the east end of Vancouver. We anticipated that they would need powers to deal with problems of long-term tenancy in rooming-house accommodation. Currently long-term residents of hotels and rooming-houses under monthly contracts are excluded from protection under the Residential Tenancy Act.

This bill provides for protection of tenants of rooming-houses paying $340 or less per month and who have occupied the premises for more than six months. The boundaries of the protection are to be established by municipal bylaw. The bill provides for no increase in rent more than 5 percent, and this bill would end on October 13, 1986. It would also provide for no evictions without just cause, and the reasons for eviction are outlined in the bill.

Suffice it to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is our understanding and impression that this legislation is required and that the people of British Columbia are requesting immediate action on behalf of tenants in Vancouver who are being directly affected by evictions. I move this bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M201 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

MEETING WITH METRO EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I've had to ask a question of the new Minister of Education. Last Friday the Premier promised that the new Minister of Education would meet with representatives from the Metro Education Association, or MEA. With both the Premier and the new Minister of Education promising consultation, why has the minister snubbed teachers, trustees and parents from all over the lower mainland, who are only seeking adequate funds for B.C. children? Why does the minister fail to recognize that ordinary people have had enough confrontation from this government?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think the member opposite knows that I have been meeting with teachers and with school trustees; I have met with the president of the Teachers' Federation and representatives of his executive and with the president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association. It was not much longer than, I guess, a week ago that the member for Coquitlam-Moody and I and the leader of the Conservative Party in B.C. and the leader of the Liberal Party attended a forum which some 300 teachers attended. This allowed us all to express our views and to answer questions. I can assure the member that most of my time since I have been appointed has been spent meeting with individuals and groups concerning education, in order that I can become fairly familiar with my portfolio so that I can undertake some of the tasks that I have been asked to do.

With regard to the Metro Education Association, who wrote me and then sent me a telegram which said that they would arrive at my office on March 17 at 12:30 in the afternoon, and that the underfunded budgets are a matter of grave concern.... Unfortunately, I was at a meeting, due to my ministerial responsibilities, and my executive assistant responded, and I quote: "In reply to your telegram of March 7 to the Hon. J. Hewitt, Minister of Education, I regret to inform you that Mr. Hewitt will not be available in his office on March 17 due to a previously scheduled board meeting." That was with the Crown corporation of B.C. Systems Corporation.

I am not avoiding this group, but I would suggest to the member that we have other responsibilities than just responding to interested groups who wish to arrive on your doorstep with TV cameras and try to create a media issue. I will meet them at the appropriate time.

SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGETS

MR. ROSE: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the new Minister of Education will soon learn to inform the Premier of his schedule so the Premier won't be misleading people in the newspaper and other places.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Promises, promises. Does the minister realize that 58 of 75 districts have indicated that they can't maintain existing programs on the budgets they were given, and that 24 of 75 districts are actually receiving less than last year? Has the minister decided to revise the framework to meet district needs?

HON. MR. HEWITT: What I am attempting to do is to receive all the input from the various school boards to understand their concerns. As the member well knows, the date for budget submission was March 15 — last Saturday. I am meeting with my staff to look at submissions that have come in. We have to respond to them by April 20, and they have to set their tax rates by May 1. Those dates are set. I can assure the member that everything will be given consideration within the ability of the taxpayers of this province to fund school districts and school boards and teachers.

MR. ROSE: My final supplementary is to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. In 1975 the Premier claimed in an election brochure that the present system of financing education through property taxation was, to paraphrase, "unfair and outmoded." With Maple Ridge facing a $297 a year increase per single family, and Kamloops a whopping $600 per single family dwelling, when does the Premier intend to return the industrial tax base to local districts with grants in lieu for those districts without adequate industrial base?

[ Page 7347 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: My congratulations to the member for his landslide victory over the weekend.

Let me respond to the part not contained in the last question, where he alleged I was acting as appointment secretary for the Ministry of Education. I have not assured a time, but I have assured anyone who has a legitimate role to play in education and has asked that the Minister of Education will meet with them, as he meets with various groups who are putting forward a case in competition with other very worthy endeavours in education for the funds contained in the Excellence in Education fund.

Now to the tax base. I think it's very interesting to note that the last figures I have on this show that the homeowner in British Columbia pays approximately 8 percent of the cost of local education. When you look at a province like Ontario, if you take not only homeowners but all land base, you'll find that in fact in that province it pays for about 90 percent of the cost of education, from the information I have. In this province, Mr. Speaker, the homeowner gets a far better break. When you start to consider, it is only 8 percent of the figures we had last.... And, of course, this year's budgets haven't been completed. Only 8 percent of the cost is home by homeowners. I think that is a remarkably small amount of the cost of education, for homeowners, compared with homeowners in other provinces.

OMINECA ENTERPRISES LTD.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. On December 2, 1985, the Premier in answer to a question by myself in regard to Omineca Enterprises Ltd., a logging sawmill operation in the Fort Nelson area, undertook that he would request a report from the Minister of Forests concerning the above-mentioned company and the problems that that company was having in the Fort Nelson area. I'd like to ask the Premier: have you received a copy of the report?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet read it.

MR. LEA: I understand, then, Mr. Premier, that you've received the report but haven't read it yet.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I have not yet read it.

LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONS

MR. BLENCOE: A question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the minister responsible for the residential tenancy branch. The minister has twice denied in this House that he has any responsibility for landlord-tenant relations in the province of British Columbia. Will the minister inform the House when this responsibility was transferred away from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and by what means? It is our understanding that you are still the minister responsible.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I have never denied that I have responsibility for administering an act. The problem that the hon. member had was trying to have this ministry look after areas that were clearly the responsibility of another ministry. If he wants to ask something about the Residential Tenancy Act, we'll look into it for him.

MR. BLENCOE: Concern has been expressed over a loophole in the Residential Tenancy Act which allows premises classed as hotels to escape the requirements of landlord tenant legislation. Is the minister aware of this specific concern, and has he decided to take any action to deal with this loophole?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Clearly the member didn't hear very well. I said that items that fell within the purview of the Residential Tenancy Act would be clearly dealt with. If you are talking about hotels, you're talking about the innkeepers' act, which does not fall within this purview.

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister aware of the description of long-term tenancy? Would the minister advise this House whether he deems...?

[2:30]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I note with interest that the member has commenced his legislative program. It seems to me we have a bill before the House that deals with the question he has posed. The bill has just been introduced. I wonder if the Chair would correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think we can question with respect to.... The member is clearly speaking about long-term tenancy. I see on Orders of the Day for today a bill entitled An Act to Protect Loniz Term Tenants from the Impacts of Expo 86.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if the Chair were to specifically interpret all the rules that guide us in question period, we would be in some difficulty in entertaining questions at all. It is therefore incumbent upon members when asking questions to at least give some consideration to the guidelines that bind us for question period.

VOTERS' LIST

MR. HANSON: I have a question to the Provincial Secretary in her responsibility as the Minister responsible for voting rights in British Columbia. As the minister is aware, one in four British Columbians are currently not on the voters' list. In her constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain, it's closer to one in three individuals 19 years of age and over who are not on the voters' list.

The chief electoral officer, Mr. Goldberg, has recently responded to my letters to the minister requesting that emergency action be taken to increase the numbers on the voters' list. He points out that many people may be disqualified because of residency requirements, some through bribery or impersonation, some through conviction of treason, some through being incarcerated in a mental facility; some may lack.... Or in his words: "Initiative is required on the part of the public to get on the list." My question to the minister is: in a computer age when large data banks exist within the government service, is it acceptable that one in four British Columbians would be omitted from the voters' list in the run up to a provincial election?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question, and I know that he will understand when I tell him through you that I haven't had an opportunity up to this point in time with my new responsibilities to look into that part of his question — which he was

[ Page 7348 ]

kind enough to send firstly to the newspaper and then to me. I will be very pleased to answer that when I have time.

MR. HANSON: It was the reverse, but it may have been just a minute or two.

Mr. Speaker, in appreciating what the minister is saying with respect to her understanding of the act, I'd like to ask her to note the fact that the act had not changed with respect to allowing groups to have access to voters' registration cards so that organizations and individuals could take part in having a full voters' list developed. In an age when the computer banks are present, I'm sure the minister would like the next election contest to involve 100 percent of the voters' list so that everyone could make their views known about the record of this government and whether they are ready for change.

My question: would the minister undertake to allow cards to be made available to organizations and groups and then to be passed on to the returning officers and chief electoral officers, so that that voting process could take place?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to look into the member's question.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance, the holder of the purse, and ask the minister whether he is aware that the current system of denying groups and/or organizations access to cards to assist in the registration process is costing, for mail alone — for stamps, for postage — $1.70 per registered voter for a person to get on the voters' list up until this time, and whether the minister would seek to make that known to the Provincial Secretary so that cards can be available to groups who want to assist, and thus save the taxpayer that amount of money?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the member has been in this House and elsewhere long enough to know that the question should be directed to the Provincial Secretary. While I am responsible for the treasury, each minister is responsible for his or her expenditures. So you have the wrong....

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't care.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's not a question of not caring, Mr. Speaker, the rules....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There's another man shaking in righteous indignation, Mr. Speaker. That's all they can do over there these days.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's quite well established. The question should be directed to my colleague, the Provincial Secretary.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, after my remarks Friday afternoon, I was intending to initially just discuss some of the highlights, the positive points, in the throne speech.

However, I had occasion to see an interview with the Leader of the Opposition which was televised yesterday morning, and I was so surprised by some of the comments of the Leader of the Opposition that I feel compelled to deal with some of the issues that he raised and some of his responses.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

What set off the new thrust to my remarks this afternoon was what appeared to be a very straightforward question from one of the interviewers, and that was: "Mr. Skelly, if you were Premier of this province, would you scrap the compensation stabilization program?" Well, the Leader of the Opposition didn't equivocate; he boldly — well, perhaps I should say meekly —- after beating around the bush, said yes, he would scrap the compensation stabilization program.

Now I think that would have very significant consequences for our economy, and I think if one were to follow the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, not just during that interview but also in his remarks in rebuttal to the throne speech, one can see that the thread of the opposition's position with respect to the economic program is to adopt some foreign economic policy, in all likelihood that of the so-called Australian accord. I find that even more puzzling because in his remarks yesterday — at least they were recorded, I guess, earlier in the week but telecast yesterday morning — the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who unfortunately is not here today to comment, should he wish, stated that he was aware that, unlike Australia, which is a national economy, of course, British Columbia is tied in very directly, inextricably, with the American economy.

We, of course, having a provincial economy, have limited ability to determine some aspects of our economy, but more than that, we are inextricably tied in with the U.S. economy. Yet the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that this province adopt the type of accord that is known as the Australian accord and, in effect, index public sector wages to the cost of living. He states that, knowing full well that such an economic measure would clearly result in very substantially increased inflation.

I find it surprising that the Leader of the Opposition would appreciate, on one hand, the significance of the American economy and how our economy is affected by that, ignoring the importance of that very instrumental factor in our economy, and then say that we should adopt a national economy that has absolutely no applicability to our situation. If we were to adopt that situation, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, all it would do is further decrease our competitive position in the global trading village.

Either the Leader of the Opposition is totally taken by another socialist state's system of attempting to deal with their economic problems, or the alternative — and the only alternative, I can conclude — is that he doesn't understand economic policy. It would be unfortunate if that were the proper conclusion, but it's one that I was being forced to develop after hearing his remarks.

The one solace that I took from his remarks of yesterday, in conjunction with his remarks recorded in his rebuttal to the throne speech, was in a comment he passed in this House just last week: "We in the opposition know that words are the easy part." Perhaps that is another example of the opposition trying to come up with words that appear to be buzzwords or have instant popularity, something along the lines of hoping that using the words "confrontation," " non-confrontation, "

[ Page 7349 ]

"consultation" or "non-consultation" would somehow set them aside from the record of this government.

Well, I think it's a fair conclusion for one to note that whereas the opposition is prepared to put forth words, so-called policies that aren't viable, this government is prepared — and once again it is reflected in the throne speech — to encourage positive actions, programs which have positive results. I think immediately of programs and projects like the SkyTrain....

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes, the debt bomb.

MR. PARKS: The second member for Vancouver East refers to it as the "debt bomb." Now I'm sure he thinks that trite expression is somehow defensible, but I would suggest that to those thousands upon thousands — literally tens of thousands — of commuters who use that service each and every work day, and to the 60,000 to 70,000 obviously noncommuters but interested British Columbians who are using it every weekend, it's much more than a debt bomb.

What it is is state of the art commuter technology. The SkyTrain is probably one of the most significant, if not the most significant, economic development proposals that this province has seen in years. I wonder where the members from Burnaby are when they note the economic development in Metrotown? I wonder where the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) is when he considers what's happening to his constituency as SkyTrain goes through it. I know that the member from New Westminster is very pleased to see the billion-dollar-plus development going into his constituency by SkyTrain. I know I speak on behalf of my colleagues, the two members from Surrey, when I say we can hardly wait for that economic impetus to come to our constituencies. Surrey is going to be blessed with the crossing over the Fraser to Scott Road later this year. I can only hope that the park-and-ride facilities currently being constructed in Coquitlam — one in the Lougheed Highway and King Edward vicinity, one in our Newtown Centre vicinity — are but a prelude to an early announcement for the formal extension of SkyTrain into Coquitlam.

Besides SkyTrain, we have the Annacis Island crossing. It was my pleasure last week — actually, my first official function as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transportation and Highways — to attend the official closing-in ceremony of that fantastic engineering feat. I understand it's the largest suspended bridge of its type in the world. When one is up on that bridge — I believe some 30 stories high —- looking at those two pillars suspending that structure by wire cable, one marvels again at the engineering feat performed there. But again, much more important than that engineering feat is not only the economic impetus, but the overall liveability of the lower mainland impact of that particular construction. We are all more than aware of the tens of thousands of jobs that have been created by that particular project.

Unlike some of the comments I have heard from the opposition as to municipal work projects, this megaproject, as some have referred to it, this economic project, is going to have a tremendous impact on the economic expansion of the south side of the Fraser River. I know the hon. Speaker of this House made a very determined effort to have that facility constructed, and it was only after extensive lobbying, if you will, that that particular facility was finally approved. Now, of course, as we see, it is a fact.

It's interesting to look back.... Again, I had occasion to go through some of the library records, and it wasn't three years ago — in fact, I'm looking at an April 1983 issue of the North Delta Sentinel — that the NDP candidate at that time, one Mr. Moser, actually was suggesting that the NDP government, had it been elected — thank goodness they were not — would not have gone ahead with the Annacis crossing. That caught my eye, and I then had occasion to go through the entire article. The first comment was alarming enough, but not only were they prepared not to go ahead with the Annacis crossing, apparently at that time.... As we've heard from various members in the opposition, NDP policy is established by the party, and their caucus adheres to that verbatim. But apparently caucus policy at that time was that not only would they be against the Annacis Bridge crossing, but they would also be against any further funds into northeast coal development or B.C. Place. Their only concern at that time was a rapid transit service into Surrey. That's the type of negativism it seems we’re getting far too much of from the opposition.

[2:45]

We've seen B.C. Place. a project of this government, move forth and become — as we've probably all heard in the last couple of days — the most desirable indoor baseball facility that major leaguers have seen. I was very pleased and proud, as a British Columbian, to hear the members of the Padres and the Cubs, who have just concluded a recent exhibition series, speak so well of our facility. As a former director of the B.C. Lions football club —- and, I must add, defending Grey Cup champions —- we know that we have the very finest facilities in all of Canada. Even good old Toronto is envious of what we have here in Vancouver.

MR. WILLIAMS: Look at all the food banks they're happy about too!

MR. PARKS: Once again we have the chirping of the second member for Vancouver East. He's alluding to some difficulties with respect to the food banks. He's suggesting that there....

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, some difficulties — while you give million-dollar champagne parties. It's a disgraceful misuse of funds.

MR. PARKS: He is trying to suggest that there is some mutual exclusivity between providing social services and providing economic growth.

MR. REID: The NDP voted against the bridge, so maybe they won't use it.

MR. PARKS: I'm sure they will, hon. member.

Getting back to the chirping I was alluding to from the second member for Vancouver East, B.C. Place is much more than just a domed stadium. B.C. Place owns all of those lands on which this phenomenal project that we're about to see — Expo 86 — has been constructed. Within six months after the end of what's guaranteed to be a phenomenally successful world's fair, B.C. Place is going to commence one of the largest urban redevelopment programs anyone has seen, certainly that has been seen in Canada.

[ Page 7350 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: You mean you're going to knock down all those buildings that you spent a billion dollars to put up? You build them up and then you knock them down.

MR. PARKS: Well, the chirping continues, and it's interesting, because it illustrates the total lack of understanding of economic impact. Yes, hon. member, we are going to....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, but there seem to be other conversations on. If the member would speak and others remain quiet, it would be appreciated.

MR. PARKS: Although, quite frankly, I find the chirping and the comments from the peanut gallery most informative of the lack of understanding of some of the issues I'm attempting to discuss. As I said earlier, we're talking about an Expo program that is going to be coming to fruition momentarily. On May 2, when Their Royal Highnesses join with the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister and our Premier and this province begins, once again, to rekindle its pride in itself, when even members that would be perhaps a bit negative today will see the benefits that are going to come to British Columbia, not just for the 165 days of the fair, Mr. Speaker, but a legacy in themselves....

Again, we keep hearing this chirping: "What about the poor? What about the food banks?" I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what they think, or how they think anyone is going to attend to those social services that are so vital to our way of society. Clearly, the NDP do not have a corner on social conscience. Often they hold out a presentation that they do, but they do not. If we're going to have the phenomenal social programs that we have in this province, we have to be able to afford them. They don't herald the fact that one of every three dollars that this government spends is spent in health care. They don't herald the fact that when you take health care and you take education and you take human resources, you're talking about 66 percent-plus of this province's budget.

That portion of our budget, Mr. Speaker, is not for the job creation component. I'm sure that some of us in the government ranks realize, but clearly, from the remarks from the opposition ranks, they don't understand — or if they do, they often forget —- that it's the private sector and the people creating jobs and creating taxes that pay for those social services. So although we now have Expo soon to open, and we have a $1 billion project, with anticipated $3 billion to $4 billion economic spinoffs this year, they don't think that's fantastic for our province. They don't think that's going to help feed the poor.

Interjection.

MR. PARKS: Here it is, another ill-informed comment, Mr. Speaker: "We've got to pay for it." That's right. Well, no, it's not right, hon. member. If you take the Expo budget, you realize that who is paying for the Expo budget are the national participants, the corporate participants, the people who are attending. Contrary to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, there is not going to be a $400 million to $500 million deficit, as he suggested. The $400 million to $500 million deficit — those remarks were attributable to Mr. Pattison. I have inquired of that office, and Mr. Pattison has not ever, to the best of his recollection, made that statement. To the best of his recollection, the only estimated deficit that he's referred to is the $250 million to $300 million.

Notwithstanding that, the Leader of the Opposition is quoted — I can refer to his comments in Hansard — as saying that whatever the deficit might be, it's going to be on the backs of the taxpayers, and it's going to be the true legacy for Expo. Surely that member knows that that is inaccurate. Provision has been made for whatever the deficit is, that it be taken care of out of what I call the gamblers' funds — the lottery proceeds. That deficit will not fall upon the backs of the taxpayers, not this generation nor any future generation. What the legacy of Expo is going to be is not only a phenomenal impetus to tourism, which will probably become the number one industry in this province.... I wonder why my colleagues in the opposition ranks, Mr. Speaker, are not proud that British Columbia has so much natural beauty that we would become the number one tourist attraction in North America.

I read in a recent B.C. Business magazine that a trillion dollars a year is spent on tourism. Why don't we feel that we should take our fair share of that? Actually, with Expo 86, Mr. Speaker, we're going to see British Columbia finally taking its fair share of that tourism budget.

The throne speech refers to a number of programs that this government has embarked on in the past year or so, and it quite accurately suggests that they will be continued. I know the opposition is concerned about the poor, but then again, so is each and every member of this House. How we can assist the poor and the less fortunate is to have that economic development that I continually allude to in my comments. It's interesting to note some of the very positive consumer and business conditions that have taken place in the last 12 months.

If I may refer to a couple of statistics.... I appreciate that at times they are boring, Mr. Speaker, but I think that in light of the very positive news, I'm going to insist we look at them,

First, with respect to actual employment in British Columbia. In February, 1985, we had but 1,184,000 people employed. As of this past month — this past February — we had 1,234,000 people employed, an increase of 50,000-plus jobs, or an increase of 4.2 percent. That's not fantastic, but it's sure a great change from the early years in this decade. I know the opposition like to crow about how they could do so much better if they were in government.

It's interesting to note that during the same timespan Manitoba, which has the only other NDP government at this time, had a mere 14,000-job increase, or about a 3 percent increase. So we have clearly outpaced that province, as far as economic impact goes.

The consumer price index in British Columbia rose a mere 3.2 per cent last year. I think that's a very positive indication that the economy is now in as stable a condition as we've ever seen it. From that new solid base, we're seeing things like the sales tax for the first 10 months of fiscal 1985-86 having an 8.4 percent increase. For those who are proponents of the consumer-generated recovery, that's a very positive sign. In 1985 manufacturing shipments increased 8 percent. That's an extremely positive sign. Housing starts in British Columbia last year totalled 17,969; that's an increase of 11.1 percent. I think, Mr. Speaker, that's probably the most significant statistic of the bunch.

[ Page 7351 ]

There is optimism in our economy, notwithstanding what the opposition has to say. There is positive....

MR. WILLIAMS: Big deal.

MR. PARKS: "Big deal." This is what we hear once again from the second member for Vancouver East. As if those British Columbian families who are now in those 18,000 new housing units don't think it's a big deal. To those British Columbians who are being helped by this government's economic policy, it is a big deal, Mr. Speaker. It's unfortunate they don't understand that. Perhaps as time goes on they will, but for the moment they clearly do not understand that.

I see that I don't have that many minutes left in my speech, Mr. Speaker, so I'm going to, if I may, refer specifically to how I see a number of the programs of this government very positively impacting on my constituency.

The Partners in Enterprise program is probably one of the sleepers that this government has introduced.

Interjections.

MR. PARKS: It's interesting that we had some guffaws of laughter from the back bench of the opposition, once again not understanding the importance of setting the economic structure, the inviting environment, for investment. I guess it's two weeks ago today, Mr. Speaker, that my constituency, the district of Coquitlam, agreed to sign Partners in Enterprise. I have been made aware of two projects that are going ahead in Coquitlam: one is a multimillion-dollar expansion at Crown Forest, where they are talking about dry-kiln and other facilities.

MR. REID: That's positive results.

MR. PARKS: Very positive results. And the other is a $400,000 expansion to Vancouver Bottlers. Now those are two specific job-creating, tax-creating projects that I've just become aware of in the last two weeks. I expect there are more, and I'll be pleased to report to the House next time I speak, as soon as I hear about them. Already within two weeks there we have a number of millions of dollars being injected, or soon to be injected, into my municipality's economy, creating jobs and creating economic growth.

Interjections.

MR. PARKS: I note that.... We hear the chirping continue from the opposition, Mr. Speaker, but that shouldn't slow down the government, when they see a number of their projects coming to fruition, and the very positive impact in our government.

A few weeks back I had the pleasure, along with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton), to officially open the Mary Hill bypass. I know that that has had a tremendous impact on his constituency, and right through our colleague's constituency of Coquitlam-Moody, yet we don't hear members from the opposition proclaiming how positive those developments are. Sure, it's a few hundred thousand dollars to do that. Sure, it assisted the commuters. Sure, it made investment more viable for that whole stretch on the north side of the Fraser River. But do we hear the opposition acknowledging the progressive and positive steps? No, they don't. They would rather chirp, as I refer to it, and try to make political points by being really negative. I guess that's the biggest disappointment I have with the comments from the opposition: they insist on being negative.

[3:00]

In Coquitlam we have, in downtown revitalization, an obvious example of the municipality, the provincial government and the merchants working together to revitalize their area, trying to make an area that has a tremendous amount of cultural heritage a more desirable place to visit. The program is underway as far as planning is concerned, and I hope to see the tangible result in time for Expo.

I think the provincial government has shown tremendous generosity, to be honest. Just last week the hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) was in Coquitlam and agreed to turn over to Coquitlam for park purposes in our town centre a 100-acre parksite referred to as Lafarge Park. That's valued at approximately $4 million today, and all it is, in effect, is an empty former gravel pit. But the potential there of the provincial government and the municipality working in concert is nothing short of tremendous. That is going to be the new town centre, the new focus of the Coquitlams, and it is with the encouragement of the municipality by Lands, Parks and Housing that such a program will be off to a faster start than it otherwise would have been.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

A very short distance from that park we have the Westwood Plateau lands, in which the same ministry, through its housing branch, is attempting to encourage development for new housing starts. I know that, compared to the doom and gloom that we hear from the opposition, it may not sound like much, but in one very small townhouse complex 42 units were sold last month. Those 42 units illustrate to me tremendous optimism on the part of people — looking at my constituency, at least, Mr. Speaker.

I expect that the working relationship among municipalities, the provincial government, industry and volunteers will continue. I have just received notification today that the Coquitlam public library, in concert with the municipality and the provincial government, is about to build new central facilities. Now for those who are not familiar with my constituency, that is a tremendous landmark. In less than eight years the Coquitlam public library system has come from a small area in one secondary school to three branches; and now, with the very generous assistance of a $400,000 grant from our provincial government, it is about to build a new central library facility. I think that type of working together of the various components in our communities is going to cause the optimism to return to British Columbians.

In closing, I would like to express a hope, and hopefully it's going to be manifested. I have been told that those who attended, or at least lived in the Expo 67 area in Montreal.... There were a lot of naysayers and a lot of doom-and-gloom comments from the opposition in government and the media. I am expecting, as most British Columbians are, that Expo 86 is going to be a phenomenal success for this province. I would only hope that the members of the opposition will catch the Expo spirit, catch the B.C. spirit, and attempt to be a little more positive.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, just a brief commentary about what we have just heard from the member from Dawn

[ Page 7352 ]

Development or MaiIlardville-Coquitlam. When he starts talking, as he has at great length, about the position that the New Democrats have taken and do take on subject matters, his imagination and his negative partisan enthusiasm far outreaches his grasp of truthfulness. There isn't an ounce of truth in what he said in his remarks relating to the position that New Democrats have taken on certain subjects or that we intend to take.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, just a moment, please. We at times have conflicting opinions in this House, but we must respect the honour of another hon. member. Please continue.

On the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, indeed.

Mr. Speaker, there stands a notice of amendment in my name on the order paper which I would move right at the outset, seconded by the member for Vancouver Centre, adding the words: "But this House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to meet the expectations and hopes of our people that they can place their trust in the current government and that it fails to indicate that the government cares about the economic and social plight of ordinary British Columbians.

That's what I want to direct my remarks to and emphasize the question of trust, because a great deal of the relationship between the electorate in this province, people in this province — as there are people in all jurisdictions under our system in a political democracy — must rest upon trust and upon faith. People must have a feeling that their government is working. Whether they voted for them or not is not material at this point. But they must have the sensitivity and the feeling that their government is working for them in the broad sense; that their government cares about ordinary citizens and that they have trust in their government. I submit that that is not the case in this instance with this government.

Time and time again over the past decade or dozen years since this particular government under the leadership of this particular Premier has been in existence they've broken that trust. They have misled the general public on many occasions, have established a pattern of activity that is identified in this fashion: the government says one thing for political purposes and does something else. That's their history and that's their record. Let me give you a few instances why this Legislature should support this particular amendment and exhibit that it too has no trust in this government. And I would submit to members opposite that if they vote their conscience, if they vote the way their soul and their heart tells them, they'd vote for this amendment. But I doubt that that will be the case. They'll vote as they're ordered to do in order to maintain the facade of respectability.

Let's look at BCRIC as an example. BCRIC was brought into existence by the current Premier. He went around this province and told people it was such a good thing. He urged them to cash in their insurance policies in order to get the money to buy BCRIC shares. He urged people to mortgage their houses in order to get the cash to buy BCRIC shares. When it started to go sour, when it was shown that BCRIC, the experiment, suffered from political interference by this Premier and this government, he turned his back on it and said: "I don't know anything about BCRIC. It's a private corporation. It has nothing to do with me. Too bad," he said, "that people have lost their life savings. That's their problem, not mine." With respect to BCRIC this government is like an irresponsible unmarried male denying responsibility of the child he fathered. That's just one example.

Recent revelations or accusations by BCTV were that there was a conflict of interest existing between members of the cabinet who hold BCRIC shares and an amendment which was made to the act which set up BCRIC. The response was not one that fell into the realm of responsible action and responsible comment, but the response was, "I'll sue if someone levels that accusation against me." It wasn't a question of examining what this government has done with respect to BCRIC. It wasn't a question of examining the ethics or morality of the relationship of government to BCRIC, but the response was: "I'll sue if you say further what it is you were going to say."

Mr. Speaker, in my view a politician who either sues somebody else or threatens to sue them over ordinary political debate or discussion about his or her activities is simply seeking the refuge of a scoundrel when they issue those kinds of threats to stifle public debate. That's what this government did.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) did it as well. When questions were raised about whether or not there was conflict of interest, the answer was: "I'll shut off public debate by threatening to sue somebody." What is a political democracy all about if we're not entitled to subject ourselves to public examination of our activities, especially where there might be a conflict of interest, especially where there might be doubt as to whether the particular person was acting on his own private behalf, or whether he was serving the public interest. The very act of threatening to sue, the act of denying any responsibility, was breaking faith and breaking trust with the people of this province.

In 1975 — we have to go back to that time to see what occurred — in the election campaign, this party that now becomes the government said, as one of its promises during the the 1975 election, that it would bring in conflict-of-interest rules that would serve the public interest. Nothing was done about that promise of 1975, like so many of the other promises of 1975 that were broken almost the very moment that they were made. Not only that, but in the Speech from the Throne by this government, under this Premier, in 1977 there appears this phrase, set out all by itself — no qualifying remarks preceding it and none after it. It was a paragraph, clear and declaratory, and it reads: "A more adequate conflict-of- interest statute for public officials will be placed before you for your consideration and approval at this session." That was 1977.

Now I don't know what the Lieutenant-Governor felt about that, about having words put in his mouth that were subsequently not found to be true, because there was no legislation introduced in that session. The matter was buried and forgotten about. Even though the Premier was asked about it during that session, and even though he said, "Yes, all legislative items will be dealt with in this session," it was forgotten about.

Now that's a violation of trust; that's the breaking of a pact with the people of the province. Here we have a government that breaks that pact, breaks that trust, violates that oath, and then turns around to the people and says: "Trust me some more." One is entitled to be skeptical, one is entitled to be cynical, about a government that so often violates what is basically a moral question and an ethical question.

[ Page 7353 ]

I don't know, really, whether the new Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) is in a conflict-of-interest position or not, but he is certainly in a conflict-of-statement position, heaping abuse on people who live in such housing and then taking advantage of it himself. Maybe that's why in his constituency he's known as "Two Story Jack" — one story in the riding and another one here in Victoria. All this has done is that the latest star to be added to the Bennett cabinet shows up as having violated a trust relationship with the people in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's why he got into cabinet.

MR. HOWARD: Maybe that's why he got into the cabinet, says my friend: he established the criteria beforehand.

I'm going to talk about another violation of trust of this government. When the revelations were made that dirty tricks were the order of the day in the cabinet's operation, and that phony letters were written, that people's names on letters were falsified, that cheating took place, and when it was revealed that the whole cabinet knew about it, when it was revealed that the whole cabinet participated in it and sanctioned it, and when it was discovered that the Provincial Secretary had made a tape recording encouraging people to do that sort of thing and advising them how to do it, what did the leader of government do? He said, "I'll set up an ethics committee in the party," and he forgot about it. The very moment he said it, he forgot about it. It was a statement of convenience, as are all statements from this government — statements to convenience and to protect themselves.

[3:15]

The regretful part about it all, I suppose, is that they laugh about it and giggle and chortle to themselves. Many of us felt genuinely sympathetic and genuinely sorry about the plight that the former Minister of Forests found himself in, in having had it disclosed that he, as the minister, owned shares in a forest firm or something. We genuinely felt sorry for him, because he's considered to be a nice guy.

When the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, also found to be in the same position, had his activities sanctioned by the Premier, then we wondered what ethical standards were being followed in the government. What ethical standards were being established? What guidelines were being set out for people to follow? We came to the conclusion that maybe, for reasons yet unknown but which will be revealed fairly soon, the Premier wanted to get rid of the former Minister of Forests because he was a hazard in forestry. I'm not sure, when it comes to conflict of interest, where the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development fits in, but it is a question of breaking of faith that's involved.

This is the government that in 1980 established the five year range and resource fund for forestry for silvicultural purposes. That action was applauded by everyone in this chamber at the time. That action was applauded by everyone who had anything to do with the forest industry, because they saw an identification of the need to break out of the ordinary budgetary annual restraints that demanded you start from zero each year. They looked at it and said that silviculture had to have a future for the funding as well; it can't be an annual: "Are we going to get any money or aren't we?" That action of setting up the five-year range and resource fund was applauded all across this province. You know very well. Mr. Speaker, the attitude that was applauded in Prince George, which desperately requires the forest industry for its survival and economic development.

Then in 1982 the government, two years into the five-year period of that range and resource fund, reached in and grabbed the remaining money — some $86 million. They wiped out the fund and destroyed the concept of long-range committed funding to silviculture. They broke faith with the people of this province. They violated another relationship. They said: "You shouldn't trust us in forestry either." Where did some of that $86 million go? Some of it went to buy television sets for inmates in Oakalla, figuring that television entertainment for inmates in Oakalla is more important than planting trees and forestry for the future. That's what they did.

Now we have a throne speech in front of us right now that once again says: "We're going to work out an arrangement for long-term funding for silviculture." They've revived it again. They have come back once more, after having broken trust with the people just four years ago on the very self-same subject matter, and have now hauled the Lieutenant-Governor in so that he can say his government is going to look for a way for long-term funding. I for one don't believe it, because this government has violated the people's trust before, and they'll do it again every time they get a chance. You can't believe them. They betrayed foresters. The government betrayed the forest industry. It has certainly betrayed future generations. Our children and our children's children were betrayed by this government on forestry and silviculture with that action in 1982.

Four years later on the eve of an election, they're going to revive it and say: "Trust us again." I'm going to do my best to try to convince the population in this province that no longer should they place any trust in this government by way of the ballot in the hopes that it will get tossed out once and for all, down the drain where it belongs. Let's bring to the people what they need to have, which is a government that can exhibit faith and honourable dealings and trust and build on that trust. Betrayals should be no foundation for partisan political activities.

There's an ancient Chinese proverb that says: "If you fool me once, shame on you. If you fool me twice, shame on me." It's a wise statement, and I hope the general public in this province, when they get a ballot in their hand, will say: "No, you're not going to fool me any longer."

I'll tell you something else they did. They moved to establish a provision whereby forest licences could be rolled over into tree-farm licences, a few years ago, and established an arrangement whereby a volume-based licence could be transferred and rolled over into a land-based type of licence.

A memo was given to the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing on February 2, 1984 by the then deputy minister, John Johnston, in which he points out the dangers in that type of manoeuvre. He says in his memo:

"The province will inevitably lose the ability to assist the extent and quality of management of Crown lands."

The province will lose if you do this — if you relinquish control.

"The degree to which Crown land can be made available to promote economic diversity is severely reduced by long-term alienation. The management of both timber resources and other resource values within the licence area will depend on the financial

[ Page 7354 ]

position of the company. Such management will decline in poor financial times. Utilization standards will decrease and wastage will be greater when timber marketability is low."

That's exactly what is happening today. They're cutting trees in my part of the world and leaving 40, 50 and 60 percent of the trees in the bush on the ground — high-grading them. They're taking public property, which is the tree, cutting it down and leaving it to rot. That won't be available for future generations, for the next team of loggers that go in there. It's down and it will be of no value whatever three or four years from now.

John Johnston, the deputy minister, in a very precisely worded, very careful and in-depth analysis of that proposed rollover, came along with those suggestions and recommendations, and basically said: "Don't do it, because if you do the public interest will suffer." I just read some of the references from that memo from Mr. Johnston to the then Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. What did the government do? Did they pay heed to Mr. Johnston's concern about the public interest? No damn way they did. They fired him. They eased him out the door. They used the Peck approach. It was either jump or get pushed. This government does not want, from the public service, input into cabinet that seeks to pay any attention to the public interest. Their only concern is their own private interest and whom they deal with.

If there is an area of deceit greater than any other it probably relates to the game of restraint. One of the fundamental arguments that this government put forward with respect to restraint was that it was going to bring down the cost of government, and people felt: "Well, good, my taxes will be lowered if it costs less to run government. I, the taxpayer, will benefit." But do you know what happened in a two-year period, Mr. Speaker? From the beginning of restraint to the current fiscal year, the one we are in right now, the cost of government has gone up by $700 million — an 8 percent increase in the cost of government.

Here's a government once more having broken the trust of the people. It said to the people, "Re-elect us and we'll do one thing," and they turned around and did something entirely different. We don't need the Kinsella revelations to point out that this is a government to whom restraint was a hoax played upon the people. They painted the Premier as a tough guy. Well, Mr. Speaker, there's a vast difference between being tough and being heartless, between being tough and being callous, between being tough and being brutal. This is the government that has brutalized virtually every group in this province for its own partisan purposes. They've created enemies and tried to direct the attention at the rest of the citizens against that group that they singled out.

Let me run over them quickly. Teachers were singled out as being the enemies of the state. Public servants were singled out. Social assistance recipients, poor people on welfare, were singled out as being the enemies of the state by this government. Co-op housing tenants were singled out — with one exception — as the enemies of the state. Doctors, municipal governments, selected school boards and individual clergymen were singled out as being enemies of this government and enemies of the people. People concerned about the environment have been singled out as being enemies. Native Indians, small loggers.... The list goes on and on of groups singled out by this government for its own rotten, corrupt political activities.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I say that without equivocation: rotten, corrupt political activities. With this government, power and falsehood are companions. It should be truth that is the servant of power, but with the Bennett government, Mr. Speaker, truth has become one of the permanently unemployed, regrettably.

[3:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll advise the House that the motion has been passed to the Chair and is in order. The Chair recognizes the Minister of Education.

MR. HOWARD: I think I have a point of order in that, as I understand it, when an amendment is moved and seconded, if the seconder of the motion does not immediately then speak, he loses his opportunity. I think the member for Vancouver East should fit into that category. That seems to be the tradition here — that by seconding he is presumed to have spoken and that he should have the opportunity to speak now and thus not lose his place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, this happens once a year. The first member for Vancouver Centre can indicate his willingness to second this motion simply by nodding his head to the Chair, and will not lose his place in debate at such time as he wishes to take it. I can recognize the Minister of Education, hon. member, and then recognize you later, if that is your wish. But this does not prejudice your ability to speak at this point.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I must respond. I was on my feet first and I've placed my name to speak on behalf of the government's side, and as you've indicated to the first member that he hasn't lost his place in debate, I think I have the right to proceed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Further to the point of order, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. BARNES: I just wanted to be sure. If that's your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that this is not setting a precedent in that it's perfectly within the orders, then I'll accept it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. And the speaking list, as we all know, is done by other members of the assembly. As I indicated earlier, your ability to speak in this debate is not prejudiced at all, and you will be given every opportunity when the time comes.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I was originally going to speak on the speech from the throne. However, now that the member for Skeena has moved his amendment, then I'm quite prepared to proceed to indicate to the House how erroneous his amendment is in the type of debate he brings into this House.

Mr. Speaker, I quote the last part of the member's motion: "But this House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to meet the expectations and hopes of our people that they can place their trust in the current government and that it fails to indicate that the government cares about the economic and social plight of the ordinary British Columbian." Mr. Speaker, then the member for Skeena goes on to accuse the

[ Page 7355 ]

new Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) of misusing his portfolio. I don't recall his exact words. He may have implied he was dishonest. He may have implied many things that are unparliamentary, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, without stating first of all that this is a new Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, in that position for a month. I think that indicates the quality of debate the member for Skeena brings to this House.

Then he attacks the former Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), not concerned about the economic or social plight of British Columbians, but personally attacking ministers of the Crown. And then it indicates his comments about dirty tricks, letters etc. from many years ago, and then goes on to comment about the former Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

Mr. Speaker, that's one of the concerns I have about the level of debate in the Legislature at this time. We have a problem in British Columbia, though the member for Skeena would call it a game: "The game of restraint." Yet, Mr. Speaker, this government over the past several years, with the mandate of the people, has attempted to bring the cost of government down within the ability of the taxpayers and the economy to pay for government and government services.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I that 70 percent of our annual operating budget goes to pay for health, education and human resources. The member for Skeena is quick to point out to you that isn't it terrible that in the three years of restraint we've embarked upon controlling costs and that our total budget has gone up by some $700 million, or 8 percent. He says: "isn't it a shame and isn't it terrible that we have increased our total budget by that much?"

But I think he knows as well as I do, and as well as the rest of the members of this Legislature, if he looks at the budget and identifies the Health portfolio, the Education portfolio and the Human Resources portfolio, that almost all of the $700 million that is in there goes for those three areas of people services to the people of this province, because this government recognizes the need for adequate health care, adequate education and adequate assistance to those people who are less fortunate than us. That's what that member fails to say.

He indicates that our restraint program has failed. Mr. Speaker, if we didn't have restraint in place, we wouldn't be able to maintain those standards in Health, Education and Human Resources. That's our commitment to the people: to control government costs. Even with all the tough things we have done and all the things we have been accused of, in the 1985-86 fiscal year I think our operating deficit for the year will be approximately $900 million.

Mr. Speaker, we're still borrowing to pay for groceries in this province, but we have attempted to keep the deficit under control while having a responsibility to maintain services to the people in the areas of Health, Education and Human Resources. Mr. Speaker, I think if any British Columbian took the opportunity to look behind the sensational headline or the political rhetoric of the NDP and others in this province, they'd quickly realize that in 1982-83 this government identified the problem that the nation should have identified, which is one of controlling costs of spending in government.

We identified that program and went to the people of the province in 1983. They said: "Yes, we're on side with you." And for the last three years we've worked hard, and we've attempted to keep our costs under control. Just in this year the federal government is finally addressing that question that we addressed three years ago. They have a monumental task, but it is one that I think this province can be proud of. Our Premier and this government showed leadership as far back as 1983 in getting the costs of government under control.

Mr. Speaker, the member mentions in his resolution that we failed to indicate that the government cared about the economic plight of the ordinary British Columbian. Mr. Speaker, we brought in taxation relief a year ago for business in this province. For what reason? Not to fill the pockets of the private enterpriser or the entrepreneur but to give assistance to the business community so they could maintain and create jobs for British Columbians. You need those entrepreneurs, those businessmen; you need that industry out there to have jobs for "ordinary British Columbians," as the member put it.

Mr. Speaker, we identified another problem through the critical industries commission. We identified the problem in the industry: they needed help to maintain their competitive edge in the world marketplace. We've seen mining companies go back to work in the Okanagan Valley. Brenda Mines put 400 people back to work,400 ordinary British Columbians whose families are seeing a paycheque. They wouldn't be working if it weren't for the efforts of this government to bring management, labour and government together to work out a system whereby those industries that were questionable or had shut down could maintain those jobs for the ordinary British Columbian.

Mr. Speaker, we also moved to create new jobs. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and his Partners in Enterprise program brought out a program and said to local municipalities: "Look, we'll work with you. Between the provincial government and local governments, if there is an opportunity to create jobs, let's make it attractive for the businessman to come in and establish a business in your community so that you can have people working in your community."

In my community of Penticton a new plant, Western Match Inc., opened up and employs employs 40 people. I have to tell you that in my community 40 more people working is a real boon, and we're looking for more activity like that because of the cooperative effort between the municipal government and the provincial government.

Then he talks about the social plight of ordinary British Columbians — moving off the economic side and getting into the people services of Health, Education and Human Resources. His resolution fails because he knows that of that $700 million, extra funds spent were primarily directed into Health. Education and Human Resources. I think that should indicate to him that his resolution is in error and that this government is concerned about the social concerns of the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a few minutes to indicate what this government has done and what it intends to do with regards to education, the area that I have embarked upon. In the throne speech we talk about the fact that there is a three year program announced in the throne speech allocating $110 million in the first year. That has been announced, and then it indicates that we will be looking at a second and third year of the fund to be brought forward by the Minister of Finance for consideration of the members of the assembly.

[ Page 7356 ]

Mr. Speaker, the key to that Excellence in Education fund is to provide our young people with the academic and technical training and education to allow them to take their place in the new economy that is developing in our province. It is more important now than ever before, as we work our way out of this economic downturn, that we have the ability to teach our young people and prepare them for the twenty-first century. Maybe some of the old standbys have to be looked at a second and third time. Maybe we have to change direction because of the society in which we live, the industrial community, the high technologies, the use of computers. We've got to have an education system in this province that is second to none, and not just with how much we spend per student, because that's the myth. It's isn't whether or not we spend the second-highest or the second-lowest amount in the country for education of our students; it's what we do with the dollars we have.

Mr. Speaker, we have a problem. There is no question, we have a problem. There's a lack of coordination in our effort. There's a lack of communication, certainly, and there's certainly a lack of understanding. In regard to that lack of understanding, the biggest issue in education today is funding; no question about that. The member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam), I'm certain, would nod his head that funding is the biggest concern in education today. Yet the provincial budget, when I look at the statistics I have from 1979 dealing with total education in British Columbia, that's K to 12, colleges and universities.... We spent $1 billion. In 1985 we spent $1.7 billion. In those six years, that's a 70 percent increase. But the debate is still that the education budget is not enough. That is top-priority news media coverage, with delegations and anywhere I go. It's always a concern.

Mr. Speaker, the question has to be asked: by what standard is it not enough — by the standard of the optimum number of courses, activities, by the standard of the number of facilities or by the standard of level of salaries? The answer is no. Funding is not sufficient, because if it was sufficient, we wouldn't have all the rhetoric that goes on around the province. But by the standard of the economy's ability to pay or the taxpayer's ability to pay, the answer is yes, it is adequate. It is money that has been directed, and well directed, to ensure the best opportunity for our young people today.

Considering the recent economic downturn, Mr. Speaker, we have put more dollars into education and more into health. We still have a multimillion-dollar operating deficit to ensure that we maintain those people services I spoke about earlier.

[3:45]

Lack of communication, Mr. Speaker. We have three camps in British Columbia: one is called the B.C. Teachers' Federation, the other is called the B.C. School Trustees' Association, and the third is called the B.C. Ministry of Education — or the government, if you wish. Each has its set priorities and, to a great extent, each position is inflexible because.... I think communicating via the media could be called political posturing for our various constituencies, whether it's Mr. Clarke for the TF or Mr. Buckley or me. I have to say that the buck stops here. We have to fund those school districts; we have to look at the contribution to teachers' salaries, etc.

Unfortunately, it all goes through the media and the political rhetoric from across the other side — people who stand up and make speeches. Never mind telling the whole story, just tell what you want them to hear; hammer the government. Never mind that we're trying to work our way out of a recession in this province. Just hammer the government, because they have one goal in mind, and that's to get over here. But the people aren't going to buy it, and they're always going to be over there.

We've got to resolve, and I'm attempting to do that, the lack of communication. It doesn't do any good for me and a group of agitated people to meet in front of the TV cameras and get all the debate on there. What we need to is sit down quietly, both with a common goal in mind, which is to educate our young people in this province, and say: how best can we accomplish that goal? "Mr. Minister, we think you should do this," and they should understand what I'm trying to say to the school boards and to the teachers.

There is a limited pool of funds. You can't ask a logger or a construction worker or a small business man who's just surviving, maintaining jobs for ten or 20 people, for more and more and more, or you break their backs, particularly if you're asking for more money to pay salaries to teachers. You can't do it, the same way that you cannot do it to government employees at any level, whether it's municipal, federal or provincial, because the money doesn't come from this room. It doesn't come from you and me; it comes from the people. We're just the guardians. We're just the people who take the money in and try to redistribute it. And as I said earlier, 70 percent of those dollars that we take in, which is generated by the economy and by taxes, goes into those three major concerns of any government: health, education and human resources.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) talks about economics. I've heard some of his speeches in this House, and I got to tell you, I'm not sure what he's saying. I know it's not economics, anyway.

My intention, in attempting to try to get over this confrontational approach to education, is to get down and try to address the concerns of the people. That's the parents, the teachers, the school trustees, the children and this government. I want to sit down and try to address it, and I've been doing that over the past four weeks. I've spoken to teachers, the BCTF, the school trustees. I've had a tremendous number of briefing sessions with my staff, most of which come from the teaching profession, from the field of education in the schools; they have moved onto the provincial scene in order to give their expertise to the government to create the best courses possible for our young people.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: If the member for Esquimalt is going to tell us that what you do is hire more government employees to generate more paycheques so that you won't have any problems raising taxes, he has a problem. You've got to have production. If that was the simplest approach, then we'd hire everybody for government and solve our problem. That's the NDP fiscal strategy — government hires everybody, government takes over everything, and the problem is solved.

Let me tell you what I'd like to do. First of all, I want to set up a School Act committee made up of educators, people

[ Page 7357 ]

from the education system, administrators, business people and others — and those others would include some parental input as well. I want them to take the "Let's Talk About Schools" material, and all the other material that we've gathered over the years, and come up with a paper for me which will result in a new School Act for this province. I think we've got to address that question, and I hope to get on with that; but I've got to get out of the political rhetoric that each organization seems to be involved in and get down to sitting at a table to solve that problem.

The other areas are a committee to deal with computers in education, to recommend to the high schools the type of computer hardware and software. The hardware is only the machine and I'm more interested in what type of programs we are going to give our young people. If we can get the best computer expertise, then we can train our young people for dealing with the business world of the twenty-first century.

Then I want to get involved in a committee on teacher training and upgrading, and find out how best we can help our professional teachers cope with the ever-changing world of education, which is driven by the demands of the workplace, the technology in the workplace, the professions, the new professions that have come onstream, the ones that our teachers have to train our young people for, so that if they go to university, to post-secondary education, they're aimed in the direction that's best for the student. Also the arts, because the arts are a very important part of our community in British Columbia.

Last but not least — this is a very delicate subject, but one that should be expressed — we have to address the question of child abuse. It's one that is of concern to all of us, and I want to make sure I have input from teachers, trustees and the ministry to ensure that we can guarantee parents that their children are safe in our schools. The comment has been made: "What about the parents?" Most certainly the parents have to be involved in that discussion. If we can develop the proper system and policies, we can identify the offenders and they'll be dealt with swiftly. But it is also my duty to ensure that innocent teachers aren't falsely identified, or are not victims of a witch-hunt just because somebody has concern.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member opposite says: "What about the courts?" Yes, Madam Member, the courts would be used, but I think we....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, the CORE program. I thought you were talking about the CARE program because I was dealing with child abuse; there is a program called CARE in some of the schools now.

Mr. Speaker, those are the four priorities as I see them: a new School Act, computers in education, teacher training and upgrading, and child abuse. If we can identify where we want to go and get away from the political rhetoric that surrounds education today, then we'll achieve the goal we all want — the government, the Ministry of Education, the parents, the children, who seem to be forgotten in all of this rhetoric....

MR. REID: It sure seems like it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Doesn't it. We should be concerned about education for our children, not about teachers' wages. We should be concerned about the parents of those children, not whether we can get new schools, et cetera, or what courses. We should be concerned about the parents, because when they send those children to school they feel they have the opportunity to learn, and not be subject to any possible abuse.

If I can achieve those goals I'll certainly be very proud and pleased, but I need cooperation. I don't need the type of debate that comes across the House from time to time; I don't need rhetoric from the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) who just wings it, so to speak. He doesn't even read his own resolution before he gets up and talks. If he thought of some of the things that were done in the past months and years, he'd find that he should withdraw his resolution.

Mr. Speaker, to deal finally with the one area of funding, because I think it's important that we understand the sharing of all this, there's a lot of comment about the industrial or commercial tax base that's been taken away from the local school board. That is part of the economy of British Columbia, and that all goes into the revenues of the province in order for the province to share that equally across the province. Most teachers of school boards will tell you very quickly that there are some school districts that don't have that industrial tax base that others did. As a result it was a much heavier load on the people who didn't have the industrial tax base within their school district. and they suffered more greatly. So when you pool it all together and bring it in and then share it equitably under the fiscal framework across the framework, that's fairer.

What does it do? It identifies with the kids — the young people we're trying to educate. Never mind about how much money I've got in this pot because I've got a big sawmill or a big pulp mill or something else and I can do all those fancy fringe things that you want to do in education. No, sir. It's a core curriculum we're concerned about. It's education for the kids. So let's pool that money and then redistribute it. This is how it goes, Mr. Speaker.

You'd be interested to know that the residential tax....

The Premier alluded to it today so I got the chart, and I want to pass this on to the House: local residential tax net after homeowner grant, 9.4 percent of the total cost of education in the province; homeowner grant contributes 15.4 percent; general revenue grants — that's from the province — 38.4 percent. The employers' portion of teachers' pensions, which we have to contribute to, is 5.1 percent, and non-residential tax is 31.6 percent, which is the industrial-commercial tax base that goes into the pool. So if you look at that, considering that the homeowner grant comes from the economy of British Columbia, the residential taxpayer net on his taxes he pays on his property in this last year was 9.4 percent. I'm not saying it should be increased, Mr. Speaker; I'm just saying that people often think that this government doesn't contribute enough to education, and I'm just pointing out to you that there is a 90 percent contribution that is made locally and the net balance to the local taxpayer on average is 9.4 percent.

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal framework that I've come to enjoy administering — the fiscal framework in education — is a very comprehensive approach to fairness in education. It basically identifies a formula to look at class operations and administration across the province. Then it adjusts for those remote or rural school districts — transportation costs. It

[ Page 7358 ]

gives us a basic fiscal framework that treats all school districts equally.

The concept of the local school board having the ability to tax is a good concept, because if the local school board, in its wisdom, has the ability to tax, it can tax for services rendered which they decide upon locally that they want to give to their local students. They have the ability to raise that tax locally. But, Mr. Speaker, with that ability comes accountability. What it means is that the school board has the right to go to the property-owners for taxes and provide things over and above what is provided in the fiscal framework. That's a local decision, but it's also for them to explain to their taxpayers that they want to have this additional money for these additional programs they may put in.

I think that's great. I think every school board in this province, maybe with the exception of one, will identify with that and say: "Now we have a responsibility here. First of all, here is the fiscal framework. Secondly, if we want to enhance that, then we're going to have to make a case to our local taxpayers." In most cases, if their case is good the local taxpayer will say: "Good show, school board. I really appreciate what you're doing because you're concerned — giving extra courses, identifying with this particular area for my children." For example, in the Okanagan Valley maybe an agricultural course on the tree-fruit industry, because that's one of the major industries in our valley and maybe that's a specific course that could be identified with North Okanagan, with South Okanagan, with Boundary-Similkameen, because it has that opportunity to respond to a local need. I think that's a great approach.

[4:00]

I just point out, Mr. Speaker, that have a lot of faith in the elected school trustees in this province, who, when given this authority, will identify the true needs for their specific area, recognizing the limit of the ability of the provincial tax base and the provincial economy to pay, and if they wish to go over that they have the ability to do it, and as I said earlier, they have the accountability. I'm sure they'll come forward and they'll be as responsible at the local level as we are at the provincial level dealing with education funding in this province.

Mr. Speaker, let me sum up. I would like to deal at another time with the Expo legacy committee. I think some comments were made earlier in the throne speech debate with regard to what happens after Expo. I'd love to be able to spend some time to talk about that. But let's deal with the resolution which, I think, first of all, was poorly presented by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). Secondly, it indicated that the opposition did not feel that the government cared about the economic and social plight of the ordinary British Columbian. In my remarks I have attempted to identify what we've done with regard to the economy, and what our plans are in regard to education, which is my responsibility as Minister of Education. If, in addressing the resolution that's before us or in the budget speech debate, the opposition identified the policies and the programs that they would put into place if they were government, we could get on with far better legislative activity in this province. Mr. Speaker, I'm voting against this resolution that has been presented by the member for Skeena.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I wish to second the motion by the member for Skeena, amending the throne speech: that His Honour failed in his speech to meet the expectations and hopes of our people, that they cannot place their trust in the current government, and that it fails to indicate that the government cares about the economic and social plight of ordinary British Columbians.

I would just comment on the question of care. I made a comment recently about the Premier and Social Credit's lack of commitment to investment in social housing. The Premier retorted that he takes exception to my suggesting that he does not care. I'm not going to argue over something as subjective as whether you care or not; I think action is what we're talking about — the actions of the government.

On December 7 I was asked by the Leader of the Opposition, as a result of a letter from 16 organizations — actually, there were more than that, but they call themselves ELP, End Legislated Poverty — who out of frustration made a challenge to the government and the opposition to provide a representative to come and live on social assistance rates for a single person as provided through the Ministry of Human Resources.... The Leader of the Opposition agreed to provide a person, myself, and on January 2 we held a press conference to announce the conditions under which this would take place. The conditions, of course, were highly publicized; that is, everyone was made fully aware that the government was being accused of being insensitive, unavailable and out of touch with the basic, ordinary, everyday needs of British Columbians.

The 16 organizations made it clear that....

By the way, I should point out that some of these organizations, Mr. Speaker, are as follows: food banks, the conference of the United Church, the Teachers' Federation, the Committee for Social Responsibility, the Association of Social Workers, CIP Fightback, the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association, unemployed action centres in Vancouver and New Westminster, Solidarity associations, tenants' rights organizations in Vancouver-Little Mountain, the Vancouver and District Public Housing Tenants' Association, Status of Women, the Single Mothers' Action Committee, Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of British Columbia, the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre, etc. Actually, there were many more organizations. These organizations were frustrated because time and again they made appeals to the government to address the concerns that they had. They were talking specifically about income assistance, and that really is the point I wish to discuss — the income assistance program of British Columbia.

I was asked to live on $350, something that I think as MLAs we can all appreciate is considerably less than what we normally earn and live on.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I must say.... The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) is asking who.... I don't know if he is intending to try to disrupt my speech, but it was the ELP — End Legislated Poverty, a coalition of some 16 community organizations — that challenged the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier of the province to provide an MLA or a cabinet minister, whatever the case may be. Of course we got no one from the government side.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Interjection.

[ Page 7359 ]

MR. BARNES: Are you still ready to go down, Mr. Minister? You've been down there once and you looked at the wrong place. You were trying to get some information. You were down there. Now I didn't want.... See, I'm trying to relate a matter that I consider to be of very serious significance, and I don't wish to badger the government, but merely to report what I experienced in such as way as to point out to the government that it's.... They may care. When a person says they care, that's really something that.... Who can argue with a person if they say they care? But their actions are what we're talking about.

On the sixth of January I began to experience the very first problem that one faces who is on social assistance when they are really broke and have no money and no means, and that's trying to find a place to stay. So I spent a day or so — actually I spent all day — looking at rooming houses. I found, first of all, Mr. Speaker, that I did not have the option of living anywhere in the city of Vancouver on the mere amount of $200 per month, because welfare rates do not allow you to have that much choice. You have to make a decision that if you're going to be on welfare rates you either live in or around the downtown east side or you share your accommodation with someone outside the downtown east side, which means that you have less and less privacy and less and less of the freedom that you might have been accustomed to when you were working full time, when you had your own independence and when you were able to feel some sense of self-determination. These kinds of things go by the boards when you are on social assistance. At least this was the experience that I had, and I've talked to hundreds of people who have told me that it is actually impossible to live on those rates.

I finally found a place, after deciding that I was not going to find a place where I could have all of the amenities I like, such as a private toilet, private bath, my own cooking facilities and perhaps a little lounge room, or all of those normal things that people expect in their home, but I was going to have to settle for a room in the range of 10 by 10 — maybe 100 or 150 square feet. A 200-square-foot space is quite large for people who are living in those little rooming places downtown. I was going to have to settle for a sink on the wall — a little wash-basin type of a sink. That was my plumbing. You get used to that when you're in the downtown east side. I was going to have to settle for co-tenants, shall we say. In other words, little pests or insects — some people call them cockroaches — or mice or whatever may be around; they also share the facilities with you. And usually you're having to change your lifestyle. I found that even though I wanted to use the toilet, I had to take my own toilet paper or I had to take my soap and bring it back and forth, because it would disappear. These are the kinds of shocks that I experienced, and I realized that there were people being plunged into that type of life who had themselves been independent most of their lives, but who because of the lack of opportunities within the income assistance program had very little choice.

Now on $350 per month I had to spend $200 of that amount for shelter. If I hadn't spent the $200 for shelter, the Minister of Human Resources would not give me the difference. In other words, were I able to negotiate a cheaper rent — find cheaper accommodation available, say, for $100 or $150 — I could not count on that extra $50 or extra $100 from the ministry. They paid my shelter allowance of $200. They did not give me the difference for good business ability or negotiating ability — for my ability to wheel and deal, so to speak, as any free enterpriser would understand, to try to make the most of my dollars. There is no incentive for me to make a deal with the landlord under the B.C. government system.

Landlords know that, by the way, Mr. Speaker. Landlords know the rules very well. They know that a person on social assistance gets X amount of dollars for shelter and X amount of dollars for a living allowance. But those are two distinct categories and are not together, and that is a serious problem in the system. These are the kinds of things that I say the government could do something about. Perhaps the government cannot create money if it doesn't have it, although we all know that it manages to create the odd dollar for things like ALRT or Expo or northeast coal or Coquihalla Highway or all kinds of other things.

Nonetheless, the government has no money, resources are down, times are tough, restraint has been imposed to try to save taxpayers' money, although the deficit has gone up some $16 billion in the last ten years. We still have a toughtime province, and therefore those people on social assistance who are suffering cannot be helped right away. But all I'm saying to you is, do a good job with the system you have, Mr. Speaker. People who are receiving shelter allowances should be allowed that amount of money. That's what you've budgeted for. You've budgeted $200; give them the $200. And if they can save $50, let them save $50. That's only fair. Put pressure on those landlords who know that those people are going to spend that money. They know that the government will take it away from them if they don't get it. If they can't negotiate, how can we encourage people to improve themselves?

[4:15]

So much for the shelter allowance. It can be improved. You could lump that together with the living allowance. Give them the benefit of the doubt. The money is there. This is not money you have to find. You've budgeted for it — give it to them. Why rip them off further? Why take more from them than you've even budgeted for? This is the point. We're talking about the dollars you say you have right now. Not the dollars you're trying to get — the dollars you have.

If you're not satisfied with what I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, take a look at a report that came out just this month — March 1986 — put out by the Social Planning and Review Council of British Columbia. They make one of those recommendations. In fact, all of these recommendations in SPARC should be followed. They're talking about some new money, but most of the things they're talking about are just regulatory, just simple common sense.

Mr. Speaker, the living allowance is just as bad. I was a rather inexperienced new recipient on simulated welfare, and I must say that there were a lot of things that I tried to do that I probably would not do again. Most people who wrote me.... There were literally dozens and dozens of letters coming in and telling me: "Good idea that you're doing it as a politician. We know you must have a gimmick or a scam or something, because politicians don't do these kinds of things." After living through that and realizing that I didn't dare play games with people's lives in this way.... No politician would dare do what I did, not unless he was serious; and I don't think that any politician would go through that and come out of it without trying to do something about it. That's the other thing. It affects you. This is why I'm saying to you what I'm saying. I'm not really trying

[ Page 7360 ]

to condemn you for not caring, although that's in the amendment and there is good reason for people to believe that the government doesn't care. Be that as it may, we're talking about practical solutions to the problem.

This living allowance of $150, which is the amount I had left after paying for my $200 room, is woefully inadequate. It is not possible for this particular person, at the time 228 pounds, at the time 56 years of age, at the time 6 foot 6, to survive in good health by living on a nutritious diet on that amount of money, and expect to be able to function, to be available for employment, shall we say — to be able to groom myself, to keep myself fit, to be able to do any of the normal things that a person has to do to maintain his sanity, sense of dignity and self-respect. It's simply not possible. I like to jog, for instance. I cannot. I tried it four times in the 54 days that I was out. I had to give it up because it takes too much energy.

It discourages a person from being able to involve himself in recreation and cultural activities and a treat every now and then. No wonder people go to drink. No wonder they have a three-day millionaire down there. Those people, when they do get their hands on a few dollars — frustration, hopelessness, disincentive, lack of encouragement, dehumanization, frustrated staff who haven't the resources to do the job that they are supposed to do or are trying to do under their ethical responsibilities as professional people and para-professionals. They can't do their job, their hands are tied, they are suffering from restraint. On and on it goes, but who suffers? The recipient. The person that we should be encouraging we're discouraging. So $150 is definitely not enough to live on — far from it.

I was told that I had to purchase a fare card for $40, which is the cost of a transit card in the city of Vancouver, in the greater Vancouver area. I did that: I purchased a fare card, and I was immediately told by most people on social welfare that that's a luxury. "You can't afford fare cards," they say. "You can barely make it on that just to eat. You cannot afford it." But I said: "Well, certainly you've got to have a fare card or some form of transportation if you are required by the regulations of the MHR to be looking for work if you are able." If you are employable you are supposed to be looking for work. You are supposed to be mobile. Not to mention clothing, and for some people that requires a lot more amenities. Some people get their hair cut. Some people like to brush their teeth and do all kinds of things — buy toothpaste.

But these are all costs that have to come out of that $150. The fare card is $40; that leaves me $110. I was told by the nutritionist that for a person with the physical description I just gave you about myself, I would need at least $25 a week at a minimum, which wouldn't even bring me up to the amount of calories I need for a day in order to survive, which is close to 4,000. I would get about half that. Those are facts. We're talking about facts. The budget that those people have to live on is not only demeaning, it's irresponsible.

Where are your guidelines? Why do I say it's irresponsible? Take a look at Statistics Canada's recommendations for what is a very minimum standard that people should live on. It's all here in the document. I'm not going to read it, but I would recommend to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and to all of the other ministers that they read this document. It is unbiased; it is highly professional and objective, dealing only with the facts, after laborious effort to try to find out by measuring right across this country what it really does cost, even by region. What does it really cost for a person to live, not in the grand style of members of the Legislature, but simply to be able to exist and have some semblance of dignity remaining? That's what we're talking about. I do not believe that this government doesn't care. Perhaps this government doesn't understand, and this is the reason for the challenge.

The impression I got from those organizations was: "Look, if you will go and live on that amount of money, you will see what we mean." So that's what I did. I didn't come back to accuse the government of not caring. I came back to report to the government that the system does not work; it simply doesn't work.

We can argue and play politics. I just heard the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) say that we've got to cut out politics in our education system, that we've got to begin to talk in terms of benefit to the people, that we've got to talk in terms of ways of maximizing our resources. Well, let's take a look at this income system. Income assistance in the province of British Columbia is woefully inadequate. It doesn't even begin to meet basic, essential needs. It's about 50 percent of what it should be in most categories to reach the national average, or the poverty line recommended by StatsCanada, based on research, based on all kinds of information and long periods of time. Time after time it has shown that people in British Columbia do not receive adequate allowances. I know there are analogies in other jurisdictions where you say they don't even have income assistance. We can talk about the Third World. We can talk about down in the United States. We can talk about other jurisdictions even in Canada, but I'm talking about British Columbia, about people who have a right to live in dignity. We should set an example. We should not be that concerned about what's happening somewhere else when it comes to our people.

What are the solutions? What would happen if you raised the rates? Some people say that if you raise the rates all you do is get a pass-through to the landlord and people will just squander that money. Well, I'm here to say that talking to people, I find most of them are doing things I'm sure this government would not condone, for a good reason: because this government believes everyone should have the right to live in dignity, live by ethical standards, be able to maintain the kind of morality that is necessary in order to bring up families in this society. They should not be expected to engage in any activity that is in any way a contravention of the regulations of any statutes in this province.

I've challenged people to show me how it can work. I know there are a few people who believe it is possible to live on that $350 if you are a single person. There may be a spartan type of person in this world who can do almost anything. I certainly have had to do some things that didn't feel very good, but I did them anyway. I do not recommend that anyone live by the rules, by the regulations as set down by MHR, on the rates as they are today. I don't recommend that they try to do it because it's not healthy; it's not safe; it's depressing. It is virtually impossible, certainly, to sustain yourself for very long.

So what do they do? After 23 days, I was broke. I had only purchased a $40 fare card; I had $110 left. I bought a few cooking items, a few miscellaneous items for about $10 or $15, and I was broke after 23 days. People say: "How are you going to get through?" Well, you can do several things. You can borrow money from your friends. I doubt if you would be able to get it from the bank or any lending institution, because you don't qualify. You don't have any full-time

[ Page 7361 ]

employment; your assets are down. In other words, you are totally depleted, so you're not going to qualify for very much in the way of loans.

You can engage in full-time employment, kiss the welfare system good-bye and go on about your way. We all know that's not possible. We have about half a million people, or very close to it, who are either on welfare or unemployment insurance, or who are working for the minimum wage of $3.65, which is less than the poverty level. We're talking about the unavailability of jobs, so that option is out.

What other options are there? What do you do if you're on welfare and you run out of money? You're trying to live frugally. You're watching every dime and you just can't make it. What do you do? Do you go to the food bank? Well, you never know what you might get at the food bank, and that's only once a week; that's hardly adequate. The food banks are starving. This government has yet to contribute a dime to the food banks, although they surely recommend that their clients go to them. They do that, but they make no contribution. What do you do when you're broke, you're on the government social assistance program and you have no other means? I'll tell you what you do, despite what the former Minister of Human Resources said after January 2. After that press conference announcing that an MLA would be going on welfare, she said: "We're going to attack. We're going to find those people who are cheating, who are defrauding, who are taking things that they don't have a right to, in order to have more money to help those in need." I suggest to you that they are all in need. There are no people on welfare who have enough money.

The point I am trying to make, with all respect to this House and to everyone in this province — because I believe we are all people of good will — is that in my heart I do not believe we are deliberately setting out to crush people, but we are inadvertently doing just that because people cannot live on that amount of money. That suggests to me that their options are going to be illegal. Now how many people think of themselves as criminal because they're on welfare and take $50 from mom and dad, keep it in their pocket and don't report it to their income assistance worker? That's not cheating, is it? Is it cheating, when you're hungry and do not have enough meals to make it, to take an extra fifty dollar bill from your neighbour or you do a little baby-sitting on the side and don't tell anybody? Is that cheating? Does that make you a criminal? Are we going to say that we are going to prosecute people for doing that, because that's what they're doing?

[4:30]

I suggest to you that all those people are doing something like that. They're doing something. They've got to be doing something because we know for a fact that those rates are far from adequate, a long way from adequate, and that's the problem. We're not going to have an investigation for fraud. You'd have to put everybody on the welfare roles in jail. If a person goes and gets a bag of food from the food bank, and they don't report that to their income assistance worker, is that not fraud? Do they not require that you report all benefits?

How many people have you heard report their bag of food to the income assistance worker? Let's get serious. We know people are doing it. We're turning a blind eye, but we are encouraging people to be dishonest out of desperation, out of need. That's where the fault is, and we can do something about it right here. We don't need any more money to do something about that kind of a problem.

Criminals. The Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C. calls it survival fraud, but it's really not fraud. But even going the best lick and giving the government the benefit of the doubt, if a person has to commit fraud to survive, then shouldn't we try to help them get out of that situation? Doesn't that indicate that something is wrong?

Mr. Speaker, again I commend to you this recent study "ReGAINing Dignity." It is an examination of basic living in the lower mainland and the adequacy of income assistance and GAIN rates. It was done in December 1985 and presented in March 1986 by Social Planning and Review Council of British Columbia. I commend it to the government. The very first things in this report are objectively condemning. They are not passing judgment; they are merely stating fact. They say:

"It is evident from the research findings that current income assistance rates in British Columbia are seriously inadequate. While the data pertains particularly to the lower mainland, comparable, if not higher, living costs in other parts of British Columbia make them equally applicable provincewide. The data indicates that the first condition of a social security scheme is not being met: sustaining recipients' physical well-being and survival through the provision of adequate food, clothing and shelter."

That condition is not being met. It goes on to state:

"The second condition of a social security scheme is not being met: the creation of positive incentives and options that enable recipients to make genuine choices with respect to employment, education and training." That condition isn't being met.

It is a fallacy as well and a myth to suggest that those people on social assistance are beat, degenerates, incompetents, losers, down-and-outers and all kinds of other unsavoury comments that come to the people who find themselves unfortunately dependent on the social assistance rates in this province. No, they are people like you and I. They are people who have gone through our education system at all levels. Some have only had elementary, some have had secondary and some have had university and post-graduate. There are actually PhDs on social assistance in the food bank lineups. There are former tradespeople, people who have been phased out at 39, 40, 45 years of age.

You see, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about ordinary British Columbians; we're not talking about some strange monster that descended upon us from outer space. There's no such thing. I found that those people in the downtown east side, the so-called slum....

I say "so-called" because I found that these people are sensitive, caring and aspiring despite the fact that they are beat from so many failures in terms of getting anywhere in this society. The fact that people have turned their backs on them has still not totally discouraged them. Most of them say to me: "I would like to have a job. I would like to be constructively engaged in society. I want to do something. I want to be relevant, and if I were given the opportunity, I would make the extra effort to do something." Why don't we talk positively about programs to involve people in solving things for themselves?

How can any person who considers himself an economist on that side of the House or has even the slightest enlightenment about the use of dollars, Mr. Speaker, not realize that when you give money or extend money to those people who are already desperately trying to find dollars to survive, they

[ Page 7362 ]

are going to go out and buy groceries, they're going to pay rent, they're going to buy clothes, they're going to pay bus fare, and on top of that they will even be paying taxes. The money comes back.

Why are we doing this? It's got nothing to do with the costs. Affordability hasn't got a thing to do with it. Besides, we have what is called the Canada Assistance Plan, which cost-shares 50 percent of everything that we spend to try to help these people, and yet we have not raised the rates in four years in this province. It's scandalous, absolutely scandalous! We could be giving people help. We don't do it. I feel that it is ideological. There's got to be something else. There's got to be some other reason.

It's not that you don't care; it's just that you don't consider it a priority. For some reason you have an adverse idea about the benefits of social assistance and helping people to live in dignity. You don't believe that that will be a productive return. You don't believe that that will be a reward to the people of the province of British Columbia. Well, it would be a reward.

It would also be a redeeming grace for the political profession, for those of us who are trying to become more sensitized to the realities on the streets, in the community, eyeball to eyeball and, to use a very common term in the technological field, with a hands-on approach — if not hands-on, arm's-length, with fingers extended. Begin to try to reach and understand what's going on with people. We have an obligation to do that — not just to do a good job, but for our own sanity, because I believe there's a certain amount of guilt and frustration that builds up in the profession of politics after a while. We get cynical. We give up. We are afraid of the people we are trying to help. We talk about going down and surveying a situation at a distance — maybe a quick hit-and-miss type of thing, especially at election time. But I tell you, the people of British Columbia, the people of Canada — people all over the world — are tired of that. They want us to begin to have a bit of a heart, to become more concerned, take a chance. Be bold. We talk about being bold. Be bold and tell people that they do matter, that we're going to get them involved in their own culture, their own society, in a constructive way.

No one wants welfare. I haven't found a single person who wants welfare, although I found quite a few who became frightened after being on welfare for a while, and began to feel: "What can I do? I'm handicapped. I'm not properly trained. I feel inadequate. I've lost my confidence because it's been so long that I don't know if I could compete successfully." What you get when you have a person like that is someone who is preoccupied with failing. This kind of negative pattern builds into their behaviour to the extent that they are debilitated. It takes a great deal to remobilize those people, to get them turned on again, to give them the confidence. You've got to be prepared to let them try and try again until they know that we really care. You can't dismiss them because they fail a few times. I think that's what we need in this province. That's what we need in the world, quite frankly.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I'll deal more with the practical aspects, with the concrete things that can happen. Age discrimination. Can you imagine that? There is actually a regulation within the Ministry of Human Resources that states that if you are 25 years of age you do not require as much sustenance as someone 26. Do you realize that, Mr. Speaker? Obviously this is drawn up for administrative reasons, or for some other kind of totally unrealistic reason. But I'm sure there is an explanation. According to the authors of this document, they are unable to find any standards the government uses to design this kind of thing. Yet that is in fact a regulation, and that is what is going on in this province right now. You do not get the same benefits as a person who is 26 if you are under that age. You are supposed to be able to find some source from somewhere that they don't specify.

Here's another interesting requirement. You do not receive your full benefit — in other words, you have to live on $350 per month — until you have been on eight months. You are supposed to have fewer sustenance needs when you are on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh months. All of a sudden, after eight months, your needs increase.

Earnings exemptions. If we don't want to give the people more money, for God's sake, let them go out and get it themselves legally. We say we haven't got it, can't afford it. Let them go out and get it themselves. Why make them steal, cheat, beg or borrow, or do something like that? Let them live in dignity. They have a right to make a living. We certainly make lots of it in our own way. I'm sure the members on the other side appreciate what I mean.

I've already mentioned increasing the shelter allowance. At least put it with the living allowance. Make them one so that the person has that leverage, like any good free-enterpriser would understand. Leverage is something that I'm sure members on that side of the House appreciate.

Indexing. I've commented on the fact that since May, 1982, there's been no increase in those rates, despite the fact that the federal government shares in the cost. Why not increase those rates? They've been losing and they're still losing purchasing power. If you could do nothing else, raise those rates. These are the kinds of practical things that the government could do at very little cost.

And, of course, inform people on social assistance. This is my final comment, and I realize that I could only begin to touch this, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate your indulgence. Provide people on social assistance with the facts of life. Tell them what they can do and can't do. Tell them about the appeal system. Tell them that they do have rights. Tell them that they can fight for something. Give them some options. Let them get educated. Let them get retrained. Why make it so difficult for people to help themselves in this society when we have so much affluence? After all, if something like 80 percent of the people are working....

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just say in closing that I want to thank my assistant, Mary Jones, and my friend, Janet Stockton, and I want to thank members of the media and other politicians for their sensitive respect for this project which I'm sure you realize was anything but a political ploy. There's no way I would indulge in such an activity for fun. And I will tell you this: although everyone was saying, "Get those Socreds out there. Let them go and suffer with you," do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the system is so bad that I wouldn't even wish that upon the Premier of this province.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm getting lots of advice before I say anything. I'm very pleased to take my place in this debate on the great throne speech and great amendment. I guess we're talking on the amendment, but I

[ Page 7363 ]

noticed that some of the members didn't stay on the amendment, and I might vary it a little. That will be up to the Chair to decide — whether I vary it - not over there.

I would first of all like to congratulate my new colleagues, the new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch), the new Minister of Lands, Parks, and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf), and the new Minister of Post-Secondary Education (Hon. R. Fraser). I might say that I'm having a little confusion there, because I've got these high-priced educators contacting me about education problems, and I really am no expert on that, but I happen to have the same name. We've got to get that sorted out.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I'm sorry that the members for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) and Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) decided that sometime in the future they will be changing careers. But they are still with us, and I want to say that they have been with us for many years. They're great servants to the public. but they will continue to serve us until this Parliament comes to an end, and that is probably within the next, what, twenty six months — something like that. I just want to acknowledge their good work, and I hope that they're around for quite a while yet.

[4:45]

While I'm on the subject, Mr. Speaker, while three of our incumbent MLAs said they will not run in the next election, the opposition have their problems compounded on that. They're losing eight or possibly nine of their incumbent MLAs. If you're dealing percentage-wise, we're losing less than 10 percent, and they're losing in excess of 40 percent.

You know, Mr. Speaker, this has all happened since June, 1984 — a very short period of time — when the present Leader of the Opposition was elected as their leader. I wonder why this vast exodus of incumbent MLAs. Maybe somebody will tell me. But I am really concerned about that. Of the eight or nine who are leaving, six have said that they have fought their last election. Of the eight NDP MLAs, two have left the party....

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to your attention and the attention of the person on his feet in this House that there is an amendment before us, and it says that this House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to meet the expectations and hopes of our people, and they cannot place their trust in current government, and that it fails to indicate that the government cares about the economic and social plight of ordinary British Columbians. For about five or ten minutes the Minister of Transportation and Highways has been talking about the opposition, has been congratulating his colleagues and hasn't even mentioned the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I have watched the rules of this House butchered over the last ten years continually, and I would like to see maybe just a little bit of order from that group over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am confident the hon. minister will continue on the amendment on the economic situation within the province.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I don't really think that I am offending any rules. I would be the last one in this House to offend any rules. I believe what I am talking about is a real social problem in B.C., and that's what I am referring to, the NDP. They're the social problem, I believe I am right on course on that, but I am just about finished.

I might say that not only are they hanging their hat up, but two of their MLAs left them entirely and went to other parties. I want to welcome again the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), a great asset to our party. The other member, of course, is the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who has gone the United way.

I just wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition can't keep his own house in order — a little rump group — and yet aspires to lead the whole province of British Columbia. It really makes me think.

There's quite a difference between him and our leader and Premier. He is probably the hardest-working Premier this province has ever had. He's been Premier for ten and a half years. This is an achievement in itself. He is abreast of all issues at all times.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I want you to watch that second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). Don't let him yell at me, because he is not in his seat.

Our Premier is a real leader through good and tough times. He's always optimistic, and you bet you can trust him. He's always a man of his word. The majority of the people of our province will see that he continues to be Premier when the opportunity presents itself.

When the Leader of the Opposition spoke on the throne speech, he tried to say that our Premier did not get around the province to find out what is going on.

MR. COCKE: He goes to Palm Springs.

HON. A. FRASER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think so does the Leader of the Opposition. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, quite frankly, or illegal either.

For the information of the House, our Premier visited 50 communities in British Columbia in the last 12 months. He attended — and I repeat — public functions in all communities that he was at, attended by thousands of citizens. He was delighted to visit these areas, and all citizens were proud he had visited and listened to them.

I don't think there is any Premier that has travelled more within our province than the present Premier. I realize the Leader of the Opposition did some travelling in our province, and so he should. He might get to learn something about British Columbia other than Vancouver Island. It is my information that on many occasions the Leader of the Opposition visits, the only people who talk to him are NDP cell members. He also spoke at NDP nominating conventions where, again, he is sure blind to the total population of the province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they're talking about social and economic conditions and accusing our government of not doing anything about it. I don't know how you approach this, but I want to approach it on the subject of transportation: what has happened in the past, what is happening now, and what will happen in the future. I think the biggest challenge facing all of us in this Legislature and this province is to create jobs, as the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) says. It certainly is the biggest challenge we have. I would like to take a look at our government's record on the creation of jobs in the immediate past and currently, and review some projects that I know you'll listen to with great interest.

[ Page 7364 ]

Referring first to the Annacis Bridge, 5,000 man-years have been created with that structure. I might say that those jobs have been created since 1984, and that project is still going on. I have a document here in my file where the NDP are against that. They said in 1983 that when they got elected they'd stop it regardless of what stage of construction it was at.

SkyTrain: 5,000 man-years created with that project; highly successful and now in operation. They were opposed to the SkyTrain project — still are. Imagine that member being against SkyTrain, when the mayor of the area he represents — New Westminster — said the other day that it's the greatest thing ever to happen to the city of New Westminster, and you sit there in your defiant, socialist, twisted mind and say you're still against it. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. No wonder you're quitting. You're quitting before you get kicked out.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd be wise to do the same.

HON. A. FRASER: I don't have that type of worry.

Again, back on transportation projects. The Coquihalla Highway, a brand-new transportation system....

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Oh, come on now. I know you don't want to hear about any achievements but you're going to have to hear. You don't have to sit there; you can go if you want, but I'm going to talk about them.

The Coquihalla — phases one and two — has created 10,600 man-years of work and is still going on. That opposition over there is against that, against creating those jobs.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: You give me time, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, and I'll tell you what it's costing. The main thing, Mr. Speaker, is that they have to find something to be negative about. They really aren't worried about the cost; what they're really worried about is all the jobs it has created. Those people, including the Leader of the Opposition, stand in this House and misinform this House every day, saying we've never done anything about creating jobs. Disgraceful! I wouldn't say it's a lie but it's misinformation every day. We get pretty fed up when we know some of the facts.

Now let's talk about Expo. They were against Expo as well, and they're still against Expo, in spite of the bunkum they peddle. The Leader of the Opposition called it a big circus. You said so here last fall — you with your irresponsible statements. They get into writing, you know, and get all over B.C.

I'm not going to tell you the figures that I saw on the man years at Expo — I'm not sure of them myself so I won't use them — but all kinds of man-years have been created by Expo, which is a transportation and communication....

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, right. About all they can get after.... Then they get personal, you know, and maybe I can get personal too. What have you got against people who have a little age? You want their vote, don't you? You bet you do. Well, you'd better be careful what you say about them.

The other highway projects in the province created a further 2,000 man-years of work. I'd just like to give the House an update on these projects, where they're at.

[5:00]

The Annacis construction; I mentioned that. The Annacis crossing of the Fraser River, new supporting highway connections to existing highways and major municipal roads will be completed and open to service in June 1986. Twenty-two bridge construction contracts are either completed or nearing completion. All grade construction has been completed and paving contracts are proceeding, with completion for June. For the Richmond freeway, which is a part of that project, it's ongoing. The majority of the design work and right-of-way acquisition has been completed. Ten construction contracts are proceeding with project completion expected by 1988. I emphasize that that's the Richmond freeway.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, the minister is making a ministerial speech to the throne. He is not dealing with the amendment at all. The amendment is on trust in government, and all he's doing is spieling out what he would normally do under the throne speech. He's usurping this period in the House, knowing that at 5:30 we vote on the amendment. What a transgression.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for your point of order. The minister will continue on the amendment.

HON. A. FRASER: I realize it upsets the member for New Westminster, because he doesn't like to hear the facts. But isn't this part of economics? These projects help the economics of this province. I don't have to take any more interference from that retiring MLA.

MR. COCKE: Lame duck.

HON. A. FRASER: You said it; I didn't.

What I'm attempting to inform them of, but they don't want to hear it, is the fact that these projects have already created a lot of jobs, and they're not finished.

Dealing with SkyTrain, as you know, I said that it has created 5,500 man-years of work and phase 11 is scheduled to go ahead. The Surrey extension will generate another 2,000 jobs.

I know they don't want to hear this, but for the information of the House, the Coquihalla phase I will open in May 1986; phase II will open in the fall of 1987. I don't think the NDP even know where it is, so I'll explain it. Phase I is Hope to Merritt, and phase II is Merritt to Kamloops — four-lane freeway — and phase III is called the Okanagan connector, or more specifically, Peachland to Merritt. Construction will start on that this year, and we haven't scheduled a completion time for that.

So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that while we constantly get accused as a government of not doing anything about job creation, in transportation alone we have had a lot of activity last year. We'll have a lot of activity this year, and I've just related that it will continue on into 1988 at least.

That reminds me of when the NDP were government and we took over from them in 1975....

Interjection.

[ Page 7365 ]

HON. A. FRASER: Well, no, they had potholes all over, but they were filling the potholes with snow. When we got elected we got quite a shock when it melted and we found all the holes had to be filled with something other than snow. I know the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) will be able to tell us about that someday.

I want to just say a few words about the economy and so on in the great riding of Cariboo, which I have the honour and privilege to represent. Those fellows have gone now, and that really upsets me. I intend to represent my riding for quite some long time yet ahead.

The world recession has had its effects on the Cariboo, like every other part of Canada and British Columbia, but they've survived. Sure, it has hurt. Just to bring you up on the economic activity, the main generators there are tourism, forestry, agriculture and mining. They've had a good tourist year. They're looking forward to a dandy year in 1986. They're all very optimistic, particularly with the fallout that will come from Expo. Everybody is working hard in that business — local communities and the like — to take advantage of Expo 86.

As you know, our largest job generator in Cariboo is forestry. We probably have the finest forest complexes of any in the province. Whether it be pulp mills or sawmills, they've all worked right through the recession years. No one has closed down. I want to give them credit for the job they've done there to preserve jobs. Lo and behold, it looks like this year, with all the problems there have been in the industry, they're going to have a real good year because prices have advanced and they can now recoup some of their losses. But in the interval they didn't close down like so many operators and say: "We're going to hang up the ticket and go home." They've carried on. I want to pay them a lot of credit for what they've done. The only problem we have had there in forestry is the pine-beetle infestation, and they also, thanks to some good people, are getting control over that devastating problem.

Also I will say under economics for this year in reforestation that as you know, Mr. Speaker, a lot of extra jobs will be created this year by reforestation projects thanks to our government's entering into an agreement with the government of Canada.

Agriculture in the Cariboo. The biggest item is beef production. They ship 50,000 head of cattle to market every year. Last fall, believe it or not, the prices were pretty good, but we had drought conditions last year and feed is short and costly. So there are problems there, but again our government are trying to help.

The part that has dramatically changed around, though, Mr. Speaker, just recently — again about creating jobs - is that only recently they found a huge gold deposit in the Cariboo. Some people are saying it is going to be as big as the Hemlo deposits. It is certainly making everybody optimistic in Cariboo and I guess in other parts of the province. The Cariboo is historic for its mining, where the first boom was 1860, the next one 1933 and now it looks like another one in 1986. Thanks to the policies of this government....

The reason I mention this, Mr. Speaker, is that the Leader of the Opposition, when he spoke all day, made quite a list of the mines that have closed, and I just want to tell him that really in Cariboo we don't listen to the Leader of the Opposition. Three new mines are opening in the Cariboo in 1986, which he probably overlooked mentioning. I refer to Blackdome Exploration at the Gang Ranch. They've spent $20 million and they're going into production in June this year with 100 new jobs. Gibraltar Mines was not on the list of the Leader of the Opposition. They're going to expand their copper mine just out of Williams Lake in 146, creating more jobs.

Now we have this new find. I don't want to misinform this House, Mr. Speaker, but this is a large find and what they're referring to as another Hemlo. I don't know whether it will get that big, but it's certainly very encouraging and it's going to encourage a lot of exploration and hopefully will lead to the development of a large mine. I know the area quite well myself, and certainly there's gold there. The quantities will of course determine how much they develop toward the mine.

All in all, in spite of the NDP opposition, their motions of non-confidence and so on, British Columbia will move ahead and prosper in 1986. I'll just close with these remarks, Mr. Speaker, by saying to you that I'll certainly be voting against the amendment and for the main motion on the throne speech.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I had to take the opportunity to read the amendment while I was listening to the member for Cariboo droning on, and it says....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I had to reread it, because the member's speech didn't seem to be to the point, Mr. Speaker.

The reason we presented this amendment.... I'd like to restate it: "This House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to meet the expectations and hopes of our people that they can place their trust in the current government, and that it fails to indicate that the government cares about the economic and social plight of ordinary British Columbians."

I was pleased to hear from the Minister of Highways and Transportation about the gold rush in the Cariboo during the 1850s. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to comment on the age of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, but some people are concerned about what's going on in this province today. They're concerned about the problem of unemployment today. They're concerned about the problem of poverty in the province of British Columbia today. You're living in the past. You're living in another world. You don't understand the problems that people in British Columbia are facing today.

Mr. Speaker, this is an example of the ethical squalor of this government. It's an example of the hypocrisy of this government that they refuse to see and refuse to understand. I don't believe they're capable of understanding what ordinary citizens in this province are going through today.

People in British Columbia are embarrassed by this government. They're insulted by this government. They're humiliated by this government, and they're tired of it. They want a change. That speech was a perfect example. That speech was a perfect example of precisely what the people of British Columbia are concerned about: this government's failure to understand, this government's apparent uncaring, this government's hypocrisy, this government's lack of concern, its isolation, its insulation from the problems that ordinary people in British Columbia are experiencing.

There are projects going on in the province of B.C. We know about them. We hear about them in $20 million worth

[ Page 7366 ]

of TV advertising day after day after day. What would happen if that $20 million would be used to the benefit of the citizens of British Columbia, instead of trying to lie to them and mislead them about the state of this economy? What would that $20 million do if it was used to provide decent housing for the people that this uncaring, hypocritical government is evicting from those places down on the east side of Vancouver?

[5:15]

And that minister, an example of the ethical squalor of this government.... What does that minister do when this problem is brought to his attention by decent, caring members of this Legislature? He attacks social housing. And what does that minister do? What does that hypocritical minister do?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. One moment, please.

MR. SKELLY: I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The term when applied to a member of the Legislative Assembly is unparliamentary and will have to be withdrawn. Please proceed.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, there is poverty in this province of British Columbia. It is growing faster in British Columbia, as a result of the policies of this hypocritical government, than in any other province in Canada. That's something to be embarrassed about. That's something to be concerned about, and yet this government seems to have no concern whatsoever and no care whatsoever. It's the most uncaring, harsh, brutal government in this Dominion of Canada.

There are 83,000 children in this province on welfare. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. There are kids who go to school hungry, kids who go to bed hungry every day, and yet this government spends $20 million on advertising on television, telling British Columbians that the real world out there isn't. What an insult to freedom-loving, democratic people who want to know the truth about what is going on in British Columbia. This government spends money managing the news, managing the information that goes out to the people of this province.

They don't believe you anymore. They know you don't tell the truth. They simply don't believe this government anymore, Mr. Speaker. There are 83,000 children on welfare in the province of British Columbia. What a record. Are they proud of that record, Mr. Speaker? That's why we presented this amendment to the Speech from the Throne, because this government doesn't seem to know. They know; they don't seem to care what's happening to the children of the province of British Columbia — 83,000 children on welfare in this province.

There is unemployment wherever you go in the province of British Columbia. In that minister's riding there, Mr. Speaker, in the East Kootenays where the unemployment rate is higher than the unemployment rate in the province of Newfoundland, the highest rate in Canada — and what has the minister said about that? What has the minister done about that? Who can believe that $20 million government propaganda program that comes across on the television day after day, when you see the statistics that show that in that minister's riding the rate of unemployment is higher than it is in the province of Newfoundland, the highest in Canada? That minister ought to be ashamed of himself, of himself and every other minister on the front benches of this government. What an insult. What a humiliation visited upon the people of this province. They know what is going on. They simply do not believe your propaganda and your nonsense anymore.

In Mr. Speaker's riding, when you see the statistics on unemployment.... And I've said before that the statistics don't tell you everything. They don't tell you what it is like to be unemployed, to have no hope of any future employment in this province, in spite of what the minister says about the Coquihalla Highway and the Annacis crossing and the ALRT. Since those projects have come on stream, unemployment in the construction industry has increased. It hasn't gone down — 26,000 construction workers have lost their jobs in this province since 1981, and you haven't done a thing about it. You haven't done a thing, effectively, about it. In every region of the province people are crying for jobs. In the community of Prince George, Mr. Speaker, your own constituency, they're paying out more in unemployment insurance. The annual payroll for unemployment insurance is higher than the payroll in the pulp and paper industry. It's shameful!

What are you doing about it? What is this government doing about it? Absolutely nothing. What promise is there in the throne speech that anything is going to be done about it? Absolutely nothing. This insulting, humiliating government talks about their glittery projects, but for the ordinary citizen of British Columbia this throne speech has absolutely nothing.

I was interested in the throne speech where it said we have had the lowest number of industrial disputes in this province for the last 20 years. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Because people who have employment in British Columbia live in constant fear that if they open their mouths, they're going to lose their jobs. Fear governs this province. They fear that if they complain about the fact that they're working under unsafe conditions, if they ask for an increase in pay because they don't have enough money to carry on and feed their families and balance their budgets and pay their mortgages, then they'll lose their jobs. People in British Columbia are living in absolute fear under this government, and that's why they're unwilling to take those kinds of risks.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Communities are shutting down. Industries are shutting down. People who are fearful of losing their jobs tend to keep their money in the bank. They don't go out and spend money in their community. They don't go out and spend money in such a way as to stimulate the sale and the production of goods and services in their economy. They live in absolute fear for their jobs. We talk to these people every day. Business people are in fear of shutting down their businesses. They're concerned that people out in the community don't have money to spend in those businesses. They're putting it away for fear that their jobs are going to be lost, for fear that their incomes are going to be lost.

Mr. Speaker, whenever they run into a problem like this, they tend to ignore it; they tend to shuffle it to one side; they tend to act as if it didn't exist at all; or they tend to blame someone else for creating that fear. It's typical of that kind of government.

Mr. Speaker, as I travel around the province of British Columbia, I talk to kids who are living in fear that they'll

[ Page 7367 ]

never have a job in this province, that they'll never work, that they'll never fulfill themselves, that they'll never earn a decent living, that they'll never live up to their hopes of getting married and raising a family and buying a home like their parents did. They live in fear. Kids live in fear in this province.

I talked to engineers and architects who went through the university process in this province, engineers who worked for B.C. Hydro and gave the best years of their lives and their energies and talents to the service of the people of British Columbia, and they were fired. They walked into their offices, a security guard demanded the keys to the office and kicked them out after 25 years of service in some cases. That's Social Credit for you. Now those people who gave the best years of their lives to this province are saying: "If we want to realize our hopes, if we want to realize the best in our training and our energy and our skills and our talents, where do you go?" You go elsewhere in Canada, or elsewhere in the world. The hope and the opportunities are no longer here in British Columbia as a result of that government.

Well, I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker, you can't hide it from the citizens of B.C. forever. There is a growing...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please

MR. SKELLY: ...consensus in this province that you people have failed, and failed miserably.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please! The Leader of the Opposition has a right to deliver his address in conclusion to this amendment and is entitled to the respect of the House in delivering those remarks. If that respect is not afforded, the Chair will ensure that it is.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the citizens of British Columbia know that this government has failed them. They've failed to create employment. They've failed to stem the rise of unemployment. They've failed to stem the increase of poverty among families and children in this province. They've failed to provide a decent standard of housing, and they've failed even to stop people from being evicted in the downtown east side around Expo. But in another way they've failed as well. All of those things that worked prior to the 1983 election: the Fred Latremouille ads that told people in British Columbia that in spite of what's happening out there in the rest of the world, B.C. Is okay; or that told people who were unemployed that this isn't the way British Columbia is, it's your fault that you're unemployed.... That's what those ads tried to tell people.

But the people of British Columbia have now learned from the techniques of this Social Credit government in the past. They know that it's not true. They know that it's a pack of lies. They know that these ads do not tell people in British Columbia what the real world is like, and that in fact this Social Credit government has failed the people of the province of British Columbia miserably. It hasn't helped ordinary British Columbians at all. All the promises that appear in this throne speech are not going to help the citizens of British Columbia at all.

When you see the Conference Board of Canada say that retails sales after Expo are going to collapse to one of their lowest levels in years, when you see that the Conference Board of Canada is suggesting that employment in British Columbia — the growth of employment — is going to collapse again; when you see the head of the Business Council of British Columbia, Mr. Matkin, describing October and beyond as the post-Expo recession, then the people of British Columbia live in fear of what's going to happen in the future. This government has nothing effective, serious or worthwhile on the drawing-board after Expo. The Premier of this province is only capable of understanding economic development and economic planning over a short time-frame, and that time-frame is the frame from one election to the next, from one series of TV commercials to the next. The people of British Columbia are tired of that kind of government. They want a change from that kind of government. They want a government that is concerned about their future security and about the security of their children's future, and they're not getting it from this government.

People in British Columbia don't make excessive demands on their government; they don't demand excessively from their government. All they want is the right to earn a decent living. All they want is the right to make ends meet. All they want is the right to put a little bit away for the future. All they want is the opportunity to make sure that their kids have a better opportunity than they did in the future, and this government is depriving them of that right. It's not an excessive demand by any measure, Mr. Speaker, and this government is depriving the people of this province of that kind of opportunity.

This government is known as a negative government, a government that came together simply to keep another political party out of office, a government that simply came together to keep the people of British Columbia from having a government that could deliver jobs, that was concerned about poverty and about providing a future for their children. If there is one feeling in the province today it's that this government has run its course, and that it's time for a change.

[5:30]

I would hope that all concerned and caring members of this Legislature will vote for this resolution, because it is a resolution of non-confidence in this government. Any member over on that side who has any conscience whatsoever and any concern whatsoever for the people of this province will vote in favour of this resolution and do the right thing by all the citizens of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, pursuant to standing order 45(2), the Chair will now call the question on the amendment to the motion before the House.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

[ Page 7368 ]

NAYS — 24

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I just noticed that in our gallery are two very good citizens of British Columbia, and particularly of the city of Vancouver - a past alderman of the city. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Warnett Kennedy.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to stand today in my place in this assembly as the member for Kootenay to participate in what I consider to be a very positive throne speech brought forward by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor on March 11 of this year. But before doing so I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Omineca (Hon. Mr. Kempf), the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, for being elevated to the cabinet; the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, on being given the position; and the first member for Vancouver South (Hon. R. Fraser) on his elevation to the cabinet as well. The Premier — and I know their constituents — will feet truly proud that they've been able to achieve that goal and will do a tremendous job on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the former Provincial Secretary and member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) for the outstanding contribution he has made on behalf of all the people of British Columbia, and to congratulate the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) and extend my sincere thanks to him for his contribution on behalf of the people of British Columbia, along with the member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), the former Minister of International Trade and Investment.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to debate brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, I listened very patiently for some sign that the Leader of the Opposition will be putting forward some positive and constructive comments with respect to areas in the throne speech; indeed, if he wasn't satisfied with them, that he might put forward some alternatives. But there were a lot of words in there that....

Really, the people of British Columbia don't want to see any more words. They want to see actions on the part of their MLAs and their government. The people of the East Kootenays have firsthand experience of the NDP in that area, because prior to 1972 we had an NDP member in the Legislature for 22 years. I'll just read from you a little article from the Fernie Free Press, which by the way is no friend of mine or the Social Credit government. But the Fernie Free Press would say in February 1973:

"What has he done for us lately?

"In recent weeks there has been almost unflagging controversy about the possible development of coal deposits near Chetwynd and their shipment through the port at Howe Sound. The NDP government led by Mr. Barrett has been giving the matter serious consideration. Mr. Barrett, who also heads the government-owned British Columbia Railway, has been eyeing the big cargo freight development that the deposits could produce.

"But there has been little said about existing coal industry — and 'existing' seems to be an apt choice of words to describe the coal industry. For it is certainly not booming, not vibrant with life. Its life depends on lower productivity costs and higher market prices. In this situation we wonder why our MLA, none other than Mines minister Leo Nimsick, has not had something to say about the primary industry in his riding. Mr. Nimsick seems singularly uninformed about matters to do with his riding since he was elected. We have had a few rhetorical speeches from him and a few dogmatic pronouncements, but so far have had little action."

"We would like to hear from him, and I am sure the coal industry and others in his riding would also. What, if anything, has he done about the study for thermal coal production in this area? What, if anything, has he done to find alternatives to the Kootenay and Elk Railway as a coal-shipping source? What, if anything, has he done about the existing Elk Valley roads that connect the Trans-Canada Highway? And what, if anything, has he done about getting Crowsnest Highway 3 upgraded?

"It was with real surprise that we learned from Education minister Eileen Dailly that she wasn't briefed on the Fernie Board of Trade's request for a vocational facility in that area. Mr. Nimsick had a copy of this before the election. Could it be that he has not sufficiently increased Fernie's view in this matter, even when he knew that the arrangements were being made for a delegation coming to Victoria to discuss it and other topics?

"In Mr. Nimsick's favour, it should be said that his government has only been in office for a mere six months, and this may not be enough time to get things done. But surely, after a quarter of a century in opposition, Mr. Nimsick must have been just bursting with ideas and projects he could at last carry out. We just wish he would divulge a few of them in this area."

[5:45]

The Leader of the Opposition brings me back to that period of time because all he had to do today was offer words, and the people of the East Kootenays know firsthand about the promises of the NDP — and an NDP member of a quarter of a century who got elected in government only to forget totally the constituency of Kootenay. The Leader of the Opposition was up in my constituency recently, and he talked with a number of groups, clubs and organizations in the riding of Kootenay with respect to the non-performance of the member for Kootenay in matters dealing with projects and priorities for the people of my constituency. For a few minutes I'd just like to, if I may, go over some of those areas that were, indeed, requests from the Minister of Mines, the former MLA for Kootenay, during the 1970s and for a quarter of a century before that; but when he got elected,

[ Page 7369 ]

he forgot about us. I'm pleased to get up in support of this throne speech, because it carries through the same philosophy on the part of all the people of British Columbia, offering services to all the people of British Columbia, regardless of the geographic location they happen to live in and regardless of whether they vote for us or not.

It should be pointed out that in 1979 the Elk Valley did not give the current member for Kootenay a majority vote. It should also be pointed out that in 1983 the Elk Valley did not give the member for Kootenay a majority vote. I've been able to do things for my constituency because I've been elected as a member from Kootenay, and because I'm part of a government team that has responded to the genuine needs and interests of all the people of British Columbia, regardless of their location.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Since 1979 we have carried out renovations and upgrading of the Tom Uphill Memorial Home in Fernie to the tune of $650,000. The city of Fernie has the construction of a new ambulance station at a cost of $305,000. A new school has been developed in Fernie at a cost of $2 million, and the redevelopment of a secondary school in Fernie cost $350,000. A new school has been upgraded in Fernie at a cost of $467,000, and there has been major upgrading to the Fernie Secondary School at a cost of $112,000. Lands, Parks and Housing has Crown-granted land to the city of Fernie in the amount of $200,000, and free Crown land has been given to the regional district in 1985 in the amount of $125,000. We also expended $256,000 in 1980 on the Crow's Nest provincial park. We've developed capital maintenance projects at Mount Fernie Provincial Park in the amount of $29,000 and developed new senior citizens' housing projects in Fernie at a cost of $1,175,000. We've serviced land in the annex in Fernie at a cost of $26,000, developed transportation systems and corridors in the whole Elk Valley community, and there have been many other community projects.

I'd just like to move into Sparwood, if I can for a second, and talk about another community that I've had the privilege of serving over the course of the past few years. It's been a real privilege serving the people of the East Kootenays, because they've been indeed grateful to the government of British Columbia for providing them with an opportunity to be the recipient of their own tax dollars back. In Sparwood in 1981 we opened a new acute-care hospital, with 27 beds, at a cost of $2.8 million. We developed the Sparwood Heights elementary school at a cost of $2.5 million in 1983, and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing has been actively involved in the development of serviced lots in the community of Sparwood in the amount, in one case, of $673,000, and in the Sparwood utility system expansion in the amount of $750,000, the Sparwood mobile-home park in the amount of $484,000, and the Sparwood Heights duplex project in the amount of $164,000.

We've also spent in the community of Sparwood approximately $12.6 million on road development. It should be pointed out that all of these were promises of a quarter of a century of NDP representation in the constituency that didn't mature until 1975. So I've had a proud record of providing services to the people of my constituency, and I know that this will be the subject of further debate as time goes on.

The Leader of the Opposition made some comments in debate in the House over the course of the past couple of days about a meeting that he had with a group of people in my constituency. He made some rather serious charges with respect to something that I may or may not have said over the course of discussion at a meeting of the Sparwood Library Board.

Let me say at the outset that when you're dealing with three communities within 20 miles of each other, all of them in competition with each other for the same services, it is indeed extremely difficult to provide services for people in that area without duplicating the cost to the provincial taxpayer.

I know it's late in the day, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to go into this in detail tomorrow. So I move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.