[ Page 7411 ]

CONTENTS

Forest Renewal Act (Bill M202). Mr. Howard

Introduction and first reading –– 7411

Oral Questions

Northeast coal. Mr. Williams –– 7411

Purchase of seedlings. Mr. Howard –– 7412

Price of gasoline. Mr. Lauk –– 7412

Home-heating oil costs. Ms. Sanford –– 7413

Voters' list. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 7413

Ministerial Statement

Social housing. Hon. Mr. Kempf –– 7413

Mr. Blencoe

Throne Speech Debate

Hon. Mr. Kempf –– 7415

Mr. Nicolson –– 7418

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 7422

Mr. Gabelmann –– 7425

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 7429

Mr. Cocke –– 7431

Division –– 7435

Tabling Documents –– 7435

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1986

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, we have visitors today from the mining capital of Canada. Would the House please join me in welcoming the mayor of Logan Lake, Betty Hinton, and the administrator of the village of Logan Lake, Ben de Kleine.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I know all members will want to join me in congratulating Premier Howard Pawley and the NDP government on their re-election in Manitoba.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are three people whom I would like the House to make very welcome. Mr. Maxwell Tracy is a member of the Canadian Legion and of the "800" wing here in Victoria. Accompanying Mr. Tracy are two lovely young ladies: Mrs. Helen Brown, wife of the late Archie Brown, who way back when was president of the B.C. Social Credit League. Mrs. Brown has been a member of Social Credit in this province since the party's inception and since the League's inception. She is 89 years young and a lifetime resident of this our beautiful capital city. Accompanying Mrs. Brown is Mrs. Marion Engelbrecht, also a longtime resident of Victoria. Again, I ask the House to make them very welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of guests to introduce today. First, it is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Walter Thomson, whom you have allowed to sit on the floor today. Mr. Thomson is retiring from the government of the province of British Columbia after 35 years of service. He's retiring as director of special programs in the Ministry of Health. Walter has been very active in the rehabilitation aspects of our community, and has been a very fine example of the disabled working within government. We had a luncheon for him today. I would be pleased to introduce the other guests, but I'd ask the House to join me in honouring Mr. Walter Thomson on his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are members of the Canadian Paraplegic Association. First, I'd introduce Ms. Samantha Coe, who is a regional consultant for Vancouver Island South, Mr. Norman Haw, who is the director of rehab services for the Canadian Paraplegic Association, and Mr. Vince Miele, who is the chief counsellor. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Finally, I would note that this is a special day for one of the members of our House, the hon. Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton). It's his birthday.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST RENEWAL ACT

Mr. Howard presented a bill intituled Forest Renewal Act.

MR. HOWARD: In explanation, very briefly, the current government broke faith with the people of B.C. In 1980 when it cancelled the five-year range and resource fund, and one of the purposes of this bill is to re-establish that long-term commitment to silviculture. The bill contains, among other things, a definition of silviculture which does not now exist in any statutory form. It is anticipated that the Forest Renewal Act will lay the foundation to provide thousands of jobs now, as well as in the future, and ensure that reforestation, silviculture, is an ongoing matter.

Bill M202, Forest Renewal Act, 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

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS: A question to the Premier regarding northeast coal and the Tumbler Ridge BCR line which cost the province $503 million. The payback was predicated on getting four times the income that we've already got in the past year, and now the Japanese are bargaining in terms of cutbacks in terms of volume on that line, which will mean even greater hemorrhaging in terms of that project. The Premier said it was a secure take or pay contract; it clearly is not. Is the Premier prepared to step in to prevent even further losses in this failing major project in his decade?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't agree with the member for Vancouver East, but that's not unusual. Very few people agree with him in his assumption that the northeast coal project is failing. There are negotiations in the private sector, but negotiations are just that, and they may or may not end up with the assumed concessions he talks about.

The government of British Columbia is still committed to the people of the north, the people of Tumbler Ridge. We know there will continue to be employment up there, and the mines will continue to operate.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You want to be a night watchman? Come around for a recommendation after question period. I'll be pleased to give you one.

Mr. Speaker, I don't agree with the member for Vancouver East. I think the northeast coal project can and will survive international market conditions, and there will continue to be employment for the people up there. There may be those who hope they don't have jobs and that it shuts down, but it's sure not me.

[2:15]

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the TEX report out of a corporate reporting agency in Tokyo has indicated that what they're looking for in Japan in terms of changes is a $21 cutback on the price of coal in the northeast, and a 20 percent reduction in volume. Is the Premier saying that he will continue to sit idly by, just as he did on the southeast, where half the jobs and half the volumes were lost already during his tenure?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in the Teck mining people to be able to negotiate with the steel companies in Japan. They negotiated very well in securing the first contract. I have confidence in them, and that member is wrong again — the most poorly researched member in the history of this House. He doesn't recognize the increased

[ Page 7412 ]

coal tonnages that have been added to the southeast of British Columbia over the last number of years. The southeast has not paid a penalty.

That member continues to misinform the public, and because of that the public does not trust anything that member says.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. We're not getting any of the payback the Premier promised. A $500 million line. We're not getting the payback for our treasury. Is he prepared to reconsider his statement of May 1981 to the chamber of commerce, wherein he said: "As for the deal with the Japanese, it's the best deal we've ever had."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is the best deal. I want to tell you that in the world coal market we have both growth in the southeast and the northeast, production that grew over the last three years by 85 percent in tonnages shipped. Thank goodness those contracts in both the southeast and northeast were signed. Today we have people working. Yes, we may face pressure, the companies may face pressure for negotiation and concessions from the Japanese. Who were the first to capitulate? Why the Leader of the Opposition idolizes the companies in Australia, who renegotiated their contracts first. Clearly the Leader of the Opposition holds out Australia as the model. Twenty percent interest rates, and he holds it out as a model for us to follow.

Well, I'll tell you that the companies in B.C. will fight hard to maintain their viability, their contracts and the employment of their people. I trust them to do that, because they got good contracts in the first place. They'll do this in spite of you trying to give comfort by being negative to the Japanese steel makers, who are looking for all the negative support they can get in British Columbia; and it's a shame it comes from a politician.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: That's obviously why the Premier fired Don Phillips.

PURCHASE OF SEEDLINGS

I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Forests. Further to his statement on February 19 that an estimated 20 million seedlings had been lost due to a cold snap, can the minister confirm that his estimate was low, and that the loss of seedlings is closer to 40 million?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the people in the ministry that the estimate of seedlings lost was something in the order of 17 million to 18 million. I would be pleased to receive any information the member has. I will take the question on notice and make further inquiry.

MR. HOWARD: Given that the statement to which the minister referred was February 19, and it is now nearly the end of March, can the minister confirm that a great many of the seedlings were bought from private nurseries and paid for out of the public purse, without checking first to determine if the seedlings were dead or alive?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I have no way of answering that particular question, but I'd be quite prepared to inquire. I'll take that on notice.

I would like to respond to the extent that there ought to be great encouragement for the people in the private sector for the purposes of growing seedlings. My understanding right now is that the public sector is responsible for producing something in the order of 100 million, and the private sector is responsible for producing an equal number. I wanted that verified. As a matter of fact, I secured the information of the location of the nurseries and the actual production for each of the nurseries, all of the nurseries, both private and public.

MR. HOWARD: The question related to buying dead seedlings without checking first as to what you were getting.

Did the minister issue any instructions that seedlings would only be acceptable to the ministry and paid for if a test for their viability and quality was conducted before they were paid for?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Again, Mr. Speaker, you know I am relying upon the expertise and the professionalism of the people in the Ministry of Forests, all of whom are members of the government, employed by the government. I have every reason to believe that they are competent, and I have confidence in them. But with respect to your original point, I will take that as notice.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the minister can't slough off ministerial responsibilities on a committed public service.

Can the minister confirm that the total cost to the taxpayer of having bought worthless dead seedlings in the first place — contrary to the most elementary and prudent business practice — and now having to replace those, as he contemplates doing, will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10 million to $12 million— all because of mismanagement on the part of this government?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That goes back to the original question, which I'll take on notice. But I would be quite prepared, if the member for Skeena would send to my office the evidence upon which he is basing his questions....

MR. HOWARD: Check in your own ministry.

PRICE OF GASOLINE

MR. LAUK: To the hon....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: If you go, I'll stay. Is that a deal? I'm always interested in improving the quality of the House — that's why I'm going.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, if he can hear me through this din and chatter. The price of crude oil has fallen to a level in British Columbia which should, according to your own government's figures, translate into an overall reduction of 12 cents per litre at the pumps. Is it government policy to pass this saving on to consumers of gas at the pumps?

[ Page 7413 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: I believe that, again, this particular member has the wrong minister. If he's dealing with petroleum or with the Minister of Highways, I think he should direct the question to those ministers.

MR. LAUK: I ask a substantial question and I get a slim answer. [Laughter.]

The major oil companies, five of them foreign-owned, are profiteering quite obviously on the difference, and the price has only dropped about an average of two cents per litre. What action has the minister taken as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to protect the consumers in this province? What steps has he taken to ensure that the retail price reflects this saving?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, inasmuch as the question may possibly relate to my ministry, I would be pleased to take it as notice and get back to you.

MR. LAUK: When the hon. minister has found the telephone in his office, could he call Seattle and find out why there they're selling a litre of gas at 36 cents Canadian per litre and here it's an average of 53 cents to 54 cents per litre? Why is there the difference?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Hon. member — through you, Mr. Speaker — I believe that there are several tax impositions upon a gallon of gasoline or a litre of gasoline in British Columbia. But if the member has information that will help me in my research, I would be pleased if he would forward it to me.

HOME-HEATING OIL COSTS

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question too relates to consumers. I would like to point out to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that many British Columbians, especially those on Vancouver Island, have to pay very high prices for their home-heating oil. I am wondering what action the minister has taken to protect those consumers against these high costs?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would be pleased to research that, take it as notice and get it back to you.

VOTERS' LIST

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer a question that was given to me earlier this week.

The question was asked by the hon. member for Victoria, and it was to do with voters' lists. The question was: would the minister undertake to allow voter registration 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 the voting process could take place?

I am told by the chief electoral officer of the province, Mr. Harry Goldberg, that the Election Act states that the applicant must "personally"...or a person must apply for registration. In that vein, he will make available — this has been well-circulated to the political parties in the province.... In mid-April requests for voter registration cards will be made available to political parties and organizations for distribution to individuals. Those cards are in the form of a business reply card — a postcard — addressed to the registrar-general of voters. I believe that all political parties, according to Mr. Goldberg, were notified of the plans for this new card late last year. So the question raised by the hon. member was answered last year prior to the letter which I received recently and prior to the question in the House.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Are you moving out?

HON. MR. KEMPF: In the fullness of time.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

SOCIAL HOUSING

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make an important announcement concerning social housing in British Columbia. Members will be aware of the contentious issues surrounding social housing projects that have surfaced in light of the eviction notices issued recently in Vancouver. I am sure members are also aware of the measures the provincial government has taken to ensure that no one in Vancouver or elsewhere in British Columbia need be without housing. My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) informed the House recently of our concern in relation to the evictions and also the concern of the government in general about the whole question of social housing and the delivery of same in British Columbia.

[2:30]

Mr. Speaker, during the past few weeks in my new role as Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing I have been made aware of the serious question in relation to the delivery of social housing in British Columbia, and more importantly its impact on people. There is a serious question as to how well existing social housing programs meet the objects of providing affordable housing for the greatest number of those people in need in this province. There is a serious question as to how we can enhance the effectiveness of programs to meet the needs of those British Columbians who are truly in need.

As I have most visibly been informed by the media in British Columbia, there is a question of what happens to residents of those projects when the financial status of the individual changes. I have very much appreciated — and I say this with all sincerity — the information provided to me by my colleague in regard to the whole question of social housing and the role of the federal and provincial governments in delivering social housing in British Columbia. I have also appreciated the attention devoted to the issue by the media. I really have. There is no quicker way to learn, no more intense method of discovering the issues in a ministry, than the briefings given me each day in the newspaper and each evening on the television set.

When I moved into my wife's home at Wilderness Place Co-op, like many people who live in co-ops we were not aware of the details of the financial arrangements between the co-op project and the government. In fact, I have to say quite honestly that prior to my appointment as Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing — one short month ago — the issue of housing subsidies was not one I was deeply familiar with.

[ Page 7414 ]

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been made abruptly aware of the financial details by my ministry and the media, and I appreciate — members may laugh — that media doing its job in this regard.

While having the attention of the media focused on my personal affairs may be uncomfortable, it has served to create wide interest in British Columbia about the real and pressing issues relating to social housing. The media have made the point much better than I could ever have done alone.

I wish to make two announcements to the House today related to the question. Firstly, I'm announcing today the appointment of a three-member commission of inquiry to investigate social housing programs in British Columbia relative to their effectiveness in assuring availability of affordable housing to those in need.

The commission will be chaired by Mr. James Cosh and will include Prof. James Cutt and vice-chairman Miss Shelley Tratch. They are all able and distinguished British Columbians in their own right, and I am confident of their ability to delve into this question in a speedy, responsible and concerned manner. Because the government of British Columbia has been asked to enter into an agreement in the near future with the federal government concerning social housing, I have asked the commission of inquiry to undertake their review with dispatch and report back to my office by April 22, 1986.

I know British Columbians are concerned, as I am, that we receive information as quickly as possible, both as to the effectiveness of the program and any irregularities which may exist in the delivery of social housing programs in this province. I am confident that this inquiry will accomplish that goal.

The second announcement I wish to make to the House today is one of a personal nature. I wish to announce today that my wife and I are taking steps to vacate our premises at Wilderness Place. Since my appointment as minister last month, I have become aware of the need for social housing for British Columbians, and I have become aware of the tremendous amount of money, taxpayers' money, which is devoted to subsidizing a large number of residents who are not in need.

I don't think British Columbians generally have been aware of the large amount of money being used to subsidize co-op members who are not low- or limited-income residents. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, my wife and I reflected on the need for those British Columbians who cannot afford housing in the regular marketplace. When we understood how the subsidy was being applied to us, like many others, we felt that subsidies should be restricted to those in need.

Mr. Speaker, my wife and I are much concerned about the welfare of those British Columbians who have been displaced from their accommodation in Vancouver, and those British Columbians who may be in need of social housing. I am also mindful of the need for a public inquiry that would report to me, unencumbered by any suggestion or appearance of conflict of interest. That is why today, Mr. Member, I have taken action in response to concerns raised in the House by my colleague — by colleagues both in the press and on the floor of this House — and by British Columbians in general.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, I believe the appointment of the commissioner of inquiry into this subject will make public a full disclosure of a situation related to social housing in this province, so that we may determine the best course of action for future programs for those in need.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like to thank the minister for his tub-thumping speech, and, Mr. Minister, to say to you that you don't have to move out of the co-op, if you would agree to the rules that currently people who have a decent income in co-ops.... You can stay in the co-op, Mr. Minister. Mr. Speaker, all we ask is that the minister pay a decent portion of his income, and he can stay in the co-op; that's all I think people request.

Mr. Speaker, there is, however — although the minister has made light of his particular issue — a very serious aspect to this matter. The minister has refused to deal with the evictions in Vancouver. He's going to do another study on social housing when we have all the studies in the world we need. He won't admit that B.C. spends only $15 million a year on social housing, which is far less than the money they spend on advertising their programs. The social housing record in British Columbia has been atrocious. All we're getting from this minister and this government is an attempt to hide the fact that they have an atrocious record on providing housing for British Columbians. That's the coverup, Mr. Speaker.

The government itself did a study just recently on social housing. The federal government has done a study, and they're correcting the problems. By announcing another study, this government is jeopardizing the agreement to be signed with the federal government so we can get more allocations in British Columbia. By your coverup and by trying to avoid the issue and announcing another study, British Columbia is not going to get an agreement on social housing. All they're trying to do is embarrass the federal government. This government should have taken action on housing, should have taken action on the evictions. Today we have a desperate attempt by the minister to try to cover up his problems.

No more studies. Let's have a decent budget for housing. Let's have some action on evictions and the problems of the people in need in British Columbia. B.C. requires a decent social housing program, and this government, by announcing another study instead of doing a search-and-rescue mission, as we stated the other day.... They're clearly on a search-and-destroy mission on social housing in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

This minister by his actions is going to threaten a successful agreement with the federal government, and we're not going to get allocations for units in the province of British Columbia, and people in need are not going to get the things they need. It is a desperate attempt to cover up a tragedy in terms of what's happening to social housing in the province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) seeks the floor. Shall leave be granted?

MR. LEA: Can you guess what it's about, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear several no’s, hon. member.

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

[ Page 7415 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair recognizes the member for Skeena, who earlier informed the Chair that he wishes to raise a matter of privilege.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on a question of privilege that affects this House and its members. This is the first opportunity available to me to raise the question. My question of privilege is that certain persons other than accredited news people, who have traditionally been afforded the opportunity to view and study the budget and its documents prior to its presentation to the Legislature, and upon the signing of a document not to divulge the contents of the budget prior to its presentation, are to be afforded access to the budget and its documents prior to its said presentation, and to the exclusion of accredited research people working for members of this House.

[2:45]

I submit that this action on the part of the Minister of Finance puts members of this House in the position of having their privileges infringed upon, while the position of those other persons, whom I'll identify in a moment, is advanced. In support of that, I want to draw Your Honour's attention to a letter dated March 12 — which I'll ask to be tabled — written by my colleague, the MLA for Nanaimo, to the Minister of Finance, in which the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) asks the minister if representatives of the opposition caucus staff could be included in the pre-budget lockup. The answer to the member for Nanaimo from the Minister of Finance, dated March 18, says as follows:

"I have your letter of March 12. I regret that it is not possible to accede to this request, and I should like to offer two or three reasons why this decision was taken."

Then he goes on to give three reasons.

But the part of the letter that I want to draw to Your Honour's attention is in the penultimate paragraph. It says, after referring to the news media lockup arrangement:

"Another and separate arrangement is made for members of the accounting profession. This is still in its experimental stage, but I believe it is of value.

"I hope there will be no misunderstanding in this negative response. I am not prepared to open up budget briefings for any research people, including those who serve the government caucus."

Which wasn't asked in the first instance, and in any event, that was it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that action, I submit, by the Minister of Finance, reflects this government's abuse of power, its tendency to violate any trust or responsible action and to arrogate unto itself the ultimate and supreme authority over this Legislature. It infringes upon the opportunity of members to be able to examine rationally those questions of the budget at the appropriate time, and puts in a prior and privileged position members from outside of this chamber.

If Your Honour finds I have a prima facie case of privilege, I have the appropriate motion to move. Shall I table them, or ask leave to?

MR. SPEAKER: For tabling documents, hon. member, leave would have to be granted. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, as is customary practice the Chair will undertake to review the matters as raised by the member and bring a report back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I rise on a point of order. On Monday, March 17, 1986, in a speech to the House I made a comment on page 33 of the Blues: "We developed the Sparwood Heights elementary school at a cost of $2.5 million in 1983...." Mr. Speaker, it should have read: "In 1980-81 we developed the senior secondary school in Elkford at a cost of $3,490,000."

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. KEMPF: It's certainly a pleasure for me to rise in this debate on the throne speech, particularly as it's the first time that I've been afforded the chance to enter into debate on the floor of this House as the new Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I just want to say how fortunate I think I am to be able to stand in my place on behalf of those whom I represent, and now the larger constituency of British Columbia, in that capacity.

I'd like to also congratulate the first member for Vancouver South (Hon. R. Fraser) and the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) on their elevation into cabinet.

In my many years in this House, I think I can truthfully say I have never seen a more positive throne speech. You know, I sat for the last week and listened to the debate from the members opposite, and it brought me to one of the sentences in the throne speech itself, which says: "British Columbians are showing they can work together."

Well, if that's the case, the only group that's been left out are the socialists opposite. I have never seen such doom and gloom from a bunch of individuals in my whole life. There wasn't one — and I listened, if not here in the House, to my speaker in my office — not one positive note shown by the members opposite in this debate. Everyone in this province, during these most difficult times that we're just coming out of, is trying to work together but the members of the official opposition.

It's sad. It's sad because good things are happening in the province of British Columbia. Good things are happening, and good things will continue to happen, but only if all of us, even the members of the official opposition in this province, work together and cooperate. I heard the plea from the members opposite for British Columbians to take their money out of bank accounts and invest it in this great province of ours. Do you know what is keeping them from doing that? It's the kind of doom and gloom and scare tactics that we've heard in the last week from the opposite side of the floor. That's what's doing it.

If you want it to happen, hon. members, let's hear some positive speeches on the floor of this, the people's Legislature. Let's hear of some of the good things that are happening in our province of British Columbia. I said before, and I say again, there are many, and I'll get into a few of them. And in the 30 minutes that I have according to the new rules I'll never have time to get into them all. They need only have taken the throne speech — of which, incidentally, I have only seen one or two used in the course of their debate in the last

[ Page 7416 ]

week — itself and read it to find one of those things that are happening in our province that are of a positive nature. Bankruptcies have declined; new businesses have been incorporated; retail sales and housing starts have increased significantly. Those are positive things that every British Columbian should hear about, and they should hear about them from the representatives that they send to this place — this, their Legislature.

But they're not getting that from the socialists opposite; they're not getting that, and that's sad. That's too bad, because that's why a lot of British Columbians are keeping their money in the bank. They're afraid, from what they hear and see in the media, from what the opposition members are saying in this House, of what may happen tomorrow.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: We heard you yesterday afternoon, Mr. Member. We heard you. I sat right here and listened to you — nothing but doom and gloom, nothing but scare tactics. The people of this province of British Columbia deserve better.

You know, I heard the members opposite say that this province deserves a better government. In every jurisdiction, no matter what the government, the citizens out there deserve better. But I want to tell you, there's a serious lack of good opposition in the province of British Columbia, and the citizens out there should have access to that as well. They need a good opposition; they need a positive opposition. They need an opposition that puts forth positive debate in this Legislature, tells of the positive things that are happening in the province of British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I made up a short list. Expo 86. We remember, and the people in the galleries remember, how the NDP opposition spoke of Expo 86 at its inception a few years ago. I can remember the debates on the floor of this House. They haven't changed. They were doom and gloom then; they're doom and gloom now. They haven't changed one iota. They said Expo 86 could never be done successfully in the time-frame. I want to tell the people in the galleries today that we're still 50 days to opening and we've almost sold the expected gate. The money is in the bank. We've sold 12 million turnstile passes of the expected 13.5 million. Now they want to get on the bandwagon. Even Mikey likes it now, now that it's going to be successful, now that even they cannot say that it's not going to be successful. They can't do that, because it's apparent. The writing is on the wall. It's a fait accompli. Now they want on that trolley — you bet they do. Now, because they can't speak against Expo, they're talking about the post-Expo era — the post-Expo recession. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that's coming from the very same people that in this House and in this province said Expo wouldn't be a success. I ask you, are the people of this province going to listen to that? I think not.

The SkyTrain. That, too, they said could not be done in budget, certainly couldn't be done in the time-frame given — could not be opened before Expo.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

HON. MR. KEMPF: You said it.

AN HON. MEMBER: I never said....

HON. MR. KEMPF: Well, if not you, then some of your colleagues on those benches over there. I heard it said not only here but all over the province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: You want to know who said some of these things? Well, Mr. Speaker, let's look at the Annacis Island bridge. You don't have to listen to me; just go back in the archives and pick out the news item: "NDP to Kill Annacis Island Bridge." Doom and gloom is all we've heard from that opposition.

Let's look at the Coquihalla. You know, that wasn't going to succeed either. We couldn't do it in budget or on time. I don't have to tell those listening here today the success story of the Coquihalla Highway construction.

I mentioned the Annacis Island bridge, Mr. Speaker. Everyone, I'm sure, saw on their television sets about a week ago the final link being put in place. The Annacis Island bridge will be built. It will be built for use when Expo is with us this summer.

Doom and gloom. Scare the people of this province into voting NDP. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that the citizens of the province of British Columbia are not that dumb. I want to tell you here today that I can hardly wait till that writ is dropped so we can prove to those members over there as well that the people of British Columbia are not that dumb.

You know, a lot of them are leaving the ship.

MR. BLENCOE: Where are you moving to, Jack? Another co-op?

HON. MR. KEMPF: That's none of your business, Mr. Member. Maybe I should move into a complex that was done by the.... Who was it then? Well, it still is the member for Vancouver East. Maybe I should move to Vancouver and into the complex that he bought in 1981, and from which he threw the people out on the street so he could renovate. Maybe that's the complex that I should move into, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Sure I can read it. I hope you'll indulge me, because when the print gets that small, my hair shows my age.

[3:00]

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Oh, I've hit the quick, have I? Let's talk about throwing people out on the street. Let's bring it a little closer to home for those members on the opposition benches. When the member for Vancouver East — an MLA in this House at the time — did the very same thing that members opposite are accusing this government of doing now — accusing hotel owners, who have been directed in most cases by the city of Vancouver to clean up their act....

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Do your research, Mr. Member for Victoria, and you might find these things out.

[ Page 7417 ]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I read from a news item in the Vancouver Sun on Thursday, December 7, 1972, when that member was a cabinet member in the government in the province of British Columbia. "Williams recently acknowledged that while he was an NDP MLA, he and his family purchased a Vancouver apartment building, renovated it and then notified the tenants that they would have to buy their apartments or move." The deal was made while the NDP party was criticizing such situations, as they do today. All they know how to do, Mr. Speaker, is criticize. It's easy. You can criticize anything. It's the simplest thing to do there is. But to put forward something positive is just a little more difficult — far too difficult, it would appear, for those members over there.

Mr. Speaker, very positive things are happening in the province of British Columbia. High tech is developing like crazy. It's providing many new jobs. I hear the members opposite talk about jobs. That seems to be the key word in all of their speeches. Well, jobs are being created in the province of British Columbia, literally by the thousands. In fact, from one year ago this month 50,000 new jobs have been created in the province. Do you tell that to the people of British Columbia? Do you tell that to your constituents, Mr. Member? No, you don't. You don't even do it on the floor of this House where you should be doing it.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many long-term jobs?

HON. MR. KEMPF: Well, many more than were created by an NDP government, when they increased the size of the civil service by 13,000 in this province. Many, many more, Mr. Speaker.

You know, those are positive things, and those are the positive things that the people of British Columbia should be hearing. If we want, as the members opposite say they want, to see the people take their money out of the bank or out of a sock or from under the mattress or wherever they put it, and really put it into the province of British Columbia in the way of development, then you've got to change your ways, hon. members. You've really got to change your ways, because these scare tactics won't do what you say you want to do.

Or is that really what you want to do? Or do you really want to bring down the government of the province of British Columbia, and you don't care how? I would suggest that that's the reason. You talk about the evictions in Vancouver, and there again there's an alternate motive, in my estimation. I think that was made quite clear when we saw this news item that says, "Pickets May Hit Fair Gates." It's from a Vancouver Province news item of Tuesday, March 4.

Therein lies the real reason, Mr. Speaker, that we've got that situation in the east end of Vancouver. It's not a people situation; it's a political situation. You and your cronies would like to find some way to discredit what is going to be one of the most fantastic and successful world's fairs in the history of this world, Mr. Speaker. That's the reason it's not a people problem. You're using those people, as you use anything you can for patent political purposes.

Mr. Speaker, that's the reason. They don't speak of the good things that are happening in the province of British Columbia. One of the committees that I sit on as the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing is the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development. Recently I was happy to attend a tour made by that particular committee, a tour to Abbotsford. Everybody knows where Abbotsford is, but I think some people should know what great things are happening, not only in Abbotsford but all over this province. There are some very good things happening in British Columbia and in Abbotsford, where a small, unknown company is extracting enzymes from egg whites. Would you believe, from egg whites, in a province that has an abundance of eggs. Good deal! They're extracting these enzymes and exporting them to Japan, where they make....

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the function of an enzyme?

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, it doesn't really matter what it is. What matters is that it's creating jobs: it's creating a $1.4 million-a-year payroll in the province of British Columbia. That's what is important to me. I couldn't care less what an enzyme is. I care not what an enzyme is. I care about jobs in British Columbia, and apparently that member doesn't.

Mr. Speaker, you just have to look around this province and see what great things are happening, and it's going to get better and better. All you have to do is look at the small print in the uptown newspapers and find that the price of dimension lumber this week has reached $196 U.S. a thousand, and it's climbing. Those are the kinds of indicators, Mr. Speaker, that mean something to me, not what enzymes are. You can imagine how many jobs this is going to create for the people you profess to represent.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I care not what an enzyme is, Mr. Member. I do care about British Columbians, and I do care about jobs in British Columbia. That is what is going to create jobs, not the interpretation of what an enzyme is.

Mr. Speaker, good things are happening in British Columbia, and good things will continue to happen in British Columbia, regardless of the doom-and-gloom socialists opposite. Many people in British Columbia have ignored them over the years, and many people in British Columbia will ignore them in the future. It's simply a doom-and-gloom story that they tell. Doom and gloom, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, in my own constituency of Omineca, because of government action, 250 people recently went back to work. The success story of Bell copper at Granisle goes even further than that. The success story is of what's happening in that great little community in my constituency, where people are working together — the company, the union, the community, the local council and everybody. Everybody is working together. They're happy that 250 jobs have been created there; they're very happy about that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, we'll see how happy we are when that writ is dropped, and the members opposite.... All they can talk about is an election. All they want to do is sit over on this side of the House. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you, the province of British Columbia has had that experience; and never, never again.

[ Page 7418 ]

Mr. Speaker, they talk of doom and gloom. The Critical Industries Act, passed by this government, is having a very positive effect out there in this province. This is not the only success story. Granisle is not the only success story. If you want to hear how really successful the story is in Granisle, I ask you to phone the mayor there; he'll tell you. He's been on CBC radio; he's been on other media. He'll tell you the story. Don't ask me the story; ask that local representative how happy that community is. Mr. Speaker, doom and gloom; that's all we hear out of that opposition. And you'll hear it with the next speaker that gets up. I'll count on it. That's all you'll get.

Mr. Speaker, they talk of northeast coal. The little funny member gets up in question period every day, and then runs out of this House, never to be seen again. That member, who threw people out of his apartment block after he renovated it — or before he renovated it — talks about northeast coal and the hole being in the wrong place. He talks about the refinancing, as if that's costing the taxpayers of this province one red cent. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's not costing them anything. If the private sector wants to put the hole in the wrong place, wants to refinance their operation at no cost to the people of British Columbia, why should that bother us? That's the same as the member opposite saying you don't know what an enzyme is. I don't care.

I can tell you what I can see in my constituency: those coal trains rolling through every day, and that means jobs to British Columbians and revenue to this province. Mr. Speaker, whatever the members opposite say, I'm in favour of that, because I know how many of my constituents work on those operations. If you want to spread your doom and gloom and spread fear into the hearts of those people, go ahead and do it. For some of you, it's okay; you're leaving. It's like rats leaving a ship. But I'll tell you that I like this sort of thing going on.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: You can try to divert the question, as you wish. But, Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia aren't that stupid; they really aren't. While I was attempting to give a very serious statement in this House just very recently, I heard all the catcalls about social housing — that maybe it was me who was trying to spread fear in the hearts of those who live in social housing. That's the very last thing, I can assure this House and the people of British Columbia, that I would want to do. But when I see things such as this, I think there's something wrong. When social housing costs to the federal government increased from $34.8 million in 1980 to $474.9 million in 1984, an increase of 1,360 percent, I get very concerned. And really, does it matter whether that's money paid to the federal government or money paid to this government in British Columbia? It all comes out of the same pocket, hon. members. I would be abrogating my responsibility to the people of British Columbia had I not called for this inquiry, when I can see quite clearly that there's something rotten in Denmark. There will be an inquiry, and I don't want to prejudice the work of that very fine commission, but the story will come out, the same as the story in regard to the good things that are happening in British Columbia will come out regardless of the negative opposition, regardless of that socialist Leader of the Opposition over there, who travels throughout this province spreading that fear. He said it himself — spreading that fear to even the children of this province. Shame!

[3:15]

I know my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I could go on and on and on, telling the good things that are happening. I was in Terrace recently, to the B.C. Winter Games, and even in Terrace, who have had that negative representative for as long as they have.... They won't have him much longer, because things are changing in Skeena.... People are fed up with that negativism. They know that the only way that we are going to better our plight is to cooperate and to be positive, and to tell the people of British Columbia — who have their money in the bank.... The Leader of the Opposition wants to see them invest. You won't, Mr. Member, get them to invest it with the story you're spreading around this province — never.

You can't have it both ways. You can't spread fear on one hand and expect people to invest on the other. It just doesn't work, Mr. Speaker. I don't know how long it's going take those people in that opposition to learn that.

My time is up. I'll have another chance in the future to get up and tell this House the good things that are happening in British Columbia.

MR. NICOLSON: It was really interesting to hear the remarks of that pathological conservative opposite. I envy him, because he sees this province much differently than do most British Columbians. I think that most British Columbians see that the gross domestic product in this decade has only grown 7 percent, when in other provinces, like Ontario and Saskatchewan, it's grown in excess of 22 percent. We see that other provinces have single digit inflation; this province has double digit inflation, and those are some of the things I think we have to see and recognize before we can do our job as legislators. Certainly members of the cabinet benches should see it. I hope they see it. I don't expect them to talk about it, but if they don't realize that, then we will only sink further and further in our relative position to the provinces with whom we have been on a par economically, jobwise, opportunitywise.

We've had the greatest optimism in British Columbia, probably ever since we entered Confederation. No province so much epitomized optimism as British Columbia did. We do have the spirit, and in spite of what this government has been doing to the people in the 1980s, they are not bowed. They are still trying. They are still taking risks; they are trying to create jobs; they are trying to work; they are trying to contribute; and they are not deterred by the efforts of this government, good or bad.

Mr. Speaker, this Bennett government claims that the economy of British Columbia is in the process of renewal. The Concise Oxford Dictionary has two definitions of "renew." One is: "Restore to the original state, make (as good as) new, revive, regenerate." The Bennett government is spending 20 million tax dollars to persuade the public to believe that one. With unemployment close to 200,000 people for nearly two years, some would think that they have so far restored the economy to the level of the Dirty Thirties. The second definition of renewal is "patch." That seems to be what the government is doing as it polls and polls and polls again, trying to pick a date to face the people.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

[ Page 7419 ]

I don't think that British Columbia is in a process of genuine renewal, nor will we be until there's a government over there that the people can trust to act on their behalf to stand up for ordinary British Columbians. I think rather, that we're in the middle of a profound and disturbing series of changes resulting from the impact of technology on the economy. The changes are disturbing for three reasons. First, the changes are not widely understood. And certainly they are publicly perceived as isolated occurrences, rather than as a broad pattern.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Second, the Bennett government is unconcerned about the consequences of technological change for ordinary British Columbians and for their pocketbooks. Third, in the absence of discussion and consensus, the ordinary British Columbian's interests will lose out to the better-organized and — financed corporations, whose business it is to exploit technology and maximize their profits, even at the expense of their workers and for the British Columbia public interest and for their own interest in the long run when there are no consumers with dollars who can afford to take advantage of their services.

Mr. Speaker, change is inevitable. And it's given that change is inevitable. Every day sees the introduction of more and more highly advanced forms of new technology. The question that the Bennett government should be addressing is how best these vast technological opportunities can be grasped so that the benefits flow to all our people, so that there are optimal profits while British Columbians are protected from their excesses and their unpredictability.

I'll take as my example British Columbia Telephone. Some of my remarks may seem critical of the company. I want to make it clear that what they do is perfectly legal. Rather, the problem is in this Legislature, with a government that refuses to negotiate with the regulatory powers and to get those powers away from Ottawa and the federal government that refuses to give the CRTC sufficient resources to do the job effectively. The budget for telephone regulation coast-to-coast is less than B.C. Tel spends on advertising in one year.

How do we know that changes are misunderstood, Mr. Speaker? My first hypothesis is that the changes are misunderstood and are perceived as isolated events rather than as a broad pattern. The actions of two Bennett cabinet ministers confirm this hypothesis. At the recent inter-provincial conference, the minister responsible for telecommunications — the member for Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) — called for the abolition of the CRTC. That is the government's policy. The CRTC is the means by which B.C. Telephone is regulated in our province. Other provinces regulate their own, but for historical reasons, B.C. Tel is represented by a federally appointed body not accountable to the people of British Columbia. British Columbia's view was out of touch, and every other provincial government at the conference repudiated it.

The Bennett government's view was even out of touch with some of its own cabinet. The member for Kootenay, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty), a week after his Point Grey colleague called for the abolition of the CRTC, was invoking the CRTC, urging it to prevent the closure of the Cranbrook office in his constituency. The Minister of Labour showed his ignorance of the changes and his ineffectiveness as a representative in three fundamental respects. First, he should have known that the CRTC has no power to intervene. Second, he should have known that his Point Grey colleague has made it policy of this government to keep out of touch with the CRTC — to refuse to talk to them, because the member from Point Grey prefers talking to the federal cabinet. The Bennett government perceives the federal cabinet to play the role of the organ grinder to the commissioner's monkey. Third, he should have known that the closure of the Cranbrook office is just the latest manifestation of a high-tech company applying that technology to our province to the detriment of the job market in Cranbrook and other parts of the province. Information on these three points is readily available to the member from Kootenay, not least of all in the Hansard of this House, where these matters have been raised before.

So how do we know that the government is unconcerned about the consequences of technology? There are really two major pieces of evidence here. The first is what the government has not done about technology, and the second is what they have done to our education system. Consider what the government has not done. They have failed to negotiate for British Columbians regulatory jurisdiction of our phone company with the federal government. They have not made a study of the impact of technology on our province and the need to protect jobs in the interior. They have not tried to prevent increases in telephone rates by intervening with the regulatory body — the CRTC. We have, but they haven't. The member for Point Grey's claim that we talk to the federal cabinet is a useless piece of rhetoric. The CRTC advise that not once in all their years of regulation has the federal cabinet intervened in the telephone rate decision.

They have not developed policies to prevent the phone company from bringing in "local measured service." LMS means that you pay for every local call that you make. Long distance rates will plummet under this system. However, since ordinary British Columbians make a vast majority of local calls, the results of LMS will be a massive transfer of the cost burden away from the large corporations and the banks who make most use of the long-distance service, and on to the backs of the already hard-pressed ordinary British Columbian. The senior citizens of this province are informed and are fighting, and are concerned about the introduction of local measured service.

In fact, it is not only true that the Bennett government has failed by simple inactivity to protect the consumer's cheap basic telephone service; they are actively taking steps that will increase the cost substantially of basic local telephone service. Crown corporations such as B.C. Rail have won the right to interconnect their systems with B.C. Tel's. This will reduce B.C. Tel's long-distance revenues. Long-distance revenues have historically been set above cost to provide subsidy of local service so that it can be universally affordable.

You know, we should all take a short history course in the phone service in Canada. Canada has had this government's ideal of unregulated telephone service before. The Canadian telephone system is a confusing mishmash of federally regulated monopolies and provincially run Crown corporations, and there are three basic reasons for this. First, the public learned from bitter experience that unregulated private enterprise could not be trusted to provide service; secondly, the western provinces discovered that the federal government did

[ Page 7420 ]

not care about western needs; and thirdly, the current structure of the Canadian telephone system suits the companies admirably.

In 1880 the federal parliament granted Bell Canada, a subsidiary of the American-based Bell Telephone, a "Dominion charter" that gave Bell Canada the exclusive right to make telephone equipment and provide service from coast to coast. They naturally put their dollars where they brought the greatest return and served the greatest number of people. Farmers, homesteaders and other pioneers who helped open up our province could not get on the phone. Bell president Charles Sise shrugged off criticisms of their terrible rural service by saying that once the cities had been serviced there wasn't much left for farm lines.

Bell Canada's monopoly was withdrawn in 1893 and new competitors came on the scene. Bell protected itself by refusing to sell equipment to its competition and by denying them the right to hook up to its national telephone network. It all sounds so familiar. The Morgan banking dynasty bought control of Bell in 1907 and promptly set about buying out the competition. They were successful, and by 1910 Bell was once more in a monopoly position.

The public, meanwhile, had been putting pressure on the federal government to do something about phone service, and a select committee of members of parliament was set up by the Laurier Liberal government. The committee heard from prairie farm groups that Bell was refusing to provide service to them. Worse than that, when the farmers organized and paid for their own service, Bell would not allow the farmers to hook in to the Bell network.

[3:30]

The MPs ignored the unanimous demand of the Union of Canadian Municipalities calling for long-distance telephone service owned and operated by the federal government "under conditions which will enable every user to have unrestricted intercommunication between all local systems now in operation, or which may hereafter be established." That was their resolution. The select committee refused to recommend any legislation and Ottawa did nothing, so the provinces began to organize. Alberta and Manitoba set up their own publicly owned systems in 1906, and Saskatchewan did the same in 1908.

The same pressure for provincially run telephones did not develop in British Columbia, perhaps because British Columbia Telephone president William Farrell was able to claim independence from the Bell conglomerate. He boasted publicly of friendly relations with subscribers, 50 percent lower rates than Seattle or Tacoma, and more telephones per head of population than any other province, while in Vancouver, he clarified, "We have more per head than any city in the British Empire."

Labour relations were less tranquil. The month after Mr. Farrell's rosy report, the company locked out its unionized construction workers. In 1902 it had been involved in an embarrassing strike which had seen a group of prominent business people, including Board of Trade president W.H. Malkin and Hudson's Bay Co. manager H.T. Lockyer, line up in support of the strikers. In 1905 the construction workers were locked out for four months; in 1906 they were on strike for nine. The issue was the same in each case: union recognition. In 1906 the company successfully broke the telephone operators' union.

Bell Canada were very worried that normally conservative groups like the Union of Canadian Municipalities would ask for publicly owned long-distance telephone service. In 1905 Bell decided to head off demands for telephones run by the government, and they proposed a deal. Bell said that in exchange for the right to expand their monopoly control over new, highly profitable markets as Canada opened up, the company would submit to regulation and allow itself to be prodded into providing service to unprofitable rural and remote areas.

The federal government accepted Bell's deal, and it holds to this day — at least in Canada. MPs were able to tell their constituents that service was assured, and the telephone companies were happy because the regulators were starved of the resources they needed to do the job. The annual budget for telephone regulation across the nation is less than one company spends on publicity.

While the staff of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission do the best job possible with the resources they've been given, the present method of regulation is about as effective as fighting a tank with a pea shooter. This government fails to appreciate the scope or dimensions of the problem that technology can bring. Let me stress that what B.C. Tel does, they're entitled to do. The weakness lies in the laws governing them, set by the federal government, and the fact that this government makes no attempt to gain jurisdiction for our province so that British Columbians can have effective, locally accountable regulation.

B.C. Tel has its head office in Burnaby, but it is controlled by GTE Corp. of Stamford, Connecticut, which through its subsidiary, Anglo-Canadian Telephone Co. of Montreal, owns over half the outstanding shares, according to the 1985 annual report. Company profits doubled between 1977 and 1986. Earnings per share went from $1.48 on 18.8 million shares in 1977 to $2.21 on 44.6 million shares in 1985. With stock splits and issues, the number of shares has more than doubled, and even in spite of that, earnings have increased substantially.

B.C. Tel is one of the most important companies in the province. Comparing B.C.-based companies in 1983, it was number one in net earnings, ahead of Westcoast Transmission and Kelly Douglas. It was number three in assets and number five in sales. It added $1.2 billion in plant between 1979 and 1985.

Between 1981 and 1985 the company eliminated 2,703 direct jobs, while keeping its earnings per share above 1980 levels. For every direct job lost another two jobs are lost in communities where B.C. Tel employees used to spend their pay. More job losses are coming. B.C. Tel is closing down viable smaller centres and centralizing operations in larger towns. In the next year or so Nelson will lose at least 23 union jobs, plus an unknown number of management positions, for a total of about 100 jobs because of the multiplier effect. Cranbrook will lose 92 union jobs, plus associated management and support workers, for a total loss of 330 jobs. Eleven Nanaimo jobs are being eliminated in the first three months of this year. Women who have worked for the company for 17 years are affected. About 95 of the 130 B.C. Tel workers who will lose their jobs are women. For family reasons they will be unable to move to Kelowna, where the company has decided to base its service operations. Even for those workers who can move there is no guarantee for their jobs — that they'll be stable when they get there. About 300 operators in Burnaby will be eliminated in 1990. B.C. Tel shows that high

[ Page 7421 ]

technology does not bring economic growth in the shape of higher wages and tax revenues.

Education is the prime means by which a society provides opportunities for its young people. Decency demands that our youth be as well equipped as we can make them to face the rigours of this technological age. But what has this government done? They have cut the quality of education available to our children. They have made it prohibitively expensive and less accessible. They have impaired our province's future ability to cope with technology, seize its opportunities and solve its problems.

Take the public school system. Since they began their attack on education in March 1982, there has been 17 percent inflation. According to Statistics Canada, the Bennett government cut $75 million in provincial funds from the public schools between the 1982-83 and 1985-86 fiscal years. At the same time they seized control of school board budgets and used that power to hike homeowners' property taxes by over $13 million. Having made the homeowners pay more each year, while the government provided less, they used this as a stick to pillory teachers. Last year the government fired the Cowichan and Vancouver school boards. This year they've underfunded the school system to such an extent that the school trustees are having to ask their homeowners to ante up again, when they have already paid more than their fair share.

Take the post-secondary education system. The pattern is similar. Course offerings are reduced, tuition fees skyrocket, access is cut. Even if you accept the morality of what this government is doing to our youth's opportunities, it's poor business for British Columbia, because every other province protected its education system during the economic downturn. Every other province kept its per-pupil support of the public school system abreast of inflation, except British Columbia. Every province saw an increase over the last two years in post-secondary participation rates — yes, even British Columbia. But everyone else's increase was 16 times that of British Columbia's, which was just 0.08 percent, or 8 in 10,000.

The other point to note is that a higher proportion of other Canadians go to university or college than do British Columbians. If the same proportion of British Columbians went to post-secondary education as their peers in other provinces, there would be over 24,000 more students in full-time college and university education in this province. That would bring us to the national average. In 1968, less than two decades ago, we used to have the highest participation rate, equal first with Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, we do need new beginnings. New Democrats believe that telephones are an essential service, and that they should be available to all British Columbians at reasonable rates. New Democrats believe that the historical bargain struck in 1908, which delivered universal service at low rates, with cross-subsidy from long distance revenues, has served British Columbians, particularly those in isolated communities, very well. Hence we stand opposed to attempts to change it, whether this is through rebalancing, local measured service or other jargon designed to mask a raid on the pocketbooks of ordinary people.

Mr. Speaker, we need new beginnings in education. There's been no comprehensive examination of education in British Columbia for a quarter of a century. We need one badly to help rebuild the consensus that British Columbians used to share about education and which has been so effectively destroyed by the confrontation and scapegoating. So we propose a royal commission for this purpose, with a broad mandate to inquire into all aspects of public education and make recommendations that will provide a basis for the long-term direction of this system. If the commission is to have a realistic chance of capturing a consensus, it must be structured in such a way as to allow for full participation of the general public and all groups in the education community, including teachers, parents, trustees, administrators, support personnel and students. Plainly, such a thorough inquiry would take time, perhaps two or three years. Equally plainly, meeting the immediate crisis in education will not tolerate much delay. Quick action is needed.

[3:45]

An NDP government would carry out the following short-term program on coming to power: (1) we would assess the damage caused by Social Credit to schools, colleges and universities; (2) we would take short-term remedial action that would restore services to the level of 1982 or some other identifiable and mutually agreeable year, after negotiation with school, college and university communities; (3) we would restore to school boards the right to set budgets and levy property tax to meet their community needs, with special additional provision and attention to economically depressed areas; (4) we would restore the ability of community colleges to deliver a comprehensive range of university transfer, vocational and continuing education programs; (5) we would restore the independence of universities and guarantee academic freedom for faculty; and (6) we would eliminate the practice of differential student fees.

We pledge to take remedial action to restore education services to the 1982 levels or to some other identifiable and mutually agreeable year, after negotiation with school, college and university communities.

Several items will affect these negotiations: the state of the provincial treasury, the point in the fiscal year when power is transferred and the timing of the election. The Socreds do not have to call an election until 1988. The 1982 service levels may not be appropriate then. Programs cannot be created at the drop of a hat. The point is to talk to people in a moderate practical way and cooperate in finding ways out of the present difficulties.

As I have said earlier, the proportion of young British Columbians going on to higher education is the lowest in the country. As recently as 1968 it was equal to the highest, with Ontario. The New Democratic Party is committed to raising the participation rate to at least the national average over a five-year period. To meet the target we would restore the grant portion of the B.C. student assistance plan, review the maximum amount of the award annually and adjust regularly for inflation. We would deregulate excessive criteria for student aid — ridiculous regulations; remove barriers to the participation of students living outside of the urban conglomerate of Vancouver and Victoria by developing a comprehensive strategy of decentralized program delivery — degree programs to local community colleges are one possible alternative and a program of boarding and travel assistance to help students attend an urban centre, if their studies require it, is another way of helping; and reach out to those groups underrepresented in the university population: women, single parents, mature students, cultural minorities, native people, the handicapped, the disabled. This could be done in consultation with educational institutions and the people affected.

[ Page 7422 ]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to serve the people of Nelson Creston. I can look at the many achievements which have been made, and I can look at the spirit and the efforts that are being made today, for instance, to bring another sawmill to the Nelson area to create more jobs. I was looking at the efforts of people who are in other ventures toward secondary manufacturing, and there are certainly some questions that I would ask in this House about forest policy, the use of pesticides, highway priorities, safety and other things. You know that we can't be satisfied with just getting crumbs for government handouts, whether you're in a government riding or an opposition riding.

We need fundamental change in this province if we are going to live up to the potential of British Columbia, if we are going to really restore British Columbia to the place that it has held, and how proudly, in Confederation ever since that time. We do need a change. It is time for a change of government in this province, and I regret perhaps that I won't be a direct part of that change on the floor of this House, but it is something that is needed, and I will have no regrets when I see my colleagues here move over there.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, it certainly gives me a great deal of pleasure to take my place and make my few remarks concerning this throne speech, which is really a document that summarizes what has happened over the past year and giving some indication of where we are going into the future.

Mr. Speaker, last night I attended a function in Vernon. It was the opening of a new extension to the shopping mall there. There were approximately 1,000 people there, they tell me: enthusiastic, happy people who appreciate indeed what is happening in this province. We saw signs of confidence. We saw the people who were out to show respect for those investors, who invested, I believe, in the neighbourhood of $5.5 million in that expansion — to express their appreciation for the confidence that those investors have shown in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, that is happening all over the province. The throne speech talks about 50,000 more people working this year than in February 1985. I think that it is high time that we stopped using the negative. It's very easy to say that we have 12 percent or 13 percent unemployed in Victoria, but the facts are that we have 50,000 more people working this year than in February 1985. Mr. Speaker, this didn't just happen. It happened because this government, under the leadership of our Premier, made it happen. They have instilled confidence out there, Mr. Speaker.

We also hear them talk about bankruptcies and how terrible that is. Well, I don't have the exact figures on bankruptcies, but I understand that they are down. But the real facts are that 43,403 businesses have started since 1983. We talk about housing. We show housing starts up 11 percent in 1985. ICBC rates have dropped, not just because of conditions out there, but rather because of the management that has been provided, good management, firm management, operating under the policies of this government. ICBC rates did drop this year, and many people out there, users of that service, are very appreciative of that fact.

We also have another situation developing in this province, something new in North America: that is, the program under the critical industries commissioner. We had facilities out there, very substantial investments in mills and mines and so forth, that were either down because of foreign markets or were about to be closed down. Mr. Speaker, under the critical industries commissioner program, we are putting back to work more than 1,500 people, investment already there — 1,500 people put back to work only because common sense is applied.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, I call a quorum.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A quorum is called.

There is a quorum. I see a quorum in the House.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I wanted to expand a little bit on the program of the critical industries commissioner, because as I said earlier, this is succeeding as it is because of the great deal of common sense that is applied. We have more than 1,500 people working as a result of this activity. They are Clearwater Timber Products in Valemount; Stege Logging, New Hazelton; Victoria Plywood; Langford Forest Products; the Bell copper-mine; and Brenda Mines.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a very forward approach, something new, in my opinion something that is long overdue. I am extremely delighted with this program, particularly because of the way that it has succeeded in pulling all parties together. It has succeeded in pulling together the employer, the employee, the bankers, the government and so on. But more important to me, it is giving those employees the opportunity to participate in the company where they worked and in some cases giving them the opportunity to be owners. This is a program that is going to be one of many for this government that is, no doubt, going to leave its mark on the economy of this province for years to come.

We also see successes taking place in our Small Business Venture Capital Act. I'm advised that 17 venture capital corporations have already been established, and they have raised, up to the last report, in the neighbourhood of $13 million.

We're also told that there is a great opportunity in our province to see the development of a major movie studio taking place. There is also the great opportunity to accelerate the Site C Dam project, which will put thousands of people to work — again, depending on the success that we have in selling our energy to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, there is a new mood out there with the consumer and with business. It is a new mood of confidence taking place. I would like to talk about that mood a little bit by referring to our provincial-municipal partnership program. Up to this point it has seen 127 municipalities sign up to become partners with the provincial government in the development of the economy at the local level.

I strongly believe that if the services that are required at the municipal level are going to be provided, then it has to be done on a sound economic base. All services must pivot on a sound economic base. We not only have activities taking place out there but we have a change of attitude. In spite of the negative comments of the Leader of the Opposition and others travelling throughout the province, they cannot turn this mood that is taking place out there at the municipal level. There is a change of attitude, a change of mood. They have changed their complete direction.

I would like to list some of the developments that have taken place partly as a result of this partnership program. In

[ Page 7423 ]

Squamish we have a distribution facility; in Maple Ridge we have Cooper Yachts Ltd., with a $950,000 plant now in operation and expected to expand next year; Moly-Cop Canada has a grinding ball mill in Kamloops, with an $11.7 million facility and 81 jobs; Ocelot has a petrochemical plant at Kitimat, with an $80 million facility; Western Match Inc. In Penticton, with $40 million and 54 jobs; and the Louisiana-Pacific waferboard mill in Dawson Creek, with 275 jobs. We have seen over 700 jobs created, mainly because of the way that local municipal councils have cooperated with the private sector out there and with the provincial government to make this work.

We also have projects pending, projects that are under discussion, and we fully expect that they will come on stream. We have projects in Squamish, Britannia Beach, Maple Ridge, Campbell River, Hazelton and Kamloops. These projects will involve over $600 million in investment, producing somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,000 new jobs.

Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition spoke in debate, he talked about the need for infrastructure at the municipal level. He also went on to say that our government, through my ministry, had opposed the program being proposed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. If that member would do his homework — or have his research people do it for him — he would find that we did not oppose the proposal at all. We recognize that there is a need for improvement of infrastructure throughout Canada. What we did oppose was that this report produced by a committee headed up by Mayor Mike Harcourt ignored the small communities of this province.

I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition would listen to this because the small communities of this province are of real concern to us, just as the large ones are. The report proposed by the team headed by Mayor Mike Harcourt did not take into consideration the small communities of this province. I did oppose going to Ottawa with cap in hand asking for money that they don't have at this time. I am more concerned, at this moment, with protecting the other, more essential programs that we have, such as health and education. I was not prepared to be part of any move that would be putting pressure on our federal government for more money that they don't have, which could affect these other essential programs.

[4:00]

Talking about infrastructure, back a few years ago British Columbia came in with a program known as revenue-sharing. Revenue-sharing, I think, has to be one of the fairest, most effective programs anywhere in Canada when it comes to the provision of services and infrastructure at the municipal level.

It so happens that we discovered after our study that, indeed, the infrastructure, as it applies to sewer and water facilities, is in better shape in British Columbia than almost anywhere else in Canada. The reason for that, of course, is that we have had a formula of funding that is set by statute, whereby a percentage of the income of the province goes towards funding these projects on a yearly basis.

Mr. Speaker, just for the record I would like to quote some figures — dollars spent on services, the infrastructure, from 1974 to 1985. I wish the Leader of the Opposition would stay for this, because he has made a great issue out of the whole infrastructure question.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You shouldn't run out, all embarrassed. No, don't be embarrassed. You're entitled to make your mistakes; and you make your share of them. Take your seat, and take in these figures.

The fact is that the revenue-sharing program has provided, from 1974 to 1985, $69.4 million in Highways grants; $186.1 million in water facilities; and $355 million in sewage facilities programs; for a total of $541.1 million. On top of that, taking into consideration projected sewage and waterworks facilities assistance payments, which we are committed to for the remaining period of this whole program, British Columbia through revenue-sharing will have provided in excess of $1.5 billion. For those of you who are interested in infrastructure in Canada....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Well, that is taking $541 million spent up to 1985, and the payments that must be made over the next period of years — and I believe that runs somewhere between 17, 18, maybe up to 20 years into the future. Those are commitments.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, I don't agree that that's peanuts, at all. I think when you consider what is spent in.... Well, we're not taking into consideration new funding that will be coming in over the next 20 years as well. This is money that is already spent and money already committed. If every province in this country, Mr. Speaker, would commit that sort of share of their revenue towards infrastructure, then I don't think that it would be as serious as they indicate it is.

But the point I want to make here is that I believe that the opposition should realize two things: number one, we will not support any program that does not involve all of the municipalities of our province, nor will we....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Why? Because I believe that the small municipalities of our province are just as important as the larger ones.

The Leader of the Opposition also used Surrey as one area that just wasn't getting enough. Well, Mr. Speaker, Surrey is one municipality that got the full amount possibly available through the revenue-sharing program. It is one community in this province that has tremendous growth potential because of the opportunity of infilling that has been provided as a result of heavy financing over the years gone by.

I spoke recently in my constituency on the whole question of public spending. Of course, one area that I talked very briefly about was education. I pointed out that no matter who delivers the money, the taxpayer ultimately must pay the price. It doesn't matter where it comes from. I believe that we as a provincial government do have a responsibility to provide an excellent standard of education — and we are — and I believe that we have a responsibility to make sure that there is fair funding. I believe that we also have a responsibility to make sure that there is fair funding for all school districts throughout the province.

[ Page 7424 ]

I don't disagree with those school boards who say it's not enough. It's up to them. If they don't agree with the levels set, then they have the opportunity to go back to the taxpayer and ask for more.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Listen, you think it only comes from homeowners? Don't you believe that taxes also become part of rents that have to be paid? Don't you understand that whenever people make accommodation available for rent it has to take in all costs, including taxes? Don't you understand that? The people who own homes, the people who rent homes — we call them taxpayers; they are the ones that pay the bill. I see nothing wrong with any school board that believes that they need more going back to the taxpayers themselves and letting them decide if they're right or not.

But, you know, I am concerned about some of the funding. I have a letter here, and I'll just read it to you. The letter is from Wayne Anthony.

"This letter is to confirm the appointment that I made with you through Mr. McClelland over the telephone for February.... A delegation from our association, comprised of no more than four people, would like to discuss with you and Mr. McClelland some of the financial problems facing School District 34 (Abbotsford). I believe the figures we will present will be of interest to you.

"We look forward to a meeting with you on Wednesday, February 26, and having an interesting discussion over lunch."

Mr. Speaker, these people are very concerned because they are not getting enough money — insufficient funds. The letter is dated February 20, 1975.

What is enough funding? I believe that our government has come in with a formula that is very, very fair. It gives the school boards the opportunity to obtain more funding if they, in their judgment, believe it's necessary. I am also very confident that our Minister of Education, the Hon. Jim Hewitt, will be very open and willing to work with them. I look forward to that, particularly in School District 34, because that's the way we believe in solving problems. I certainly wish him well in the position.

I'd like to touch very briefly on social housing. I don't want to go into any detail there, because that's going to be dealt with. But, you know, we hear all of the nattering from across the floor about these people who are being turned out of their accommodation in Vancouver East. Well, I was asked to take a look at it and see what could be done, and I went there. I want you folks to know that no one on that side of the House can tell me what it's like to live in social housing.

AN HON. MEMBER: We can't tell you anything.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I know. I want you to know that I did go down there, and I talked to them. I was satisfied that there was no one on the street. I also went into one of the buildings that at that time had approximately 40 vacancies. These people who are complaining that there was no space for those people who are being let out of their hotel accommodation — no place for them to go — while affordable housing was sitting on approximately 40 vacancies.... I think that these members who have got into this act should be ashamed of themselves.

Now the whole story has been that these people are being evicted because of Expo. I have here a letter, dated January 15, 1986, from the city of Vancouver. It's to one of our downtown hotels, and it was signed by J.A. Perri for R.V. Hebert, professional engineer, director. The letter calls for major renovation of this particular facility, and it ends up by saying: "In accordance with the bylaw, and to avoid further action, you are to rectify the above conditions on or before April 15, 1986." We have Mayor Mike Harcourt running around the city screaming about how bad we are and how terrible it is that we wouldn't bring in legislation to force hotel owners into retaining tenants who are presently occupying the facilities, while the city itself is sending out letters that will indeed put people on the street if they are followed through. How can you do major renovations while people are living there? We are talking about a facility here, Mr. Speaker, that has 73 units in it — 73 units in the city of Vancouver, while out of one side of their mouth they're criticizing the government for not forcing hotel owners to keep people in their hotels while they themselves are forcing evictions through this sort of action. I would say this: that is either hypocritical, or the mayor doesn't know what is going on in city council. One hand doesn't know what's going on with the other.

Mr. Speaker, I just want you to know — and I'm going to end with this — that what we did get was cooperation, it appeared, in Vancouver when I brought together mayor Mike Harcourt and Mr. Green and Mr. Pattison. I should say that His Worship — not that I'd want to worship him, but anyway.... The meeting was actually in accordance with a motion of the Vancouver council, and the Vancouver council asked that a meeting take place between the mayor, Mr. Pattison and our Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett). Our Premier, of course, due to other commitments couldn't make it, so I was sent in his place. Mr. Green was quite offended because the Vancouver council did not include him in that meeting. However, we did bring him in, and a meeting took place, and it was agreed that a task force would be set up to deal with those in need of housing. The task force consists of representatives of the provincial government, the city of Vancouver, the B.C. Hotels Association, the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association, the Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation, the B.C. Housing Management Commission and the Affordable Housing Advisory Association. Mr. Speaker, the task force agreed upon a mechanism to gather up-to-date information on current unexpected demand, to list all possible vacancies in both social housing and private accommodation, and to match these with the people who need them and assist in their relocation with minimum disruption. We've got cooperation all the way down the line, and I understand that another meeting is due to take place tomorrow, March 20.

[4:15]

One of the very important parts of this exercise was to try to identify available accommodation. Keep in mind that when I went downtown and visited some of these facilities I was told by an employee of Affordable Housing that there were approximately 40 vacant units. I felt that at that time those people — DERA, Affordable Housing and the city of Vancouver — should have said: "Don't allow any of those units to be filled until we make sure that the people who are in real need are accommodated." But that is not what is happening. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the meeting that took place has shown that both DERA and the Affordable Housing people have not as yet produced the list of vacancies. Why is that?

[ Page 7425 ]

Would that be because they don't want them in those facilities — the people who are being removed from the hotels? Would that be because Affordable Housing and DERA and mayor Harcourt are discriminating? Would that be the reason for it? But I think that whenever a group comes together as has happened here, where hotel owners have not only agreed to work with them to assist in relocating these people but have put up funds to provide for such things as telephones, transportation, etc., while on the other side where all the criticism is coming from they're sitting on vacancies and won't tell us about them, I'm going to tell you that that is an absolute disgrace.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to have had the opportunity to take my place in this debate. I'm looking forward to a tremendous year in British Columbia. We are going to have, I'm sure, a tremendous onslaught of visitors to our province, and where in this world has there been an exposition that has been shown to be a success before it has opened? That has happened here in British Columbia with, they tell me, over 12 million visitations already sold, 54 countries coming, 84 pavilions, I believe.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say that as a result of our municipal-provincial partnership program the communities throughout this province are ready, willing and anxious to welcome any visitor to our province, whether they're a tourist or someone else who would like to invest in our province and in the various communities.

Mr. Speaker, we can look forward to great enthusiasm. Believe me, as our Premier has travelled the province, unlike the opposition, and some of my colleagues speaking to the public, delivering the message, I have found that indeed there is a great feeling of enthusiasm out there, a great feeling of excitement. But more important, there is a great feeling of hope with the unemployed that indeed we are doing something to create jobs in this province.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I would ask that.... The minister referred in his speech to two letters substantially. One was a letter dated February 1975 from the Abbotsford School Board that he referred to, and he read from it substantially.

The second letter was the Vancouver city engineering department bylaw notification. According to the rules, I would ask that the Speaker direct that those be laid on the table.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That type of material does not have to be tabled, hon. members.

MR. LAUK: Oh, yes, any material that any member of the House substantially refers to, particularly a Crown minister, must be tabled in the House. It's clear in Sir Erskine May.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe that Sir Erskine will advise us that if official documents are quoted from, then they must be tabled.

MR. LAUK: These are in the nature of official documents. One is from city engineering. If you live in the Vancouver district, you know that's as official as you can get. It was a bylaw notification. The minister has based a policy remark with respect to social housing on that letter. Now we believe that if it is the usual bylaw notification, then it is a misrepresentation. If it's not, then the minister's remarks should stand.

He is required under the rules to table a document that he has read from. We all are. The second thing is a letter that he claims is dated February 1975. Surely, out of courtesy, if not under the rules, he should table that letter.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The reference to official documents refers to the government that has cited them. In this case it would be a government of British Columbia letter. However, that was not the case. However, there may be more information.

MR. LAUK: Well, that's not the rules as I understand them. As I understand the rule, Mr. Speaker, it's any document read from substantially. It relates to official policy or policy related to the statement from the minister, but also any document referred to in the speech.

I don't know whether the hon. minister needs the Speaker's protection in this regard, or whether the minister is willing to table. Certainly the House would grant leave, if the minister asks it, to table those letters. Is the minister trying to hide something or...?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Come to my office and I'll....

MR. LAUK: No, no, this is the chamber. You don't understand that. Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister doesn't understand that he owes that duty to this chamber, not in the corridor. If he wants to ask leave, nobody will object. If the minister does not seek leave to table the documents, then are we to assume that he made them up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. LAUK: All right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before recognizing the member for North Island, who will be participating in the debate, I will state, as I stated earlier, that the document that can be questioned is a state document, one of the government. I am not referring to another government, but in fact to the government who has quoted that. I so rule.

MR. GABELMANN: Before making some comments on a very serious problem in British Columbia relating to youth unemployment, I wanted to respond to three things that the Minister of Municipal Affairs talked about in his speech.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The first is the whole question of social housing. I find it unbelievably hypocritical of this government to even talk about social housing when in the last ten years they have thoroughly abdicated their entire responsibility for social housing. They have relied entirely on the federal government. They have done nothing. They have deliberately and directly decided not to participate in social housing in this province. Now, when they think it might help divert attention from a real issue in the downtown eastside of Vancouver, they pretend to have this great concern about social housing. It's the first time in ten years that they've had any concern.

That aside, Mr. Speaker, the thing that concerns me most about words coming from that minister and the Minister of

[ Page 7426 ]

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) is that they don't seem to understand what the primary objective of social housing is, and that is to make it invisible. We should never, in our society, be able to identify social housing by simply seeing it. It should be invisible. That should be the goal of any social housing program. I don't think that very many people, particularly on that side of the House, understand that as a fundamental goal. The day of constructing ghettos to house poor people should have been over long ago. While there may be problems in the way co-ops are funded, and some particular problems in the development of a co-op housing program, the principle involved in co-op housing is perfectly sound. People with good incomes should live in co-op housing so that they can subsidize people with poor incomes in those same housing complexes. That same principle must apply through the whole range of social housing programs. To be able to identify a Raymur Place or a Skeenaview — or any other number of buildings; and there are some in my constituency — is appalling.

I think the government would do well to do two things: (1) to adopt that policy; and (2) to assume its proper responsibility, working with the federal government and municipal governments in the development of programs that ensure adequate housing is available, so that we don't have those long waiting-lists for affordable housing that we have now in British Columbia.

The second point in the Minister of Municipal Affairs' comments that I want to comment on is that he suggests that local school boards have an opportunity to raise additional funds from the taxpayer if they want to spend above and beyond the limits provided them by the government. Mr. Speaker, in one school district in my riding, Vancouver Island West, 86 percent of the taxpayers cannot be charged; 14 percent of the tax base is available to the school district. There are some constituencies where 90 percent of the tax base is probably available to the school board. But in this district 14 percent is available. In that particular example, bringing their budget up to last year's level will increase taxes to the residential taxpayer as much as $300 in some cases — additional for school purposes. There are very few, if any, houses in that school district over $100,000. They're talking about that kind of money just to bring the budget up to current levels. Why? Because there is virtually no residential tax base from which to collect that money. If you're going to say to the school boards, "Collect from the local taxpayers," fine — tax the local taxpayer. But include them all; don't single out one sector.

The third thing I want to refer to is the reference to municipal infrastructure, and the whole discussion the minister embarked upon regarding municipalities and their viability in this province.

There are three municipalities — all of them villages in my constituency which are virtually on the brink of going bankrupt. In one of those three serious consideration is being given, I might say, to giving their charter back to the government because the economics are so bad. Why? A variety of reasons. The funding formulas don't work appropriately.

[4:30]

Another fundamental reason is that appeal decisions on assessments on the industrial base have absolutely destroyed the tax base of some of these municipalities. I say seriously that in all three cases these municipalities wonder how they're going to survive, not from year to year but from day to day. They've cut far beyond the bone already. They can't find money for basic maintenance of their own infrastructure, their own communities. They're already borrowing up to the limit — in one case, with special permission, over the limit. What happens to them because of a tax appeal process? They have their entire tax base decimated. And what is the Minister of Municipal Affairs doing about it? Nothing that I can see.

If you're going to make some announcements, you'd better tell me too.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Tahsis is one, Zeballos is another and Alert Bay is the third. They've considered the partnership thing, as has the council in Gold River. When I was meeting with staff in Gold River they were asking my opinion: should they, or should they not, encourage their council to participate in the partnership agreement? I encouraged them to do it; I said, "You've got nothing to lose."

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Nothing to lose, lots to gain.

MR. GABELMANN: Nothing to lose, nothing to gain. There hasn't been a single job in North Island out of this.

I said: "What are you going to lose?" They're worried about losing a lot. In Tahsis, if they had signed the municipal partnership agreement, they would have lost the tax base that might be created by the construction of a new sawmill in that community. So why haven't they signed? Because it would have cost them money.

If the minister is going to talk about problems out there, he should talk about the real problems. More than that, he should be doing something about particular problems that exist in communities like Tahsis, Zeballos and Alert Bay, with no possibility of.... The partnership in whatever programs don't do a damn thing for any of those municipalities. Not a damn thing, Mr. Speaker.

There's a lot of things that an MLA can talk about during a throne speech debate. Obviously we all have an opportunity to....

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry; I've just interrupted a meeting. I didn't mean to do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has noticed that the member for North Island has been recognized, but no one seems to pay attention to him. Possibly other meetings could terminate, or have them outside the chamber. The member for North Island will continue on the throne speech.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I want to take the time I have remaining today to talk about youth unemployment in British Columbia. Of all the problems that we have in our society....

Before I hear taunts of "Don't be negative," I think we need to recognize that one job of a government and of a legislature and of MLAs is in fact to deal with problems; that's what we're elected to do. Our role, our responsibility, is to try to make life better for people, not to make it worse. In the last ten years, life has been getting worse for almost every group in our society, but what's happening to young people is particularly devastating and should, I think, be of particular concern to all members of this House; in fact, to anyone in

[ Page 7427 ]

British Columbia who's concerned about the future of this society.

Mr. Speaker, 1985 was International Youth Year. What did we do in British Columbia to recognize an internationally declared year of youth? The answer is that basically we did nothing. We made youth unemployment worse. We raised tuition fees. We provided a minimal summer youth work program — and I'll get back to that later. On the positive side, towards the end of the year the Minister of Labour announced the formation of a youth council. I've seen the names on an order-in-council, the announcement of the youth council. I don't know who they are. The young people in my constituency that I talk to don't know who they are. I don't know who was consulted as to the development of that particular group. Who picked them, and who do they represent? Do they represent those kids we see at 11 o'clock or midnight, hanging around Douglas Street, or those kids you see on the Granville Mall night after night, lost? I don't sense, Mr. Speaker, that that youth council, whoever they are, represents those kids.

Year of youth, 1985, and what was done? Toward the end of the year, the token establishment of a provincial youth council, and absolutely nothing else on the positive side. On the downside, the government cut back on programs that could help — as I said, they increased tuition — and they watched unemployment among young people rise yet again. So in the face of this, in the face of the fact that at least one out of four young people in this province are unemployed or underemployed, and a whole bunch more working part time — I'll get back to that in a moment — what was in the throne speech to deal with this problem? Nothing at all, No recognition of this as one of the more serious social problems in our province. The Senate report on youth had come out. No comment whatsoever about that report — whether it was good, bad or indifferent. No comment in the throne speech about the intention of the government to take some or any or all aspects of that report and try to work together with other governments to develop some programs. Nothing!

There's been more publicity on youth issues lately than we've had in many years. Katimavik was cancelled — no reference to that in the throne speech, nothing at all. The other day the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty), the minister responsible for youth, spoke — not a word, no reference to any programs, nothing whatsoever. What did he say, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that the government might be paying attention to this, possibly the most explosive social problem facing this society in the years to come? Not a word — nothing.

In preparing for this, I wanted to find out just who we're talking about, how many young people there are, what they do and what's happening to them in our society. The first thing I found out was that there's not really very much clearly defined information. It's very difficult to be specific in terms of what's happening to young people between the ages of 15 and 24. In citing these numbers, I want to caution you that they're rough. They may not be entirely accurate, but they're in the ball park. The total youth population — 15 to 24 — is about 440,000. Of the youth in that group who are in the labour force — and clearly they all aren't — 62,000 are unemployed. There are 223,000 in the labour force. Of those 223,000 in the labour force, there are 134,000 working full-time and 89,000 working part-time, which is defined as less than 30 hours a week. So you have 89,000 working part-time — and those are not people who are at school; those are people who are just working part-time — added to another 62,000 who are unemployed. It works out to something like 39 percent of young people working part-time. Now I guess that's better than nothing. But when we talk about unemployment figures, we should recognize that we're leaving out a significant element of the problem, and that is that incomes for a great many other people who are not counted as unemployed are in fact insufficient. In citing these numbers, I should point out that all the statistics do not include Indian young people. The estimates of unemployment among native kids between 15 and 24 range — believe this or not — from 40 to 90 percent. That's a very major problem that will, I think, lead to serious concerns in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the numbers go on and on, and I'm not going to refer to them any more, other than to say that there are some serious problems. We have an immense number of kids who are now not in school and who are not working, and many more who are working but only in part-time work.

Now there's a social cost to all of this. There's a social cost today, and I think there's going to be one in the future when these kids move into their thirties and their forties, many of them never having developed an attachment to the workforce, never having learned basic things like getting up at 7:30 in the morning, getting ready for work and being there on time. If you spent ten years of your younger life not doing that and not learning that, it would be very difficult to learn as you got older. One of the reasons we have high drug use, high alcohol use and a great many other social problems among young people is simply that lack of discipline that working provides.

Mr. Speaker, those social costs are, as I say, evident to anyone who wanders around after a movie in downtown Vancouver or in downtown Victoria. You see kids and you wonder who they are, you wonder where they're sleeping, and you wonder how they're eating — at least, some of us wonder. I wonder. I don't think the government wonders. Individual members on that side may, but I don't think the government as a matter of policy wonders. These kids, often as a result of the kind of life they lead as a result of not working or not being trained, not being in school, have lower self-esteem, lower life satisfaction, feelings of alienation and feelings that they are incapable of controlling their own lives. That point was brought home to me very graphically the other day listening to CBC morning radio. An interviewer went down to the streets in Granville Mall and asked kids what they thought of Senator Jacques Hebert's hunger strike. Whatever we think of that, that wasn't the issue. The absolute cynicism about the ability to affect youth programs that was demonstrated by almost every one of those kids who were interviewed absolutely shocked me. I could not believe the degree of cynicism about their feelings of being able to influence government or events around their own lives. They didn't believe it. They didn't believe Jacques Hebert could help. They believe that the powers that be — the government, the establishment, the forces in society that govern their lives — are totally beyond anything they can influence. That in itself, apart from everything else, is a tragedy.

We're talking about, in many ways, a lost generation. It's difficult. One doesn't want to predict what's going to happen, particularly when you make predictions that are not happy and predict things that are going to be bad. If too much of that happens, predictions can sometimes have a self-fulfilling nature to them. I don't want to get into that kind of situation.

[ Page 7428 ]

It concerns me when I visit people in my constituency and discover that 26- and 28-year-old "kids" are back living at home, not working, staying up all night listening to music and sleeping in the morning — at that age. It concerns me about what is going to happen to them for the rest of their lives — the dependency on alcohol and drugs, the lack of attachment to the workforce is going to have monumental consequences.

My generation grew up at a time when we could pick and choose jobs. Every summer I had a choice of two or three jobs when I was going to high school and to university. I always had a choice, as did most kids at that time. It just isn't the case now. Our generation, I think, has done fairly well. Many of my generation are now unemployed but are able to know how to deal with that unemployment and know how to seek out employment. That's not going to be true of the generation of young kids today. They won't have the same kinds of abilities that my generation had.

[4:45]

When you look, as I do, at the kids on so-called reservations in this province, the Indian kids, you wonder if they have any hope at all in this society — a society which really has abandoned them. I'm not blaming one government or another. I think as a society we have abandoned tens of thousands of people. We have just said to ourselves that they don't exist, or if they do, we don't care.

I am concerned about opportunities that young people have to continue their education, because of the level of cost in terms of tuition fees and living away from home and not having opportunities to borrow money at a rate that we had in my day. In my day we could work. We could do two jobs all summer if you could stand the 16 hours a day. Then you could borrow money at zero interest, and then at 5 percent after you graduated. I had a loan that lasted for years at 5 percent after I graduated. Now what happens? You graduate and six months later you pay prime plus 2. What young people want to embark upon their lives with that kind of debt around their neck. It's easily $15,000 to $20,000 if you have no other support coming from your family or if you can't work. And then to think that when you first do start work, if you can get a job after you leave school, that you've got a debt of $15,000 or $20,000 at 13 percent.... How many young people are going to take that obligation on? So what do they do? They don't embark on education programs anywhere near the number.

In Canada 24.27 percent of young people between 18 and 24 years of age are in school. In British Columbia it's 17.03 percent. Why is that? Do we not want young people to be trained? Do we not want them to get an education? Do we not want them to be productive members of our society? Clearly that's the government's attitude. Why else would they have embarked upon policies which have driven down the number of people in school? That's 17 percent as compared to a 24.27 percent average across the country. It's an appalling statistic.

I worry, too, about young people with learning disabilities. We're talking about 15 to 20 percent of our young people who have learning disabilities of one kind or another. I see dyslexic kids who are not — and I hope the Minister of Education is listening — able to learn to read under the current systems that are in place in our schools. I see parents with dyslexic kids who are required to send those kids to private training at their own expense, and if they don't have the money, the kids don't get the training, and the kids often end up graduating unable to read. Those are the dyslexic kids; there are all kinds of other learning-disabled young people in our society for whom government appears to have abandoned its responsibility.

That's by no means a complete description of the problems, nor is it a complete description of government's programs or lack of programs. I'm just appalled by, for example, the major program that the government has for summer student youth work — Challenge 85 and this year Challenge 86, nothing else. Last year the government spent about $9 million; I expect tomorrow's budget will tell us it's going to be $10 million allocated from the budget for the summer youth program, added to the $16 million, I think it is, from Ottawa. I expect that will be the budget — $10 million. I may be wrong slightly, but I bet that's what it is. In 1975, when we had half as many young people unemployed, we spent, as a government, $25 million. In today's dollars, the purchasing power of that $25 million is $53.4 million. To provide the same level of service, taking into account the value of the dollar and the number of unemployed, the government contribution in tomorrow's budget should be $100 million, just to be at the same level as we were in 1975. I predict it will not be $100 million, as it should be; it will be about $10 million.

In the few minutes that I have left, I want to just talk about some of the solutions and some of the things that should be done. I think the fundamental thing that needs to happen is that governments at all levels, politicians at all levels, need to consult with young people — not just young people in our political parties who may have gravitated up through those ranks, or not young people just who have gravitated to the top in their students councils, or who have been successful in one way or another. But let's have consultation with those forgotten young people, those we sometimes see on the streets and the many others that we don't see so obviously. Let's talk to some of those young people who are back home living with their parents because they can't find work and can't afford to live on their own. That consultation is essential. There needs to be a wide variety of programs, not just job-related. Programs need to relate to things like life skills, developing job attachment, training and access to education.

We need proper funding of summer work, as I've said, and that summer work needs to be available not just in the private sector — and it should be available there, no quarrel with that. But it's got to be available too in the public sector and in particular in community organizations. Those work programs have to be available for students and youth through the summer, and for other youth through the rest of the year. We have no programs whatsoever from September to April. Those programs need to be developed.

Programs similar to Katimavik need to be developed at the provincial level or, if Ottawa is going to develop its own program, we should buy into it as a province and participate as well. We need, perhaps, to develop programs which say to young people that for a couple of years in between 18 and 24, let's say, they will be guaranteed an opportunity to do two years — and get some income for it from society — of job training, or two years of entrepreneurship, life-skill training, or post-secondary education, and be given some financial support by society to do that.

I think the government should look at some of these proposals and many, many more, and they should encourage young people to participate in looking at these kinds of proposals and to develop some kinds of programs. They've done it in other places. Katimavik has been a model to the world; they have the youth guarantee in a state in Australia; a

[ Page 7429 ]

whole variety of things have been done that we can look at, instead of doing nothing as we have.

In the final few seconds that I have, I think we need to do a thorough overhaul of our whole approach to apprenticeship programs in this province. We don't know what jobs young people are going to need or be able to fit into 10, 15 or 20 years from now. We are designing our apprenticeship programs to deal with today's needs, when in fact we should be dealing with tomorrow's.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am certainly pleased to take my place in this debate on the throne speech, which, contrary to some of the remarks that we've heard, does outline some of the measures that have been taken for economic development in the province, some of the measures that have worked, and outlines plans for the future.

Before I get into some of those comments, I just can't resist the urge to respond to the member for North Island a bit on the social housing matter. He talks about how the ghetto aspect should be stopped, but I think the reference is back to way back when the ghettos were built. There haven't been many built since 1975. We've tried to stop that in those years, and we've had great success. There are many social housing projects in many of the communities now that you don't know are social housing projects. I think that's certainly a good measure.

There's so much talk about this mix in the co-op housing or in social housing, and I think it's a good idea, and no one has objected to that. The concern that has been expressed, time and again, is that the taxpayers are supporting those units. I have absolutely no problem with them supporting the units for people who need help to pay their rent. What we've been trying to say, and it has been repeatedly distorted, is: should the taxpayers, out of tax money, whichever government it comes from, be spending a lot of money to support people in units when they could well afford to pay the full market rent? That's really what we've been talking about.

There's been a lot of talk about the provincial contribution being so much less than the federal contribution. I have to take some pride in that, because in the last few years, anyway — in all the time that I was minister — we, on most of the social housing projects that we were involved in, spent that 25 percent up front. It was a one-time payment. Our money was there. The federal contribution, through CMHC, was the other 75 percent, but it was a debt. It has reached a point where.... You can use the numbers of how much is spent on social housing, but I wonder if you'll recognize that over 90 percent of what's spent on social housing this year is spent on maintaining the debts from previous years. So there's less than 10 percent left for new social housing.

You can easily say that CMHC spends a lot more money on social housing in this province than the provincial government. We spend some of it through SAFER to keep people in their houses, to help them keep their homes. To just take those dollar figures and say that it's better to spend more regardless of how it is used or how expensive it is.... I just have difficulty with that one.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, when people are saying that the total test of the effectiveness of social housing is how many dollars you spend, regardless of how wisely or how well they are used — if that's the sole criterion — yes, I have difficulty with that. I've said, and we can show, that in British Columbia our people are as well or better housed than in any province in Canada. Therefore, I said I take some pride in the fact that that has happened, even though we haven't spent as much money to help people or to subsidize people who don't need help with paying their rent. I think that that is good management, not bad expenditures.

Another thing, I certainly share the member's concern for young people. I was sorry to see that he took about 20 minutes of his speech to talk about the cynicism, the problem, describing almost a hopelessness, trying to pass on a hopelessness to those people. Then he spent a couple of minutes at the end trying to say: "Now here are the solutions." I wish that member had, perhaps, if he's so concerned about young people, tried to give them hope, rather than foster hopelessness. To give them optimism, rather than foster cynicism. When people in public life — people, I guess, well intentioned — do a litany of the problems that young people face, I don't know how that helps them or what hope....

Then, in the solutions, it said "consult." I think everybody will agree with consult. But consult about what? About jobs. Then the answer is: there should be more spending in the summer programs. The solution, obviously, for young people is that if the government — that is, the taxpayers — spend four times as much.... They should be spending four times as much now as they spent in 1975 to create summer jobs. There's no reference to where that money would come from, and certainly, again, you cannot create jobs if there is no work to be done. Now I suppose you can, but it's self-defeating in the long run because you cannot educate people and you cannot have good apprenticeship programs when there is nothing to work at. I'm very concerned that the member gives this hopelessness and then solves it by saying: "If government will just create jobs when there's no work to be done, or if government will just tax the taxpayers and put more money in, somehow or other this will solve the problem."

[5:00]

You want jobs. Would that member, if somebody found a good location for a new hydro dam in his constituency — for the construction and for the electricity that it produces, which could in turn attract industry, because industry needs electricity.... If there was a proposal for a dam in his constituency, would he support that or would he take his party line by opposing any dams that they're building in British Columbia? If there's a factory to be built, would he support that for the jobs for the young people, or would he object to it?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, you must have been going completely against your party line, because your party line objects to every dam that has been built and is planned in this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, what's your party position on the Site C project? Against it, and they've gone to....

[ Page 7430 ]

I guess I should at least speak to the Chair. I was distracted there by some of those comments.

What we have is the work that has been created in this province. The efforts to generate that work have been by and large.... Every one of these projects has been opposed by the opposition. The government has tried to create a cooperative effort.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not being fair.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Let's take a few. Expo. When it was first proposed....

AN HON. MEMBER: We were for it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Then somehow or other your new candidate in Vancouver Centre sent a telegram to say there are 20-some members, meaning the opposition, who were opposed to it here, and he asked the world association to please stop it, because there are so many of the elected representatives in Victoria who are opposed to it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I understand he works with that party, Mr. Speaker, so obviously he must have been speaking at that. Once it was determined that it would go ahead, what sort of support did we have from the opposition? Constant attacks, constant criticism. When they couldn't stop it they tried to undermine it. Yet the jobs that were created.... Some of the attitudes taken by the Vancouver city members, Mr. Speaker, were just astounding, because they seemed to.... Most of the activity was creating jobs, construction, ancillary activity in the Vancouver area, and that's where the major opposition against Expo came from. Now that it's a success, in spite of that death wish, it's so easy to say: "Well, we didn't mean it back then. Mayor Harcourt didn't mean it back then when he said: 'Please stop this project.' We were for it all the time, now that it's there."

ALRT. What did we have? Nothing but objections. Yet it's a new facility that is brought in, it's a Canadian development, it has provided jobs, it provides continuing industry in Vancouver. Where were the Vancouver members? Against it. Trying to stop it. Even the New Westminster mayor and.... I don't know, there seem to be all kinds of reports coming in about what good it has done for New Westminster. Mr. Speaker, their own representative, because of his party affiliation, I guess, said the other day he's still against it.

So you have Expo, you have the efforts that the opposition has done to create divisiveness rather than cooperation.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not fair.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would say it's more than fair, Mr. Speaker. They have tried very hard — very diligently, if you like — to divide northeast against southeast when it comes to the coal project. They have admitted that could they have stopped the northeast coal project they would have. They say that the southeast has gone down. It goes up and down from one month or one year in any six-month period, but there are a lot more people and a lot more coal being produced in the southeast now than five years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's down.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I think you'd better check your figures. It may be down from last month or two months ago, but it certainly is not down from five years ago. So that has grown. And those people, despite this divisiveness that the opposition is trying to create.... Despite the almost death wish for coal projects that they generate or are trying to generate, I think those are going to survive and are going to carry on. The world is going to need coal, and these people have made adjustments and will make future adjustments, and they will carry on. So I suppose in the simplest terms, we have been trying to get them to mine coal and the opposition has been trying to undermine the coal projects in this province.

Talk about divisiveness. We've heard it in this throne speech from them — trying to turn the rural against the urban people, trying to use Expo against the rest of the province, the rest of the province against Expo. We've had all of that divisiveness: the municipalities against the province, industry versus government, working tenants against landlords. You can't have any tenants if you don't have landlords, so wouldn't it make much more sense to try to get them to cooperate? Instead of that you have them trying to work tenants against landlords. Wouldn't it be nice if they had their way, Mr. Speaker? They would eliminate all landlords and say that they're going to increase rental accommodation in this province. Those are the things that are pretty hard to understand. We just heard another one: trying to get young people turned against society, trying to use them in that way. That's most unfortunate.

I've tried to say that there's a lot of emphasis, and it's shown in the throne speech and shown in the actions of this government, on trying to create work. That work is through projects. I indicated that most of the projects that the government has proposed — most of the thousands of jobs that have been going on — have been opposed by the opposition. So there has to be a purpose to jobs. There has to be some work out there to be done — to have apprenticeship, to have educational training, to have all of that. We've been experiencing considerable success in encouraging the mining industry, through measures that the Finance minister (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has taken in forgone taxes, in lowering taxes — trying to provide that in oil royalties — tax holidays and deregulating gas. All of these things have made things happen. They are making things happen and will continue. Whether it's the mining industry or the petroleum industry, it's long-term. I'm satisfied that gas sales will continue, that the industry will come back, that it's following.... It's down right now with the world oil price, but it's not going to last. People will find ways to sustain their operations, and they will carry on.

We have hydro developments coming on. We have extra demand for electricity coming on. I'm pleased that the throne speech indicated that there would be further help for rural gas extensions. Those create jobs, not only in construction but also in jobs on the farms — the jobs made possible because lower-price gas is available compared to the fuels that they are using now. So we have jobs being created.

I could give a few examples of what has been done, just relative to my new ministry. The tax introductions. There was an estimated $110 million increase in the value of mineral production for 1985. We had Noranda and Bell. Because of the critical industries commissioner and because of cooperative effort between employees and employers we have Noranda's mine carrying on. We've got the opening of the Brenda copper-mine. We have the electricity discounts,

[ Page 7431 ]

which have allowed some incremental developments. There has been a lot of cooperation, which has created jobs in new mines and reopened older ones.

I know all this information has been given out, so there is no need to go into it in great detail. The emphasis from this government has been to create meaningful work. When meaningful work is there, jobs will follow. We have had a lot of promises about jobs — implementation would be impractical and self-defeating — from the opposition. Every project has been termed a megaproject, has been termed one thing or another to say that it's no good. Yet thousands of people have worked on these, and thousands of people have benefited from the spinoffs.

I'm looking forward to the Mascot mine development in Hedley. I'm looking forward to Klappan coal, which is not going to.... All of these mean hundreds of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars that will be invested in British Columbia. The Serem gold property will create a road into the area — there's a lot of exploration interest there. When that road is there, other things will flow from it. From that mining you get road-building. Northeast coal had railway building, road-building, improvements on the CN, federal.... All kinds of money was generated from that one project. I think we'll see more of that going on, despite the death wish expressed by the opposition.

So I certainly support the throne speech. I support the actions of this government, and I'm proud to be a part of it, rather than of the group that is trying to stop everything and somehow magically create jobs.

MR. HOWARD: The question of privilege I raise affects this House and its members. I'm not sure if this would be a separate question of privilege, or an addendum to the one I raised earlier today. In any event, this is the first opportunity available to me to raise this question. My question of privilege relates to the so-called lockup of news media people prior to the presentation of the budget by the Minister of Finance to the Legislature.

I'm advised that, in addition to the group identified earlier today, representatives from the Mining Association, the accountants' institute, the certified accountants, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the bar association and the Federation of Agriculture will be allowed access to the lockup. Whether representatives of the above organizations have been invited by the news media for the media's benefit in being able to have the budget analyzed, or whether they were invited by the Minister of Finance, I submit is not material, because their presence makes even more important the fact that accredited research people working for members of this House are being denied similar treatment by the Minister of Finance, who approves everybody else being able to be in that lockup. Therefore members' privileges are infringed upon.

MR. HOWARD: If Your Honour finds additionally that this is an abuse of the power of government to deny representatives in this House proper access to information, and find that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I have the appropriate motion to move.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As is customary, the Chair will undertake to review the matters as raised by the member, and bring a report back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I hope the member realizes that we have an oral question period where he has ample opportunity of posing this question. When you bring back your response — in case you're going to bring back a response to that member — would you please give me a definition of what an accredited research person is?

[5:15]

MR. HOWARD: To enlighten the back-bencher from Columbia River, the word "accredited" was taken from a letter from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). I suggest he ask his former colleague, and he might find the answer.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Columbia River will come to order and take his place.

Is there a further point of order?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, a point of order. You allowed the member for Skeena to give a clarification, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that the Minister of Finance and Development suggested that the research staff in the NDP caucus, or any other caucus attached to this House, is accredited.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that settles the matter, hon. members. The Chair has undertaken to review both questions of privilege and report back to the Legislative Assembly at the earliest opportunity.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to be here, and somewhat surprised. I take this opportunity to suggest that there's a very strong possibility that half an hour from now, when there's a vote on the motion before us, I'm afraid I will have to vote against that motion. I have many good reasons for it, but they have been so well enunciated by most of my colleagues, over the last five and a half days, that I feel there are other thoughts that I would like to share. Since we have a wide-ranging possibility of debate under this motion, there are a few things I would like to share with this House.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

In the first place, I'm absolutely delighted that my colleague across the floor, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf), is here, because I would like to refresh his memory about one or two thoughts that he had in 1981. I took a little bit of time and went back to an old Hansard or two, and that minister, who was then the member for Omineca — I guess he still is the member for Omineca, although some would say it's Oak Bay — was talking about land for housing. It's a long speech and I'm not going to give it again for him, but I would like to say this as a first quote on this issue:

As government, we must get at the root of the real problem, and admit that the bandage approach of pouring good taxpayers' money after bad down socialist program rat holes is not the answer.

Fair enough. That was his thought at the time.

Then, of course, my at-that-time colleague Norm Levi said: "Order, order!" That was all he said. Our Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing is very easily distracted; we've noted that over the years, haven't we? What did he say?

[ Page 7432 ]

Why did you move from England? Was it because you couldn't get a home of your own? Is that why'?

I'd just like to remind the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing that at the time my friend Norm Levi had a house on Rockland, another one here and another one there; one in Point Grey and one in Coquitlam. So I don't think he had an awful lot of trouble.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: And one in Deep Cove, which I omitted to mention. Yes, through all of that he was a social democrat.

The member again:

Mr. Chairman, I'll remember that. Mr. Chairman, the answer is to admit and face the real problem in this province, to face the real reason we have a housing shortage, and to do something about it.

He's going to have an opportunity now to do something about it. When, however, he went on in his speech, he wound up by indicating that he wasn't very fond of the whole process.

Then my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, got up and started talking about the whole question of the B.C. Housing Management Commission, what was happening in Port Alberni and what wasn't happening in Port Alberni, and asking that something be done for that particular community. Hansard says there was an interruption, and that interruption came from Mr. Kempf. "Socialist ratholes," he cried, about the kind of housing that he has been living in for five years. "Socialist ratholes." That minister, member at that time.... Remember, this is June 1981, and my understanding is that when he made that remark, he was already in that "socialist rathole."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: Oh, shame. For shame.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Sir Erskine May, 16th edition — I believe it's page 400 — establishes that you do not debate members' personal matters. The subject matter today was a matter of a minister's....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the new precedent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Ministerial debate, of which a reply was made.... The Chair has difficulty in seeing how it relates to the throne speech. If the hon. member wishes to continue....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the throne speech gives one the latitude of speaking about anything that happens to be on his or her mind. I announced that with the former Speaker, and then you came along. But in any event, Mr. Speaker, one can very definitely do the kind of thing that I've been doing.

I just wanted to draw to the attention of the House that that member has had a long history of having two stories. As a matter of fact, some people are so light-hearted as to call him "Two-story Jack."

Now I'd like to get back to this government that we all must trust. I don't think that they started off well, Mr. Speaker. I want to go back to July 14, 1975, when they were getting ready for an election.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were getting ready for an election.

MR. COCKE: I'm talking about the Socreds. This is a memorandum to all caucus members from Glen J. Mitchell.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. COCKE: He hasn't been around for a long time, but at that time, he had a bunch of statistics, and these are his statistics. He said: "Now we've got to show that there are way too many public servants in B.C. compared to anywhere else in the country." He said:

"There are 3, 260 more civil servants working in British Columbia than there are in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba combined."

Do you hear that figure? Colleagues, listen to it — 3,260 more civil servants working in B.C. than in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba combined.

(B) "There are 197,500 civil servants working for provincial governments in Canada; 23.1 percent of those civil servants are employed in British Columbia."

(C) "The total of all federal and provincial civil servants in the country is 295,315. Of that total, 15.5 percent work as provincial civil servants in British Columbia."

It sounds very factual, and all those members of the Socred party were going out and blabbing that stuff around. Where, however, did he get his statistics?

AN HON. MEMBER: He made them up.

MR. COCKE: No, he got his statistics from.... The government states: "...employees in this year's bargaining." So any employees or any group of employees that were not bargaining that year were not included in the statistic.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that relevant?

MR. COCKE: Yes, I'm just trying to show, Mr. Speaker, that the kind of morality that occurred then is the kind of morality that continues to this day. You can't trust them.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I wasn't very happy about that.

Now there has been some question — and I'm only going to deal with this matter briefly — about my feelings toward the ALRT or SkyTrain. Let me tell you something about the SkyTrain, ALRT or whatever. Look, we've paid a big dollar for it. We have a very significant cost per ride — I'm told 16 bucks. We have raised the rates of hydro bills for old age pensioners and everybody else up to over $5 a month — $5.30 from $1.60. We've raised the price of the ride around 15 percent. And what do we get? We get a situation where we have an experimental railroad there. I want it to work, but I'll tell you, we get some very bad planning.

Here's a letter, as an example, from a constituent of mine who can no longer get to work on a Sunday morning. She works in an old-age home, and she cannot get to work because the buses have all been changed to connect with SkyTrain. The heck of it is SkyTrain doesn't run on Sundays. So how does she get to work? You know, not everybody

[ Page 7433 ]

works a five-day week, and some, like the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), don't work at all.

But in any event, those who do work.... It strikes me they should have access to their workplace. Until this new connection she had easy access. Now they tell her that there's a whole bunch of buses — I think it's four — that she can switch back and forth.... All she wants to do is get over to Champlain Heights. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) knows where — that is, because it's next door to where he is. From Westminster to Champlain Heights — she can't get there, because she has to start working at 7:30 in the morning. You know what Transit told her? "Tell the boss that you can't get there until half an hour late." She tells me that she can't hold her job under those circumstances, and that's not very smashing. So I think you'd better get to work in terms of SkyTrain.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk to you about a very serious matter in New Westminster. I'm going to deal with the Royal Columbian Hospital, St. Mary's Hospital and Eagle Ridge Hospital. I have in my hand a strategic planning discussion paper. Everybody's got one — it's e-g-o. It's like that first bar when you're....

AN HON. MEMBER: A plain brown envelope?

MR. COCKE: This was no plain brown envelope; everybody's got one. I just want to read it from my standpoint. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) may not understand.

AN HON. MEMBER: How long have you had it?

MR. COCKE: I've had it long enough. Mr. Speaker, I've had it long enough to read it.

Let me talk about this strategic planning paper. The first area of the paper deals with a bunch of philosophy and one thing and another, and how they should be putting this Fraser-Burrard Hospital Society to work on the problems in New Westminster, Coquitlam, East Burnaby, etc., and their environs.

[5:30]

They got caught. They're caught with a real problem, and the problem is that they've got a hospital out there on the periphery which should not have been built as it is, and now they've got to use it somehow.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Where that hospital is is on the periphery. Don't fool around with me. I was Minister of Health and said no to that hospital. I said no to that hospital where it is at the time until Burke Mountain and all those developments went ahead. The Socreds put a stop to all that development back in there — some of the most logical development that you could ever imagine, but they put a stop to it.

MR. PARKS: We were encouraging it.

MR. COCKE: Oh, come...! Listen to him. Encouraging it — they not only discouraged it, they stopped it.

MR. PARKS: Who did?

MR. COCKE: The Socreds. Look, you weren't around, member for Coquitlam — the one-timer — and you won't be around again. But the fact of the matter is, it was stopped.

All right. So now let's have a look at this strategy paper. I'm not going to deal with their equipment situation other than to say.... Listen to what they say about Eagle Ridge Hospital: "New, high-quality, meeting most program requirements." Royal Columbian: "Ranges from new and up to date in areas such as neurosurgery and some diagnostic imaging to adequate or poor in most other areas."

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right. And you know, Mr. Speaker, that is the most unconscionable situation that I've ever heard of.

MR. PARKS: Unconscionable?

MR. COCKE: Yes, without conscience.

All right, let's get on with this little paper. They talk about catchment area. They talk about School District 40 — that's New Westminster — with 40,000 population; School District 43, with 120,000 — that's all of Coquitlam; East Burnaby...

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Just a minute.

...with 40,000. Now what they're trying to prove there is there's 120,000 people in the catchment area of Eagle Ridge Hospital and 40,000 to 80,000 — East Burnaby included — for the Royal Columbian.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a message there.

MR. COCKE: There sure as hell is a message there. Let me tell you what the message is. Most of the people in Coquitlam are more accessible to the Royal Columbian Hospital than they are to Eagle Ridge Hospital. Get out there and see for yourself.

AN HON. MEMBER: I've been out there.

MR. COCKE: Blindman's bluff you've been playing. There's no question that to get from any of the major, heavily, densely populated areas in Coquitlam to the Royal Columbian Hospital you can get there three times as fast. There's no question about that.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) has had his opportunity to stand and speak. The Chair recognizes the member for New Westminster, and would appreciate it if you would address the Chair.

MR. COCKE: Okay. The reason I brought that up was to suggest that what this paper's final direction is to tell us, to tell the world, that they need to move all of pediatrics, all of maternity, all of gynecology to Eagle Ridge Hospital.

MR. PARKS: Where are the young families?

[ Page 7434 ]

MR. COCKE: The young families are closer to the Royal Columbian Hospital, I keep telling you. Look, the member doesn't know what he's talking about. As a matter of fact, all of his constituency is closer to the Royal Columbian Hospital than it is to the Eagle Ridge Hospital, which is far less accessible. As far as I'm concerned, I don't mind that area having gynecology, pediatrics, maternity or whatever the blazes, as long as they don't take it out of New Westminster. It's ridiculous. For instance, a person in the end of Queensborough or the beginning part of Richmond — a young family. Their access to Eagle Ridge Hospital is like driving to the moon. What's the matter with you? I don't say that you shouldn't have pediatrics, etc., in there, but I'm saying not exclusively. It's absolutely ridiculous that anybody would make that kind of assertion. It's beyond me.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. If the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) wishes to have a personal conversation with a member in the chamber, would he please go outside the chamber. In the meantime, the Chair has recognized the member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Let me tell you something that happened when I was Minister of Health. We had that problem. We had hospitals five or six blocks apart. One hospital was St. Mary's Hospital and the other was the Royal Columbian Hospital. At that time we suggested combining pediatrics, gynecology and maternity in the Royal Columbian, because for one reason or another St. Mary's could not offer a full coverage of the service. But that question now would beg the larger question of moving it all away, right to the very periphery of the whole area, which just makes absolutely no sense. In other words, it would mean taking this entire grand program and moving it all over....

Do you know what's beyond Eagle Ridge Hospital, Mr. Speaker? Bush. It's at the end of the line. So it's a ridiculous stunt. Quite a ridiculous stunt. The day will come when Eagle Ridge Hospital will be a relatively central hospital and be very much needed. But at the present time Eagle Ridge Hospital is peripheral to most of the major population areas.

Let's take a look at that major population. We have an admitted 40,000 in East Burnaby, an admitted 40,000 in New Westminster, and I suggest to you that of the 120,000 in Coquitlam, you can take more than a half of that — so you've got 140,000 as opposed to 60,000. Use those kinds of figures and then maybe you're coming down to some kind of sense. But beyond that I wouldn't move an inch.

What do they want to do further? It's not implicit in this report, because they have to be careful. But they want to reduce St. Mary's Hospital down to 60 beds. St. Mary's Hospital, with 187 beds, is one of the most useful hospitals that I have ever seen. Sister Mary Michael runs one of the best administered hospitals in this province. They are super in surgery. Do you know what they want now? Otolaryngology and ophthalmology, and that's all, and the rest.... I suppose they're going to throw them into extended-care beds, and that hospital should not be an extended-care hospital. It doesn't lend itself to extended care; it's an acute-care hospital. It is good for surgery; it's good for medicine. It's been used for those areas for the longest time, and now there's very heavy pressure to get them reduced to 60 beds. I think it's just absolutely ridiculous. Why would we take a going concern, a useful hospital, a 187-bed well-administered hospital, and just let the devil take the hindmost? I really think it's important that this whole thing be thought through very carefully. I just can't tell you how strongly we feel in our area.

You know, we got dumped on by Ministers of Health for years. I'm not talking of recent times particularly, although I'll tell you right now I wasn't very happy with my good old colleague the now Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), when he appointed a board — don't forget, we used to have an elected board with only three persons appointed from the government — and every person on that board lives in Coquitlam. New Westminster built and has maintained that hospital. We've been a referral centre for the whole Fraser Valley. We've been the major trauma area in all of British Columbia, and what do we get for it? Not one member on the board that lives in New Westminster.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got a brand-new emergency ward.

MR. COCKE: Great, a brand-new emergency ward and we're supposed to say hosanna. We haven't got it yet.

I suggest very strongly that the Minister of Health and those around him really think through this situation, because it's a serious situation. We're talking about people; we're talking about a hospital that has served this province probably as well as or better than any hospital. We're talking about another hospital, St. Mary's, that has been efficient and well administered. I'll tell you, you go around our town and around the area, and people want to go there because of the efficiency, the cleanliness, because of the whole way that place is run. St. Mary's is a very important hospital to our area, and so is the Royal Columbian.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I'm not going to deal any more with that. I just want to say a couple of words about an area that I want to cover in far more detail later: the question of the WCB. I wish the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) were around. Maybe he's listening, or maybe he can read Hansard. In 1976 the WCB, because of a ministerial decision, decided that there would no longer be inspections of the fishing fleet. Allan Williams said at the time: "Well, look, we'll dump it on the Ministry of Transport, and we'll let them look after it. But if they don't look after it, then we will come back again and take up that responsibility."

Mr. Speaker, for heaven's sake, they haven't done a thing. We've had fishermen die and we've had fishermen injured. Let me just quickly give you an idea of how serious it has been: since 1975 we've had 92 fishermen die in this province; we've had 215 fishermen permanently disabled — not broken arms and back to work but permanently disabled. And we refused to inspect that workplace. It's an absolute outrage. The Ministry of Transport did not take up the responsibility. They do a little bit of inspecting for seaworthiness of a vessel over 15 tonnes. For heaven's sake, what good does that do a guy on a gill-netter? The fishing industry is prepared to let people die and are prepared to let people get maimed as long as they don't have to bring their outfits up to snuff, in my opinion. I believe that it's long overdue that the Workers' Compensation Board, with the

[ Page 7435 ]

minister and the government's direction, take up this responsibility, and take it seriously. We mustn't let people be exposed.

In my area there are a number of fishermen, because Queensborough is quite a fishing centre. In the Minister of Human Resources' (Hon. Mr. Nielsen's) area there are a number of fishermen. They will come and tell you that they are sick and tired of hearing about people who died on the rack. The rack is the drum. We don't even have inspections so that people don't get caught up in that net when it's being pulled onto the drum on seiners. A number of people have been maimed or have died as a result of the lack of inspection of those vessels. I really want to implore the government: for heaven's sake, let's take up that responsibility again. It's important. Just think of the compensation that you might save if we were to take that responsibility seriously.

I know that I won't be making a lot more speeches in this House. In another couple of years there's probably going to be an election or something like that, at which time I won't be running. I just want to say that I have had a great deal of pleasure representing the people of New Westminster. I hope that the government, some way or another, is going to respond by taking a very serious look at the two questions that I brought up today. Beyond that, I want to urge everybody in the province to see to it that whenever that election might be called, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and his team are elected to put this province together again.

[5:45]

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

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 15

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Information for the House. By agreement with the House Leader of the opposition and the leader of the United Party, the House will be called to sit tomorrow at 3 p.m. There will be no morning sitting, it being budget day. There will be a question period tomorrow.

Further to advise the members, next week the House will sit in the morning of Wednesday, March 26, as well as the afternoon, and the budget speech will conclude on Thursday, March 27.

I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 3 p.m. tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), having previously advised the Chair in accordance with practice recommendation number 7 of our standing orders, rose on a matter of privilege and tabled a correspondence between the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) relating to extending the scope of persons to be included in a prior briefing on the budget speech.

I note that a remarkably similar case arose in the House of Commons in Ottawa on June 3, 1969. In that particular case, the member rose on a point of privilege to state that the decision of the Minister of Finance, the Hon. Mr. Benson, to deny party representatives access to advanced budgetary briefings is a breach of parliamentary privilege, and he complained that the press was given this information but that the members were not. That distinguished Speaker of the House of Commons decided that such a complaint did not raise a prima facie breach of privilege, and while he suggested that the whole matter of advanced budgetary briefings might well be reviewed by the executive, there was nothing in such complaint upon which a member could found a matter of privilege. In February of 1973, Mr. Speaker Dowding adopted the above reasons in rejecting a similar complaint raised on a matter of privilege at that time.

For the above reasons, the Chair cannot accept the matter raised as qualifying under the practices of this House. I'm satisfied that the same principle applies to the additional matter raised by the member for Skeena later this afternoon.

Hon. members, we have before us a motion to adjourn until 3 o'clock tomorrow.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, there's no motion yet.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no motion yet?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Not yet, no.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair apologizes. While the Chair is never wrong, this time the Chair may have been a little short of being right.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) has....

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Again, with the Chair's apologies, the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

Mr. Mowat tabled the annual report of the Labour Relations Board of B.C. for the year 1985.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.