[ Page 2609 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Coquihalla Highway. Mr. Miller –– 2610

Liquor policy review. Mr. Lovick –– 2610

Gambling operations in Victoria. Mr. Blencoe –– 2611

Proclamation of Ombudsman Act sections. Mr. Rose –– 2611

Admission fees to provincial museums. Ms. Edwards –– 2611

Presenting Petitions –– 2612

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Economic Development estimates.

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 17: minister's office –– 2612

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Williams

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Rose

Committee of Supply: Office of the Premier estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On vote 4: office of the Premier –– 2621

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Harcourt

Supply Act (No. 3), 1987 (Bill 54). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 2625

Tabling Documents –– 2625

Supply Act (No. 3), 1987 (Bill 54). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 2625

Mr. Stupich –– 2626

Supply Act (No. 3) 1987 (Bill 54). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 2626

Third reading

Royal assent to bills –– 2626

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

MR. G. HANSON: In the gallery today are three individuals, and I want to introduce one of them, if the House would just give me a second to explain what this is. A bravery award was granted by the Royal Canadian Humane Association to four individuals who rescued 17 young people found floating in the water off Sidney when their boat collapsed in May 1986.

These four individuals have been recognized for their heroism and their perseverance in saving the lives of these 17 young people. I would like to introduce Robert Coleman, who today received the award on behalf of himself and his wife, Marlene. Would you join me in making him welcome.

I might add that Mr. Coleman does this kind of thing for a living. He is a firefighter in Oak Bay.

MR. SIHOTA: I have one introduction and a couple of quick announcements to make. First of all, in keeping with the comments made by my good friend the first member for Victoria, I would also point out to the members of the House that the other couple involved in this heroic deed in rescuing these 17 individuals are also seated in the members' gallery. I would ask the House to acknowledge warmly the contributions and the presence today of James and Linda Sivertson.

Two other matters, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it's my view that with all of us being in the greater Victoria area, sometimes we take for granted the activities of the armed forces and the military base located in Esquimalt. Since this is the last day of the session and these people will have left by the time we reconvene, I want to bring to the attention of the members of the House that retiring on July 30 and August 30, respectively, will be Rear-Admiral Yanow of the naval base in Esquimalt and CFB commander Captain Larry Dzioba. I ask all members of the House to join me in wishing them success in their future endeavours.

And finally, all of us have appreciated the efforts of the Pages who attend Shoreline community school — which is in the wonderful riding of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew — and I would ask all members of the House to express our gratitude for their services.

MS. CAMPBELL: Beginning this evening in Vancouver, our province is hosting the semi-annual conference of Canadian and American legislators. The agenda of the Vancouver meetings is devoted entirely to the issue of free trade between our two great countries. Among the very distinguished participants from the United States, and present in our gallery today, is Ms. Jayne Plank, who is the director for intergovernmental affairs of the Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs of the Department of State in Washington, D.C. Ms. Plank has a very distinguished and varied career in foreign policy, business and local government. She was four times the mayor of Kensington, Maryland, and a most delightful luncheon companion, I must say. Would the House please join in making welcome Ms. Plank and the other visitors from the United States for this very important conference.

HON. MR. DUECK: In the gallery today we have four members of the Real Women organization. They are Nancy Doell, Cheryl Penner, Vivienne Conway and Bonnie Yoemans. Would the House make please make them welcome.

Also in the gallery today is Julia Happer, who is my secretary from the constituency office in Central Fraser Valley. Added to that are Doug and Andrea Shillington, husband and daughter of my secretary here in my office. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that my choice of a real woman is the fierce feminist sitting on my extreme right, who promised to harass me if I said anything out of order. She's a nice girl. She's celebrating her birthday. She says this is her fifth 39th birthday. So would the House wish her well.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce somebody who has been very active in the precincts for the last few months, but for the first time today he's able to come to the House and watch the closing ceremonies: the assistant to the Premier, Mr. Bill Kay.

MR. BLENCOE: I suspect it's a good thing we're adjourning today.

I have a special introduction to make, but before I do, I would like to join with my two colleagues from greater Victoria in welcoming our special guests today who did the rescue a few years ago, in particular Bob Coleman. About a year ago, Bob and I were fishing on one of our local lakes, and Bob was showing me how to trout-fish. Fortunately, Bob didn't have to rescue us that day, but well done to the folks.

I would like to introduce my family, in the gallery across from me: Victoria McPherson Blencoe, my wife, and my two boys, Jonathan Blencoe and Christopher Blencoe. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'd like to add my birthday congratulations to the member opposite.

I have two introductions this afternoon. The first is a lady who used to live in the Comox Valley and now resides in Sidney with her husband and family. I'd like you to make welcome Diana Abel. My second introduction is a man whom I have a great deal of respect for. He's a fine educator in the province, a past executive director of the Society of Christian Schools in B.C. and currently dean of education at Trinity Western University: Dr. Harro Van Brummelen. Please make him welcome.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I would like to ask you and the House to join me in welcoming to the galleries today Heather Toews, who has been a valuable member of my ministry staff, and her fiancé Dan Scott of Fort Smith, Arkansas. Heather and Dan will be married this Saturday, July 18, and will be making their home in Arkansas. With Heather and Dan are their groomsmen Dwayne Shock and Kenneth Villines, also of Fort Smith, Arkansas, and with them is David Moore of Oregon City. Please give them a welcome and a most hearty departure approval.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the real man on my left for announcing my forty-fourth birthday today. But really I stand to introduce to the House people I have known and loved for 30 of my 44 years, people I basically grew up with, people who are a part of my family — and I'm glad to say they've included me as part of their family for

[ Page 2610 ]

many, many years now — people I love. May I introduce my former mother-in-law, Maria Marzari, brother-in-law Lou Marzari, and sister-in-law Janice Marzari, here from Toronto, retiring here very slowly, Mr. Speaker, in your constituency — an example of the reverse capital drain here to B.C. from Toronto.

[2:15]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is the president of the Burnaby–Willingdon constituency association, and I don't know if it's his daughter or his wife, Doris. I'd like to bid them welcome. And, Mr. Speaker, in the unlikely event that there is anyone in the gallery who has not yet been introduced, let's bid them welcome.

Oral Questions

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Bearing in mind the provisions of the Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act, which authorized $375 million for the construction of phase 1 and 2 of that highway, would the minister advise the House what the final projected costs are for the completion of phases 1 and 2 of the Coquihalla Highway?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The cost of Coquihalla 1 was slightly in excess of $40 million. I do not have the precise figures for Coquihalla 2.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Minister, you're somewhat over the authorization already on phase 1. Isn't it true that the final costs of this highway are likely to come in around $600 million, leaving an overrun in excess of $200 million — the $6 million-a-mile highway?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the member would like to read the Vaughn Palmer column in the Vancouver Sun, all the figures are in today's paper.

MR. MILLER: If that's an admission from the minister that Mr. Palmer knows more than he does, it's not one that I would be eager to make.

Supplementary to the Premier. Mr. Premier, this is a major scandal, in our opinion, and raises some serious questions about the political decisions made with respect to that highway and the decisions, the financial ability, the engineering ability — the Ministry of Highways, in terms of the kind of work that they did, shovelling money off the back of a truck. What does the Premier intend to do about this?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't have all the details of the works approved and proceeded with and all the figures that finally came about for the work that took place before we took office. I can really comment only on the approvals granted since then, and I can assure the hon. member and the House that we're doing extremely well. We're making good progress, the figures are coming in just right, and the people of the Okanagan and all of British Columbia are extremely proud of that project.

MR. MILLER: Again, to the Premier. In terms of financial accountability, we're talking about a sum of money that could have been used to provide a considerable number of jobs and complete some other highways in this province. It's a major scandal. Will the Premier order an investigation as to why this project is coming in so significantly over budget and reveal the results of that investigation — to tell the public and the opposition why that project is going to cost some $200 million more? It's not a trifling matter, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, all the information is available. Certainly, if more details are required, they will be available in due course, and the hon. member, like all members, will have the advantage of that.

LIQUOR POLICY REVIEW

MR. LOVICK: I would like to direct a question to the chairman of the liquor policy review committee, a parliamentary secretary. The question I would ask the parliamentary secretary is whether he has indeed decided to make the recommendations of the liquor policy review committee available to all the members of this House, rather than simply to members of the government caucus.

MR. JANSEN: I would advise the members opposite, and indeed all members, that the report will be released at the end of July. In the meantime, I would suggest that you do not listen to speculation, but wait until the results of the report are known.

MR. LOVICK: Sadly, it seems that the parliamentary secretary doesn't have an ability to listen to questions, so perhaps I'll try the same question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. Will the minister advise this House whether he has decided to make the recommendations of the policy review committee available to all members of this House rather than to only the few on that side of the House?

HON. L. HANSON: Certainly the results will be known. The report will be released, but I would ask my co-chairer of this liquor inquiry to respond also — the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member who put the question seems to be confused about the role of government and the role of opposition. As I understood the parliamentary process, government was elected to set policy, and this government, believing in having one of the strongest back benches in the history of this province, felt it very important that the recommendations prepared by the parliamentary secretary receive the comment and reasoned opinion of all members on the government side.

As a consequence, the document that will finally be produced will be shared with the public at the end of July, as announced by my parliamentary secretary. It seems to me that's how the democratic process is supposed to work, and this government intends to make sure it does.

MR. LOVICK: Certainly one does not wish to banter, Mr. Speaker, but as a former professor of Canadian government, let me remind the hon. minister that cabinet is government, not back-benchers and committees.

The question, then — perhaps I can render it in such a way that it won't cause any confusion on the benches opposite — is whether the minister or somebody over there will

[ Page 2611 ]

give this House assurances that we in this legislative chamber will see this same report that is given to the Socred caucus.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: When the government report is finally complete, the members of the opposition will have access, as will every British Columbian, and we will look forward to their comment.

MR. LOVICK: Given that answer, one wonders why it is, then, the government is reluctant to share that document with us now. I guess they feel that people on the government side need more time to read.

In any event, one more supplementary question. Will the minister give this House the assurance that there will be no changes in current liquor policy before the changes proposed by the liquor review board have been debated and endorsed by this Legislature?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Insofar as the question deals with future government policy, the question is clearly out of order.

MRS. BOONE: My question is to the Minister of Health. It concerns the impact of the possible liberalization of liquor laws on the health of British Columbians and the costs of dealing with health problems related to alcohol abuse. Caseloads in alcohol and drug abuse have increased fourfold in the last decade in this province. Does the minister support any liberalization of liquor laws in this province?

HON. MR. DUECK: Personally, no.

GAMBLING OPERATIONS IN VICTORIA

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Premier. It concerns proliferation of gambling casinos and gaming in this great capital.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Shhh! It's the end of the session.

Mr. Premier, the chief of police and the Victoria police board have very recently expressed a deep concern about the proliferation of gambling and gambling casinos in this great capital of British Columbia. Has the Premier taken note of those concerns? What steps has he, as leader of his government, decided to take to ensure that Victoria doesn't become the Reno capital of the north?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have not received any request or any expression of concern from the parties mentioned by the hon. member. If he provides me with that information, or if they would like to make it available to me, I will certainly see what the concerns are and the context and the why of it.

MR. BLENCOE: I was hoping for a better answer than that. Supplementary to the Premier, one that I'm sure he will be concerned about. Organized crime is inherently linked with gambling. The police board have indicated this, and the police chiefs in this area are very concerned about the proliferation of organized crime in this great capital. How is the government controlling the infiltration of crime with the growth of gambling that we see in this great capital of British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well again, if the authorities locally have any real concern and have evidence to the effect that there is such an increase in crime in Victoria, as mentioned by the member representing Victoria, I would like to hear this firsthand. It's not been given to me.

PROCLAMATION OF OMBUDSMAN ACT SECTIONS

MR. ROSE: I wonder if I could ask a question to the Premier. It concerns the Ombudsman Act. The ombudsman was before the committee the other day, but this is not arising out of the committee; it is separate from that particular issue. Certain sections of the act which would give the officer power to deal with municipalities, regional districts, the Islands Trust, public schools, colleges, universities, hospitals and the professions have not been proclaimed. I wonder if the Premier would care to give the House any indication of when these sections will be proclaimed?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I cannot give the House any information on that. It is a matter of future policy and it'll be looked at in time, but we've had no decisions to date.

MR. ROSE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has repeatedly said he wants to pump a little sunshine into this place and open government. I wonder if he can give us any reasons for delaying the proclamation of these sections which give citizens some defence against the arbitrary action of government bodies.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We've also said that we would work with municipalities toward decentralization, that we would have good and close cooperation with all local governments, and if there is a real concern by local governments about making this provision available to them, then obviously once more I'd like to hear from them on that particular point. I don't want to impose upon municipalities a structure or process without having an opportunity to discuss it with them, and we've certainly invited them to participate and provide us with any concerns or thoughts they have on matters of that nature.

ADMISSION FEES TO PROVINCIAL MUSEUMS

MS. EDWARDS: My question is to the Minister of Tourism. Can the minister confirm that attendance at the Provincial Museum has dropped from approximately 9,000 a day to approximately 3,000 yesterday after the imposition of user fees?

HON. MR. REID: I am pleased to answer that question. The number of people who did attend the museum yesterday did drop drastically because there were pickets in front of the sales booth for tickets, but we did have a total income intake of $8,827 yesterday; and as of 1 o'clock today, the income at the museum was $4,534. As for the number at Cranbrook and Fort Steele, she might want to know that yesterday the sale of passes and tickets in Fort Steele was at $2,068; and as of 1 o'clock today, it's $1,743.

[ Page 2612 ]

MS. EDWARDS: A supplementary question. Is the minister going to begin counting the numbers at the Provincial Museum and the numbers at Fort Steele in dollars instead of people?

[2:30]

HON. MR. REID: The answer to the question from the member is no, because the attendance at Fort Steele currently is running ahead of last year already, even with the admission fees. The same thing applies in Barkerville. Once the pickets are removed from the sales stalls in Victoria.... Unfortunately, regardless of where they come from in North America, tourists are prone to not wanting to cross picket lines, regardless of what they are, so the discouragement for people attending the museum is as a result of the pickets there. There are incredible numbers of people who still want to see the museum and are happy to pay the fee, but they are opposed to crossing picket lines.

Presenting Petitions

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia in the Legislature assembled. The petition of the injured workers' committee of the province of British Columbia states:

"The existing system of compensation to injured workers is totally inadequate and unfair. The concerns and needs of those dependent on the WCB have been shuffled off and ignored for too long. In the best interest of workers in the province of British Columbia, your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House establish an independent commission to examine and implement changes to the current incompetent WCB system."

Hon. Mr. Richmond tabled an answer to question 17 on the order paper.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call Committee of Supply.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On vote 17: minister's office, $269,370.

MR. HARCOURT: We left this morning talking about the estimates of the Ministry of Economic Development. I said at that time that we were going to talk about the lack of an economic strategy in this province, and then we were going to move to the whole issue of trade, and two areas in particular: the free trade negotiations taking place with the United States and the opportunities that the minister talked about in the Asian Pacific. To that end, on the question of a proper and effective development strategy, the first member for Vancouver East has a few words to say about that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister ever really starts getting out into real British Columbia, in terms of the opportunities in the regions and the small towns. Both of us come from the big city of Vancouver and were born there, I think, and both of us share a love for the place and enjoy it very much.

At the same time, as a student I got out into the hinterland of British Columbia and worked for the Forest Service through the summers, and I got to appreciate small-town British Columbia, which is to a great extent what the province is all about. As the small towns of British Columbia improve and grow and benefit, the city of Vancouver automatically grows and benefits.

More and more one gets the feeling at the hands of this minister, with the love-boat strategy which we got in the hurly-burly of the election, that dealt essentially with things around the big city of Vancouver.... She talks about the airport, the ports and the land backing up the ports and infrastructure and so on, as if that's some kind of great immediate opportunity that hasn't been realized. This government has been sitting on thousands of acres of land around the port of Vancouver and Roberts Bank throughout its tenure — for the last dozen or more years — with very little happening.

I also want to thank the minister for the glitzy coloured portfolios that she sent to us, each with a personal note. That's nice. The photography is beautiful, and this is the Enterprise Centre. It says: "The Enterprise Centre isn't all work and no play." No, they have some of the biggest bars in the city there as well. But it doesn't say very much. It has beautiful photographs, beautiful colour, and you talk about all the technological glitz that's available at the centre.

I find myself thinking again about small-town British Columbia and the limited attention small-town British Columbia gets at the hands of this minister and this government. Under this government you're creating regions of despair. Under this government you're creating regions with limited futures. Where do the kids go in small-town British Columbia? Where do the young people go in small-town British Columbia?

I'm glad your deputy is helping you write a speech now, after that pap we got this morning. But where do the kids go in small-town British Columbia? Where do they go from Penticton? There are no jobs in Penticton for young people graduating from high school. Where do they go from the Kootenays? There are no jobs in Nelson for the kids graduating from high school — the west Kootenays especially. What about kids in the northwest? All too often there aren't jobs for them either, and they end up leaving those regions.

Madam Minister, you sent out this glitzy number. It looks to me an awful lot like the opportunities program out of Expo. The people in the north think that the opportunities program out of Expo was a bust and that it didn't achieve for them what they hoped it might and certainly what government said it might. It's still the idea that somebody is going to fly into town and come to this building of yours. But the building is perfectly representative of this minister and this ministry; it's a kind of Crystal Palace.

The Enterprise Centre was designed with no future use in mind when the Pavilion Corporation designed and established that building — $80 million worth of it. It's your Crystal Palace, Madam Minister, on the shores of False Creek. What kind of community dialogue was established in Vancouver on the use of that building and that complex? What

[ Page 2613 ]

kind of community discussion was there with city council and all the citizens of the city in terms of how that was to be used? What kind of nice open process was established?

Instead, this is an expensive new office, another expensive new office for the minister, this Crystal Palace. That doesn't relate to small-town British Columbia. That doesn't relate to the problems of the kids who are looking for jobs in small-town British Columbia. The real opportunities are in the regions, and they are incremental opportunities. They are not some capitalists from Asia dropping down from the sky. That's what the B.C. Enterprise Centre seems to me to be designed around.

Let's think of regions like the Charlottes — the small towns of the Queen Charlotte Islands: Queen Charlotte City, Sandspit, Port Clements, Masser, Tlell. There is a $50 million federal infrastructure program proposed for the Queen Charlotte Islands. That's an interesting, regional, small-town opportunity. As well, there's the opportunity of working with the Haida nation in the Queen Charlotte Islands. What work has your ministry done in that regard? There are opportunities throughout the Charlottes in terms of infrastructure, tourist facilities, and working with the native people and the artisans of the Haida nation. There's also the whole question of working with wood and value-added products within the Charlottes themselves, instead of the Charlottes just being an extractive area. I think that's a typical region that now is simply gutted by extractive activities around logging — and that's it.

Throughout the province there are opportunities in a different way, just in terms of seniors coming to British Columbia in some of our better climatic areas like the south Okanagan and the Victoria region and elsewhere. Those are real opportunities in terms of growth as well, but they're not the traditional capitalist-out-of-the-sky routine, which we see too often.

Part of the problem is that this ministry doesn't seem to think small-scale enough. That's where the jobs are. Most of the new jobs are in small-scale enterprises in this province, and most of the activities in this ministry are geared to larger enterprises.

There's a desperate need for seed-capital programs in this province. The minister has written about seed-capital programs, but there has not been participation to date in that regard. Think about groups such as in the Vancouver area — if you want to look at areas of need in the Vancouver area, rather than in your love-boat strategy. There are places like Carnegie Centre at Main and Hastings, doing tremendous work among the down and out. I wonder if the minister knows about the program that has been underway with Simon Fraser University, where they are actually producing graduates with bachelor's degrees out of Carnegie Centre — down-and-outers from skid row who are doing tremendous work academically at Carnegie Centre in their own community. Those are people who need jobs, who clearly have considerable ability, and who have overcome significant problems in terms of their own circumstances.

I look at your glitzy folder, I think of your Crystal Palace, I think of the parties you throw, and then I ask myself: what does that mean in small-town British Columbia? You name the towns, Madam Minister. What does that mean in a place like Kitwanga? That kind of stuff is grotesque in a town like Kitwanga. What does that mean in Enderby or Grindrod? It doesn't make any sense at all. What does it mean in Fruitvale? What does it mean in McBride? What does it mean in Nakusp, B.C.? What does it mean in Chase?

Think of Nakusp. It's a jobless town if there every was one in this province. There are very limited opportunities, no chances for kids, and no industrial processing going on in the middle of a great forest region. Where are programs in Nakusp? Well, you're going to find some tidbit there in your back pages. What about Barriere in the Thompson? What about Telkwa in the northwest? What about Clinton? What about Port Clements? I don't see anything in here that's real, for the real towns of British Columbia. Nothing. That's the real British Columbia. What we have is very much an urban oriented thing in a narrow sense that just sees these glitzy things as the way to go.

You still fail to see education as the kind of industrial opportunity that it is.

The whole area of value-added in the forest industry in terms of coordination and parallel work between the province and the corporate sector is one that is undertapped. Again, your deputy minister may give you whatever he wants to give you, but if you check the studies, you'll find that there has been a consistent pattern in that sector of overspending at a time of high revenue, and then overproducing — ultimately affecting demand and hurting the industry. There has been a history of a lack of coordination in that sector that has actually hurt the industry at times of capital spending and of a crying need for coordination at the provincial level.

[2:45]

Again and again, capital projects and projects that are at incredibly high cost per job.... You've been contacted by the credit unions regarding seed-capital programs, where they're producing jobs at $15,000 and $20,000 a job. But that's not glitzy. That's not the glamorous opening of a big facility. That's just day-to-day stuff. Your predecessor, the former Minister of Economic Development, agreed to cooperate with those programs. All of that has gone into limbo since you became minister. That was agreed to by the former minister. Seed-capital programs for small jobs as a result of initiatives by credit unions: I know you've got something in the budget now for community economic development, and I know there's been some discussion, I think through the Ministry of Finance, with B.C. Central Credit Union. But the initial work was done by the major credit union in Vancouver, and that still is in limbo despite the approval of the former minister. That program, which could readily have been quadrupled, has been successful; it creates low-cost jobs. This is a government that has not been creating low-cost jobs.

I can see the minister is just itching to respond to some of these items with the new speech material she has been provided with. But I say to you, Madam Minister, it isn't there in these regions of British Columbia as it should be. This is a wealthy province. The children of those regions should be able to get jobs. They are not getting jobs in their home towns. They have to leave. They have to leave the province. All too many British Columbians now go to Ontario for a future and for a job, and that's where their kids are going. That isn't the way it should be in a rich land like this, and your programs to date have done little to deal with those issues.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Now we really have it. We have the first member for Vancouver East giving a diatribe, his personal attack, wrapping all of his suggestions around a

[ Page 2614 ]

negative rhetoric in order to put down either a minister of the Crown or a member on this side of the House. After 1986, when all of the people in British Columbia had put aside a decade of negativism that was perpetrated very much by the party that represents the other side of this House, I thought we would have started a very positive kind of building and rebuilding of the economy after the world recession. It's unfortunate that the economic development plan and suggestions and opportunities of the opposition party should be brought to this House through the first member for Vancouver East. And I'm sorry that the jockeying for position that seems to be going on in the opposition did not result in the Leader of the Opposition winning out, because prior to the lunch break he did bring forward some very constructive points.

Let me respond first to the Leader of the Opposition, who made some comments prior to lunch. He mentioned advisory councils. I think one of the best things that has been done in this province, having gone through one of these council meetings just in the last few days, is the Premier's advisory council, which has on it not just members from all regions of this province, but also members of international scope. Some of the members in that very large committee gave us some exceptionally good contacts and ideas that were very constructive in the first meeting. I know that one is going to work. But I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that there are other meetings as well, and it may touch a little on what the first member for Vancouver East is referring to, because we have already had industry meetings. I refer to value-added wood products, remanufactured in housing — mobile prefab housing industries.

Several value-added wood product meetings are planned in the coming weeks so that we can learn from the industry and from associates of mine in this House, and also the hon. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker). We can, as a committee on economic development, add more to our information about the possibilities and the opportunity. Value-added wood products is an idea that has been talked about and talked about. I do not question that there haven't been some very good successes, I can think of several myself. I've visited plants where there have been some very good successes. But I have to tell you that the surface has not been scratched. The Leader of the Opposition has said so today; in an obscure way, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) has said so today.

But we have all been conscious of the fact that this province — and, in fact, this whole nation — has depended more on its natural resources over the years and now must get down to the things that say we will create jobs in this highly technological age. Where the forest industry has in such a sophisticated way met the challenge of production, productivity and competition in this province, it does not provide the numbers of jobs that it provided in the past.

The value-added wood products really must be one of the main objectives of our economic plan. It not only will be; it is. With the Minister of Forests and Lands, myself and our committee on economic development leading in that respect, I can tell you it's going to happen in this province.

The member for Vancouver East talks about small-town British Columbia. He was not listening this morning, or he was not in the chamber, when my introductory remarks mentioned how many places in the province we were assisting and through what plan. We do have a community plan. There are 108,000 businesses in the province of British Columbia — 100,000 of them have fewer than 20 employees.

We know the value of small business in British Columbia, because it's in small business and its contribution that the economy of this province is carried — on the shoulders of small business. The first member for Vancouver East asks: "Where are we?" He talks about a glitzy brochure. Well, I'm glad marketing is not in the hands of the NDP, because of its negative approach.

Its way of attacking anything that looks competitive in the international marketplace has to be given in a cynical and giggling manner, and that's unfortunate. Let me tell you that the British Columbia Enterprise Centre, which the first member for Vancouver East is referring to, is more than glitzy and more than glass. It is — I can tell you this — the most exciting, the most innovative, the most productive of any centre for international trade, for small business information, in any government anywhere in this nation. There isn't anything like it anywhere. It has never been tried before, and it is going to be truly successful.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I know that the first member for Vancouver East simply can't stand success. He doesn't want success in this government, and he wants to cynically and snidely make it negative if he can. He talks about small-town British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. Small-town British Columbia is connected to that centre with a computer hookup that has never been known before, which goes into the regional offices, the small communities like Nakusp, the chambers of commerce, the regional economic development offices and all the communications programs around the province.

If a small company in Pouce Coupe wishes to plug into that computer with a very small investment, they don't even have to come to Vancouver for the needed information. He talks about small town and city governments, and I've got to tell you that it's all there in communications. I also want to tell you we've had very many successes. We have successes in Mackenzie, with Finlay Forest Industries providing 450 jobs.

Where have we been in small-town B.C.? Well, Mackenzie is not a very large town. If you'd like to have Campbell River as another example, we have put in a very small investment, adding to the infrastructure of that small town. In Chilcotin, we have a very small investment, but we added to the plant to assist them in their tourist promotion and what they are doing there.

In the lodge in Rogers Pass, we have added to the plant so that they can be assisting the worldwide travelers who will go through there. In Ainsworth Hot Springs, on Galiano Island, in the small community outside Vancouver in Richmond — that's small-town; that's not a big city. In Grand Forks — we mentioned the Bradford Enercon company earlier today. Even the member for Vancouver East would know that even his own leader paid tribute to the 100 jobs that were created there. Then we can look at Fibreco, in Fort St. John, which is creating many jobs there. In Prince George; in Richmond again; in Coquitlam; in Hazelton, 85 new jobs; in Coquitlam, 15 new jobs.... All of these small and large businesses that have had assistance or counsel have been exceptionally successful.

[ Page 2615 ]

Yes, I have been around the province. No, I don't stay in the city of Vancouver. I can announce to the House today, now that the House is adjourning.... And I heard that said several times before we started on these estimates, so I take it from what is being said in question period or in introductions today that this House will indeed be adjourning in the next few hours. If that is the case, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development, which has all of the economic development ministers of cabinet, will be traveling around the province, and will be in all the small towns and all the little communities. They will have an opportunity that hasn't been afforded since the Legislature has been in session to do just that.

Let me get back to the B.C. Enterprise Centre, because the member for Vancouver East seems to have a real interest in that. It has not been open long; it has only been open for a short time. The attempt is to make a true one-stop shopping centre for all businesses in British Columbia and all people coming to do business in British Columbia. That's a very important part: to market to the world, when people come from other countries, and do our very best, as we did last year, because we know that when British Columbians do their very best, they are the very best.

[3:00]

We can be as competitive as anyone in the world. Just in this last few weeks, from the report from the week of July 10, 2,347 inquiries were in the new B.C. Enterprise Centre. The week before that there were 2,005. It is just beginning. It is going to be a real success, because it has access for small business, for people who want to be in business, for international investors, for money coming to British Columbia and for the general public. That has not happened in this province: being proactive, reaching out to the small communities and the large communities. Going through the province — we will very definitely be doing that. Our small-community program has been successful; I reported that to you this morning. Again, I am really regretful, but I am sure you will be reading the Blues to have that report.

I also want to mention that the International Opportunities Network is something which has not been done ever before in this nation, and is particularly going to give small communities access to large contracts and small contracts with agencies all over the world that will be requiring their services. I'm pleased to tell you that that's available now and will be more sophisticated by September.

MR. HARCOURT: Well, I appreciated the remarks of the minister, who talked about winning and losing on this side of the House, and how there was some winning and losing in the discussion of these estimates. I don't know; we don't operate that way in our caucus. I met with my colleagues. We made a decision of what we were going to talk about. We don't write scripts for people. We don't have speech-writers like your caucus does, Madam Minister. We use our own styles and approaches.

I take it that you take slight offence at the style and approach of the member for Vancouver East. Tough beans. That's the way he is; he's a real man. He has his own approach and I have my own approach.

I want you to know, Madam Minister, that on April 12 of this year I was unanimously acclaimed the leader of my party. I want to know what happened to you last August, speaking of winners and losers. I want you to know that I enjoy the unanimous support of my caucus, and I would like to know how many members of your caucus agreed with your decisions to unload 30,000 square feet of Robson Square office space to live in a glass slipper. You've got to move Sport B.C. from a place they could have rented in Metrotown for $3 a square foot into this very expensive office space at $30 a square foot. So you've got two expensive pieces of real estate that are now being utilized.

So I think that is worth talking about, who the winners and losers are and who has the confidence of their caucuses, Madam Minister. I'd like to talk about winners and losers out there in the economy.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) said in January that he did not anticipate any tax increases. I want you to know that he was wrong. He proceeded in the budget speech to raise taxes for small business 37.5 percent. I'm sure that was a great incentive to small business and to private enterprise. Consumers were taxed an average of $566. I'm sure the small business community which lost that purchasing power appreciated it.

When the Premier in his throne speech said that the major task was to get government off the backs of private enterprise, I don't think free-enterprisers realized that getting this government off their backs meant this government would have both hands in their pockets. So off their backs and into their pockets is what happened.

I don't think the 1,445 businesses that went bankrupt in British Columbia last year — 17 percent of all bankruptcies in Canada — think that glitzy brochure is going to do them much good. I don't think that all of the restraint program cuts since 1983 and the continued cuts of the incentive low-interest loan programs to small business is going to be appreciated. I don't think the rise from 6.5 percent unemployment to over 13 percent in the last decade is appreciated by all those people on unemployment insurance and social assistance — triple the amount when we were government in 1975.

Indeed we are facing a new reality in British Columbia, Madam Minister, and that's why we're sometimes — you think — negative. We're a little sombre about the state of affairs in our province, when the British Columbia Central Credit Union writes in March:

"British Columbia faces a new reality. Residents of B.C. in the 1980s are not as well off as they were in the 1970s. Low wage settlements, high unemployment, and a growing number of people relying on the service sector for employment have contributed to lower real wages and salaries. Since employee earnings represent almost 70 percent of total provincial income, income growth overall remains weak, As a result, B.C. residents are becoming poorer."

Yes, we are gloomy about that. We need to do more than put out glitzy brochures and Mary Kay pep talks. We think there's more to economic development than that.

Madam Minister, we think there is more to community economic development than a puffball program, like the Partners in Enterprise program. I was there during all those discussions, and I saw the torture that you put municipal councils through to participate in this program that is totally discredited throughout North America. It's a program that doesn't work.

You say that we're negative; we're not. We have an understanding of economic development. We have backgrounds in business. We have backgrounds in running large enterprises. We have a major commitment to this province. I'd like to have the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey

[ Page 2616 ]

talk a little bit about community economic development. Then I'd like to talk about a lot of people who are being missed in your program: 52 percent of the population, the women of this province.

MS. MARZARI: The minister has described some of the programs. When we look over the estimates, we see a number of programs directed towards the assisting of business in British Columbia. For a few brief moments, I'd like to talk about community economic development, a term which has been abused by many provinces across the country in the last little while to cover almost every form of economic development.

When we refer to community economic development, and for example when the B.C. Central Credit Union refers to community economic development as it develops its program, we're talking about small capital. We're talking about community and regional capital, and more importantly, we're adopting a definition of community economic development that embraces the notion of human capital, of individuals in communities combining to develop their own businesses that will, on a small scale and in a labour-intensive way, develop the capital of their region, develop the profit base — the asset base — and develop the labour-intensive activities in their region.

So when the member for Vancouver East talks about seed-capital programs, that's what I think we should be directing our attention to here. We're talking not about people just walking through the door for information about seed capital or special loan programs. We're talking about actually working in those communities with all the groups that are economically active in the communities — not just those who are apparently economically active, but those who are not visibly economically active. By that I am referring to women — as will be my colleague from Surrey–Guildford–Whalley — who are not visibly economically active, but who very often are contributing to the informal economy. These are the groups that we would like to see the province working with to develop in communities, in towns and in rural areas real businesses, small, labour-intensive businesses that mean something and can create profit margins. We're talking about workers' cooperatives. We're talking about small businesses where the employees in fact are profit sharing. We're talking about those kinds of things that add value. We're talking about B.C.-made products using B.C. materials.

You have an infinite number of resources, Madam Minister, in your ministry, most notably the Purchasing Commission, and we should commend the Purchasing Commission and its new criteria developed over the last few years as it does attempt to develop business in B.C. and by B.C. When we say community economic development, we mean that more money has to be put in that direction. More seed dollars need to be put in that direction for real development, working with those people to develop those jobs and small corporations.

We have in the estimates $3 million for that development exercise. I would suggest that a real effort be put there. If there is any area for expansion, that should be it; and if there's any money anywhere in those estimates, it should be directed towards doubling or even tripling that $3 million, so that we can start working with communities, rural and urban, regional communities, to develop jobs, which is what community economic development is all about.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add a few things to this discussion. I'd like to start off by saying that I'm very impressed with the minister. I've been watching the minister over these last few days with the legislation that was before us: legislation to cover up the incredible debt that's been incurred by this government; legislation that dealt with all of the problems that are the inheritance of the minister and indeed have had the minister's involvement in incurring; and I'm impressed by the speech that the minister just gave.

The minister is a very, very capable politician. However, what we need in B.C. are real solutions. What we need in B.C. is a little bit of reality. I think that what we've heard here from the minister is a lot of kind of positive, cheerleaderish rhetoric, but unfortunately it has not dealt with the lives of the ordinary people of B.C. It has nothing to do with the reality that people are having to deal with on a daily basis. I commend the minister on her courageous stance in the middle of all of the problems that she has to deal with.

I want to remind the minister that what she has is a tremendous opportunity to deal with these problems, not gloss over them or use positive rhetoric. Quite frankly, I want to remind the minister that the people of this province are incredibly disappointed and disillusioned by some of that cheerleaderish, faaaantastic talk that got this government elected. It's too late for all of that. The people of B.C. have seen what this government is really about. What the people in the opposition are offering — and have offered consistently through the years — is a respect for the ordinary people of this province and a recognition that they are the strength, that they have built this province. This minister cannot recognize that strength and has to go tripping all over the world to talk to other people about how to build B.C. I suggest that the minister is looking in the wrong place. The people of B.C. have the answers. They built the province, and the minister's legacy is to clean up the problems that Social Credit has imposed on the province. Instead of dealing with these megaprojects, these huge debt projects, the minister should turn her sights to the people in the communities around B.C., recognize the strength that they bring and get on with the work.

[3:15]

Many of the people in the opposition have toured this province and talked to the real people in this province, and have recognized the fact that they have the solutions. Many people around B.C., including tremendous groups like women's skills, have developed alternative methods of supporting those strengths. All that the people of B.C. need is a recognition that they built the province, they know the answers, and support from this government in the way of seed capital — support for their brilliant ideas, the ideas that will get this province back on the road to economic recovery. A request to the minister: stop relying on glitz and glamour. Your government has been exposed over the last few months. Glitz and glamour is not going to bail you out this time.

Just to sum up, the point I'm making is that the people of this province have the answers. They need the support of government. All of the minister's big-price-tag parties and Crystal Palaces aren't dealing with the fact that women in this province have contributed, have a history of contributing, have the answer, but are limited in their ability to contribute because of the barriers that this government consistently puts before them. My final request: when the minister is involving the advisory council, recognize that those people in small-

[ Page 2617 ]

town B.C. have the answers and should have the right to participate in the decisions that are being made. They have a lot to contribute.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Just a couple of things. Yes, there are small-town business representatives on the Premier's council on economic development. We also involve them in all of the industry commitments to discussion that we have been having.

In response to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who mentioned groups of women in business, I believe we've done one seminar in the city of Vancouver just on women on business. Five more are planned around the province. The first one was very successful. In terms of regional development, we've been doing a lot through Simon Fraser and UVic. We've established enterprise development centres there. In addition to that, at Simon Fraser we sponsored the international conference on small business. We've also financed one for the University of British Columbia. So the interface with the universities is very real, and through my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen), with his responsibility for science and research, it is very real in terms of applied research and technology.

There was a women investors/inventors project, which we financed, with workshops that reached out to Ontario and brought the information back here. We are doing financial and expansion feasibility studies for small business. In terms of the real people or ordinary people whom the member for Surrey–Guildford–Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) talked about, I think all of those people are real, all of those people are ordinary. Junior Achievers, for example, is a program we're very proud of. It reaches out to 5,000 very real, very ordinary youngsters, and is a very, very successful program.

I think I've answered just about everything. I think you mentioned the Purchasing Commission, and I think the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the rent cost to move the enterprise from the Economic Development ministry within Robson Square to the Enterprise Centre. The cost is slightly less in the new centre — not a lot, but we do not add any cost, as was intimated by the Leader of the Opposition.

I make no apologies for being positive. I make no apologies for wanting this province to sell and market with style in the world. I don't make any apologies for that whatsoever, because we're in a very competitive international situation, and we're going to be as good as and better than anyone else.

In terms of travelling all over the world, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that there has not been an international economic mission yet. I'm not happy with that. When the member accuses me of going all over the world, I'm going to tell you that I have not been all over the world. But I do plan to make some trips throughout the world to tell the remarkable story of this province and its opportunities, its enviable reputation as the most attractive place for investment. Where else in the world would you rather be in business than in British Columbia? I intend to take that message to the world.

In concluding, I don't think I want to just leave the reference to the credit unions. We've been having meetings with the credit union movement in terms of getting their assistance in delivering economic initiatives within the communities. We believe that kind of a system into each community, interfacing with credit unions, would be much more practical. That initiative, as was mentioned by one of the members, was started by the recent administration and is continued by us. Hopefully I will be telling the House about that in my next estimates.

MR. LOVICK: Just a very quick question to the minister. I truly appreciate the fact that the minister is indeed making an effort to answer all of the questions, suggestions and statements emanating from this side of the House. I note, however, that she ignored — perhaps simply by accident — what I think was the most significant question to have emerged here in the last 15 minutes, the one posed by my leader when he read to us from Economic Analysis of British Columbia, published by the B.C. Central Credit Union. It's a damning article, a damning and frightening statement on the B.C. economy. It seems to me that the minister charged with economic development in this province ought to, at the very least, tell us that she's aware of those kinds of problems, and has given some thought as to how we might solve them.

More specifically, what do we do about that statement that tells us that B.C. residents are becoming poorer, primarily because employee earnings represent almost 70 percent of total provincial income, and income growth overall remains weak, which is the result of people relying on the service sector for employment.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: The date is March 1987; I think that's the most recent issue.

The question I'm posing is simply whether the minister recognizes that and has an answer to that kind of problem, because it seems to me, from my cursory examination of the Blues and the minister's opening statements, that we're relying on the service sector as the great solution to all our problems. I ask the minister that in all sincerity. I hope she can respond to those questions.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In response to the member for Nanaimo, I do not have the publication he is referring to. I want to give some information which perhaps will be of some help.

I'm not sure what period of time that publication is referring to — the six months prior to March or the year prior to March or decade to decade. If it was reflecting on last year, last year we had a very deep and difficult strike which had a tremendously negative effect on the economy. Also in that decade, there was a very difficult world recession which had a great impact on our province.

A DRIE survey shows planned capital expenditures by large corporations in 1987 up 19 percent in this province, and the B.C. government forecast of investment activity, which is said to be somewhat conservative, is up 8 percent. Although the unemployment rate stays at an unacceptable figure for all of us in this House and all of our people in British Columbia, it is down to 11.8 percent. That is down from 13.6 percent in January to 12.1 percent in June, so it is coming down.

You can quote those kinds of figures, but there are many other indicators of the economy that are showing very positive signs. For example, in the year to date from 1986 to 1987, retail sales are up 7.6 percent; manufacturing shipments are up 6.2 percent; pulp production is up 14.3 percent; electric power sales are up 33.8 percent; housing starts are up 22.1 percent; export — dollar value — is up 14.2 percent; also the B.C. composite economic leading indicator is up 5 percent. So it seems to me that for every publication you can

[ Page 2618 ]

quote, I think what you really want to say is: what are we going to do about it?

I have tried. I think our time is very limited today. I have tried in my opening statements which I could not complete. I believe that there are some initiatives that we've taken. The Asia-Pacific centre for trade, travel, industry and commerce is an exceptional initiative. I believe that when we have a freer trade agreement with the United States.... We are working hard on that. I think those are the two most important initiatives on our plate.

All of the things mentioned today, for instance, the community programs which my colleagues in Economic Development are extremely excited about, the diversified economy that we've all paid tribute to today, the high technological industries and information industries which we are building, are all part of the total picture.

You asked me to explain what we're doing about it. We're doing all of those things and more. I wish we had lots of time to talk about it, but I think the proof of success will be in how we can deliver those jobs and successful businesses. We intend to attract investment. We intend to create jobs, and we intend to make the private sector a very important part of that successful picture in economic activity in the province of British Columbia.

MR. LOVICK: Very briefly, because I know that we have constraints of time to work with, I appreciate the minister's efforts to answer. However, with all due deference, I think that the central point I was trying to make — and perhaps the error is mine; I didn't make it very clearly — got lost in that answer.

[3:30]

Every economist will tell you that gross provincial product and economic indicators provide you with good important information. Those indicators are literally gross, and they don't necessarily tell us anything about the central problem that I was addressing: namely, the fact that — let me just quote part of a sentence — ". . .a growing number of people relying on the service sector for employment have contributed to lower real wages and salaries." That's the issue. To be sure, we can have investment. To be sure, we can have all kinds of signs of economic activity. However, what kind of employment it will be still remains in question. That's what I am recommending to the minister, in saying that it seems to me a perfectly legitimate and reasonable request of the Ministry of Economic Development to grapple with that problem. I hope the minister will do that amidst all the other wondrous projects that seem to be coming from that side.

MR. HARCOURT: We're now going to concentrate on the issue that the minister brought up, trade, and the two areas that she mentioned, Asia-Pacific and the free trade negotiations that are taking place right now.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

I'd like, first of all, to say that I agree with the minister; she doesn't have to apologize for being positive. The other side of that is, though, that if anybody disagrees with you or has a different opinion, you don't have to necessarily say they're negative — which you do on occasion. Madam Chairman, the minister on occasion does use that sort of language, so I thought I would mention that as we move quickly on into the trade area.

On a positive note, I'd like to say that the Premier knows and the minister knows that when I was the mayor I supported the initiative for bringing about an international financial centre. It was our economic development officer, Sid Fancy, who started the ball rolling, with Bob Wyman and the members of the board of trade and others, to persuade the Premier at that time that it was a good idea to get the ball rolling in Ottawa. I think that's important to remember, and also that I very actively.... This modest proposal.... And it is only that; people say that it will be only 10 or 11 jobs and that it has some problems about taxation and banks, and it does.

I was on the phone this spring with Michael Cassidy, Nelson Riis and the other members of the committee who were looking at this legislation. It was getting a very tough time from the Minister of Finance's own officials, and from the Liberals, who were trying to sabotage this initiative. I was in constant contact with the mayor, as he then was, of Montreal, Jean Drapeau, and the new mayor, Jean Dore, to make sure that Toronto didn't once again squish these other initiatives in other areas of the country: Montreal and Vancouver. So there are positive activities that take place from our caucus and our party. We're full of positive initiatives. That's why we want to talk about what we think is the lack of reaching out for opportunities under the Asia-Pacific.

The initial opening of offices in Hong Kong and Korea and Japan is not a bad start, but it's still missing, in our opinion, three of the vital markets that are the real gaps in your Asia-Pacific strategy. The People's Republic of China is served out of Hong Kong. You've got a good office, a good officer; I've met him; a very capable person. There are two other support people. But how can you serve 1.1 billion people out of Hong Kong? You can't. So what we're saying is: do more. Invest more in the way of resources and a longer-term strategy. I won't bore you with some of the successes, for example, we had in Vancouver with our economic and trade missions through our sister city, Guangzhou, and through our cousin city, Shanghai, where we have something like 40 different business deals, with first-rate outfits from all over British Columbia. We're too timid with our resources into the People's Republic of China — the whole range of areas.

Thailand, with 55 million people. When I was there last September, they were saying: "Where are you, British Columbia? We know that you have expertise and technology. We need to develop our transportation communications. We need a whole range of facilities and services that British Columbia business people have to offer." We have no contact with Thailand. As a matter of fact, it's embarrassing that we don't have that kind of contact, to the point where.... Even though Thailand has its economic and trade office here in Vancouver, where did they choose to hold their trade fair recently but in Edmonton. We got outhustled. If we're the gateway to the Asia-Pacific, those kinds of activities should be taking place here in Vancouver. We should be the meeting place for Canada and Asia. It shows that we're missing the boat.

The other country that I think has tremendous potential is India. I'm not going to take up a lot of time of this Legislature talking about it, but I will be in the near future. India is the tenth major industrial power in this world. It has 750 million people in a country that has become self-sufficient in food, whereas 20 years ago it was a country that was desperately suffering through shortages of food. We had a minister

[ Page 2619 ]

through there, I think, three years ago, and that's it. We haven't had any follow-up.

So, Madam Chairman, I'm saying to the minister that we support those initiatives, but we're not bold enough. We haven't invested enough in the way of resources, and we also are prepared to become involved in bipartisan, economic missions to sell British Columbia. The way you sell British Columbia overseas is by putting our domestic disputes behind us. Don't confuse people. We've said that, and I'll be going on a trade mission to China this November, with....

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: Well, I'm pleased, Madam Minister, that one of your colleagues for Vancouver South thinks that these trips that you're taking and that I'm taking to sell British Columbia are boondoggles. That shows why he's in the back bench now: he doesn't understand that this province relies on trade, and I think that the Premier and yourself should take this young man aside and teach him the facts of life in this province, teach him about how to be enterprising, teach him about a positive role for government, instead of being part of the rabid rabbit pack over there.

The Asia-Pacific has tremendous opportunities. Yes, it is the fastest growing economic area in the world. Yes, some of the initiatives that are taking place are good, but there's much more that we should be doing. We're prepared to assist, and we hope that that's not another offer that you'll just thrust aside because it doesn't suit your partisan interests.

MR. ROSE: I would like the minister to know, Madam Chairman, that I, too, have made overtures to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) offering a bipartisan approach to any missions that might be coming to Canada if I can assist in any way in the agricultural industry. He doesn't have to take me on his junkets if he doesn't want to, but I think the message that has to get out there is that this is a reasonable place. There's a market here and there's a government and opposition that are interested in the welfare of British Columbia.

I don't see anything inconsistent with a good tough opposition on issues upon which we disagree — and I can name you one: the free trade issue with the United States. We're totally dependent upon our trade with the United States; we're getting nowhere with the negotiations, because they're not going to give up their powers to retaliate in their own interest, and I wonder if I blame them. We have about 80 percent free trade with them now. Why be dependent upon a single country for our economic health and life? This is no substitute for an economic policy. As a matter of fact, we may be jeopardizing our own economic policy, and I would like to talk a great deal more about this, but I can't — but I hope to before anything goes very much further. My own view is that the talks are dead in the water. However, I think our Prime Minister will do virtually anything, as he did recently, to get a deal, and I just wonder at what cost. It's really not about free trade at all; it's about the economic integration with the United States. We'll lose our cultural identity if we have to give up the things that make us Canadian, and our own powers and our own sovereignty.

Not more than three years ago we refused to give up our country to the sovereignty-association deal with Quebec, and we're now about to embark on virtually the same thing with the United States. I don't think that it makes sense at all, and I'm glad the Premier is here, because I hope that this Legislature will have a chance to express itself on any free trade deal before it becomes law, because I think the provinces have a real stake in this whole thing, because much of this free trade stuff deals with interests that are provincial.

People I respect highly, such as Mitchell Sharp, Eric Kierans, and people like that, think this is virtually a sellout. If we're going to have a free-trade deal with the United States and we need to be in an economic unit, and we do.... Our recent agricultural problems indicate that to us. We can't sell our grain. The Peace River is going up in flames or down in smoke. We're going to turn all that food into booze at the ethanol plant. I'm not belittling that, but I think it will he a startling example to the Premier how tough it is out there. The reason it's tough is because we don't have an economic trading unit with anybody. Why not extend it to Japan and Australia and other places like that? Why just the United States?

I think our dependence on trade with the United States is too great. Besides, this has been sold to us that business wants it. Certainly the agriculture business doesn't want it. I'm tempted to do a pun that we're going to trample the grape industry underfoot. The fact that we do allow, for instance, Canadian or British Columbian wines to go into grocery stores is not going to change the seasonal disadvantage to wine-growers one iota. Neither will a phase-in period of 15 years change the cost of labour, pesticide standards, the cost of land, the cost of water.

Let's get back to business. The Canadian Printing Industries Association don't want it. Canadian boat-manufacturers don't want it. Canadian brewers don't want it. The computer services people don't want it. The Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association don't want it. Motor vehicle manufacturers don't want it. Grocery products don't want it. Generic drug people don't want it. The Canadian Conference of the Arts don't want it. The graphic arts industry don't want it. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian rubber association, the wine industry.... The list is endless. The question is: who wants it?

I'll tell you who wants it. The corporations want it. They get out from under their branch plants and go home. We talk about investment.... I'm concluding on this; these are somewhat discursive and disjointed remarks because of pressures of time. We talked about investment: 46 percent of all the profits made in Canada went to the U.S. last year. That's what investment does.

Our Canadian banks are investing in Brazil and Mexico instead of Canada. That would help us develop our country. That's the kind of thing we need. Some 1,400 Canadian enterprises were sold to non-Canadians last year — just recently, West Kootenay Power and Light.

If we don't own anything in the country, what's the point in having a country? That's the vital question. We need a dispute-settling mechanism for the minor trade problems that bother us from time to time — and some of them aren't so minor. I don't think the Americans are going to give us that. If they don't give us that, we should close the door and get out of there.

[3:45]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Madam Chairman, it probably is the most important thing that this province and this nation have to discuss. It's really unfortunate. Again, I reflect on the lack of time, and I appreciate the member who has just

[ Page 2620 ]

taken his place for bringing up the subject of free trade. I'm terribly disappointed, however, that the NDP official stance is against it. I'll tell you why.

We have in this province and in this nation a tremendous opportunity. The United States is our province's largest trading partner; 50 percent of the total British Columbia exports are to the United States. A trade agreement will ensure and enhance Canada's, and hence British Columbia's, access to the United States market. Nobody knows better than British Columbia, because we've been through the softwood lumber problem and the shake and shingle problem in this province. It's evident that the status quo of the trading system is not tenable. It is not going to work, because the mood in the United States is highly protectionist. British Columbia knows that impact; it knows it better than anyone else.

I have to say to you, Madam Chairman, that the member who has just taken his seat could assist with all the discussion we've had by the Leader of the Opposition and even by himself. "Let us help you in building the economy." If you really want to help, be a part of the overtures to the federal administration to assist in making sure that we have the best deal, and be a part of that. Talk positively about the negotiations.

The trade agreement will help us diversify our economy. All the things we've talked about in the debate on economic development in this House.... We talked about placing greater emphasis of the production of higher-value-added items. The development of sectors less reliant on resources will in turn help insulate this provincial economy from the vagaries of world commodity prices. That is why we need this agreement. It secures our access to the United States. It assists us in bringing in the Asian Pacific investment, which also wants access to the United States market. It gives a market of 250 million people to a province that now has a market of 25 million people in Canada.

It is too bad that we don't have the opposition in agreement with us in this cause. I agree; there are some problems. There will be some fallout. There will be some adjustments; there's no question of that. But in weighing all the positive features against those which will have a negative impact, there is no question that British Columbia comes out better in a freer trade agreement.

MR. ROSE: No.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, that is so.

Madam Chairman, it isn't the solution to all our problems either. It isn't the be-all and end-all, but it promises to put British Columbia in much better shape than the status quo, which can only promise a deteriorating relationship with our most important trading partner. It really is an important issue in this province. Because these are Economic Development estimates, I frankly wish we had more time to debate it.

MR. ROSE: Reading from the so-called fact sheet put out by the ministry:

"A Canadian-U.S. free trade agreement will broaden and diversify the provincial economy, secure and enhance existing access to the U.S. market, increase job opportunities for current and future generations, increase the availability of goods and services, maximize consumer and producer benefits, and reduce costs. The bilateral trade negotiations are a component of British Columbia's multilateral trade strategy, and not a substitute for it."

It sounds to me like that is not a fact sheet; that's a wish-list. That's what you hope will happen. There's not a shred of evidence that it will happen. It's a leap of faith. Sure, it's a big market, but who's penetrating whom around here? One Milwaukee brewery could make all the beer for all of Canada. What do we do with the brewery workers of Newfoundland — 400 of them out the door — or anywhere else; British Columbia, for that matter? So there is not all that in it.

The minister has got a little motion here: "We've got to make sure that we safeguard British Columbia's jurisdictional sovereignty, its social programs, its agricultural marketing programs and cultural identity." What is going to be exported, and what are we not going to permit to be imported?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: We've got free trade in apples now. We've got free trade at 80 percent of the stuff right now. Let's diversify; let's get in a larger bloc. We're tying ourselves to an economy in decline. Here's the productivity figures of Japan, West Germany, United States and Canada between '80 and '84. The productivity of Japan went up 3.2 percent; West Germany, 1.7; France, 1.7. United States, 80; Canada, 40. We're talking about the future of our country; that's what we're talking about. It's a very important issue. We don't want to go in there blindfolded and have somebody else do our talking for us, because I think the risks are too great.

MR. HARCOURT: I think it's important to conclude this year's estimates on Economic Development on this very important topic, as the minister has said. I want to set a perspective, because the problem with the minister's approach to the question of free trade.... She leaves the implication that we don't want to see enhanced trade. That's not true. We want to see increased trade, not just with the United States but with a large number of other nations. She gives the impression that we don't have access to the U.S. now. We've got $200 billion a year as a country as access between the United States and Canada in trade right now. Eighty percent of that across Canada is without any tariff barriers.

The GATT says that over ten years, tariff and non-tariff barriers will start to be phased out. We're part of that. We're a signatory to that. This agreement, this working with the United States, is tied to that. In British Columbia the amount that is tariff-free is even higher. It's Ontario and Quebec that have the highest tariff areas; we're closer to 90 percent. The reason we're back down to 80 percent is because of the retaliatory action from the United States on softwood lumber and on shingles. It was the United States that took those actions, not Canada. So you're saying: "Well, let's scurry, and give them a bit more of our economy before they do something nastier to us." Let me tell you, that is indeed a leap of faith, because the negotiations to date do not justify optimism. What have we got out of it so far? We've had hundreds of millions of dollars of tariffs unilaterally imposed on us, which we then squidgied around to try to rescue with the softwood lumber agreement. We had shingles tariffs put on us, and we threw back a few pitiful, retaliatory counter-tariff

[ Page 2621 ]

barriers — on books, which hurt our own book companies here in Canada.

MR. R. FRASER: That was a federal decision.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm talking about Canada negotiating with the United States on free trade. The member for Vancouver South laughs at it because they don't think it's important. That's too bad, because it is darned important. It affects thousands of people in this province, and you shouldn't laugh about that, member for Vancouver South. It's not a laughing matter. It's a very serious matter. We take it very seriously.

It's important to realize that we're being realistic. Two of the leading U.S. members of Congress say: " We're not going to abandon our ability to take unilateral action." These are the people who are going to make the decision, and we proceed on, eyes closed, saying: "Oh, gee, they wouldn't do that to nice old Canada." The fact is, they've done it. They've done it twice in the last little while.

We don't mind the negotiations taking place. We have a different idea of how they should have taken place. We don't think the negotiating so far has been to Canada's benefit. We don't think the actions of the United States so far have been to our benefit when they impose these tariffs on us unilaterally. We don't think that's a friendly act of negotiations. So what we're saying is: "Proceed with a great deal of caution, because the future of this country is at stake, and the future of this province is at stake."

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I appreciate the remarks of the members opposite. I want the Leader of the Opposition to understand that we are at the table only in an advisory capacity, and we support the federal administration very clearly and very definitely in this initiative.

It should be remembered — and the member for Coquitlam–Moody (Mr. Rose) mentioned this — that we already have free trade in some commodities. He mentioned some agricultural commodities. Agriculture is not part of the negotiations in this regard, and that has been made clear by the federal administration.

I do want to mention one other thing. If the member for Coquitlam thinks we have any free-trade agreements now, he should remember that there are almost 300 protectionist bills in the U.S. Congress in Washington, D.C. If we do not get these negotiations successfully completed by October this year, we will be meeting yet another initiative which will make softwood lumber and the shake-and-shingle dispute that we have undergone in this province look like very small potatoes indeed.

I know we differ on it. I appreciate the comments, and I agree in this regard: it is the most important economic initiative that this nation has before it.

Vote 17 approved.

Vote 18: ministry operations, $59,260,467 — approved.

Vote 19: economical and regional development subsidiary agreements (ERDA), $20,535,500 — approved.

[4:00]

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

On vote 4: office of the Premier, $2,733,090.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In opening debate on the estimates of my office, I welcome this opportunity to take part in one of our finest parliamentary traditions. That tradition — that government and its leadership meet the test of accountability here in this Legislature — is a democratic exercise we all value. There is no better forum, no better place than in this parliament of ours for the people of British Columbia to assess and evaluate their government and its performance.

We have been in this House since March 9, and through my government's leadership and the new spirit of cooperation that we have fostered, much has been achieved. But cooperation is a two-way street, and the Leader of the Opposition and his members deserve thanks for their positive response, for their cooperation, for their assistance, in the progress that has been made.

As the session draws to a close, now is a good time to look back at my government's nine months in office and not only list our accomplishments but, more important, set our sights on the future.

When I was sworn in at Government House, I invited the people of our province to help us write a bright, new chapter in British Columbia's history. I said it was the beginning of a fresh start, both for government and the people of our province. I offered no easy answers, no magic solutions, and I acknowledged there was much to do and many challenges to meet. But by working together, by showing willingness to do things differently, by changing our attitudes, I said there was no limit, no barriers, to the great things we could accomplish. Through strong leadership, through decisive leadership, we're changing the face and style of government in British Columbia for the better, and positive things are happening.

Madam Chairman, let's get on record the good, solid, positive things we've done since our November 6 swearing-in. It's a proud record reflecting nine months of achievement; a new style of open government for all the people; a fairness to all sectors, including the opposition. We've established a Board of Internal Economy. We've increased opposition funding for research. We've revived the House committee system. We're providing electoral changes, and to this end appointed the Judge Fisher boundaries commission. We've laid down conflict of interest guidelines.

We've set up a Royal Commission on Education. We've made significant progress in decentralizing and deregulating government. We've had a major shuffle in deputy ministers for greater efficiency. We're the first government to offer workable self-government for native Indians. We have a cabinet committee that deals exclusively with native affairs. We have set up an economic advisory council. We have in place a science and research council, and an aquaculture advisory council.

We have forged a new, more effective relationship with Ottawa through the newly established federal-provincial council of ministers. We reached an agreement on South Moresby that sets up Canada's most spectacular national park, and at the same time looks after the interests of the British Columbians the park will affect.

We've established the B.C. Enterprise Centre that provides one-stop shopping information for investors and businessmen who want to come to B.C. We've opened our trade and convention centre that will bring hundreds of millions of dollars into our economy. Through all this, our taxes are still the second lowest in Canada. They're affordable and they'll stay that way.

[ Page 2622 ]

Madam Chairman, since we're a government that looks to the future, we've developed a positive means to bring about improved industrial relations through Bills 19 and 20. But people always come first, and the record shows we have met the social needs of British Columbians. Our safety and social program net is stronger than ever. We have increased funding in such areas as minimum wage; social assistance; help to the handicapped; additional assistance to hospitals and to health care programs in the province; help in attracting and retaining teachers in our north. We have provided additional funds for education, for student aid. We have a tremendous rapport with universities and colleges. We're developing whole new approaches in that area of advanced education.

We've provided $81 million worth of job opportunities through JobTrac. We have brought in fair expropriation laws. We have introduced support programs for crime victims. We have set up an adoption registry. We have set up a Royal Commission on Education. We have a responsible family life and AIDS education program for our schools. We have provided more help for independent schools.

The most effective measure of accountability is a government's record and what it achieves. I'm proud to say that in this regard we have met the test. That process will continue as we review and reorganize government to make it even more lean, even more efficient, even more effective and even more caring in the months and years to come.

Accountability — letting the people of British Columbia know what's going on — really says what our government is all about. It's a concept I'm comfortable with. Because from day one and long before the last election, I said that if we became government, we would be open, upfront and answerable to all of the people. The expectations raised by our promise to bring a new style of government have been high, but they have been met. Because we have lived up to the letter and the spirit of our commitment, the response from every corridor of our province has been tremendous.

The face of government is indeed changing, and so too is my office in terms of its organization and administration. Those changes are positive, overdue and necessary if our goals of clear lines of responsibility, proper accounting procedures, administrative self-sufficiency and better communications are to be met.

I do not intend to go into detail on these changes; rather I want to convey a sense of my government's philosophy, setting a framework within which our action should be judged. Basic to that philosophy is that government's job is to create a healthy climate for economic growth, leaving business decisions to the private sector and allowing the marketplace to test and evaluate new ideas and new ventures. We're proactive, free enterprise with clear goals. We're working hard to build and strengthen small business, diversify the economy, bring in new industries, provide opportunities for value-adding to the products we already produce, to nail down markets and to seek new customers worldwide — and, Madam Chairman, to eliminate the deficit.

These are key to developing a climate of confidence that will bring new investment, new business and new jobs. It all adds up to an economic action program that's both positive and responsible. That program, as it builds a strong and dynamic economy, will allow us to continue to look after our people and their needs, especially those least able to help themselves. So while our spending will continue to be careful, it will continue to be caring, providing aid to those who need it most.

The record is clear. Our actions in terms of social legislation have been both broad and compassionate. But improving these kinds of programs, doing good things for people, being able to help when help is required, can only happen if we can bring about steady economic growth. A stronger, more diversified economy and the new job opportunities it will bring will continue to be our main goal.

We have a tremendous chance to do great things here in British Columbia. Despite the fact that we face new, competitive conditions and that sharp shifts in global trading patterns are creating new demands and new pressures on economies all around the world, including ours, we can meet the challenges if we have the will. While market shares can no longer be taken for granted, new opportunities to sell new kinds of goods and services are emerging, and resource-dominated economies such as ours must diversify into new industries and value-added products in order to meet changing customer demands.

Our government was elected on the basis of change and a commitment to bring a new, lean and more efficient style of government to the Pacific region. We want to become more responsive; we want to open doors, not to close them; and we want to establish a climate of confidence within the business community. We want to free up the private sector to be cost-competitive and to become known as reliable suppliers of high-quality value-added products. We want to build on our resource strengths and encourage and increase activity through new technology, through tourism and other areas where we have a natural advantage. We want to seek out new markets and new customers for British Columbia's products.

Madam Chairman, we have made a good start, a bold start for government in office for only nine months, but there is much more to come. I am proud to stand behind the philosophies and the principles of this government, and they are known to British Columbians. I am proud to be a part of a government that gets things done. I am proud to lead a government that has restored optimism to B.C. I am proud to have played a role in the Meech Lake accord. Elements of our economic game plan are starting to come together. Over the next six months more will be added, moving closer to our goal of less but more effective government and an economic strategy that will build a new economy, attract investment, create jobs, and allow us to improve social programs.

Madam Chairman, the record of the last nine months shows we're on the right track. The results are starting to show, like ferry traffic up 11 percent; airline passenger volume to British Columbia up by 5.6 percent; hotel occupancy up by 11.4 percent; U.S. visitors up by 9 percent; Rogers Pass traffic up by 55 percent; restaurant business up by 7 percent; retail sales up by 7.6 percent; housing starts up by 22.1 percent; export value up by 14.2 percent. Madam Chairman, the list goes on.

These are solid signs that consumer and business confidence is on the rise, because when retail sales go up by 9.3 percent between April last year and the same month this year, and when housing starts and real estate transactions keep climbing, it's proof that our policies are working. That kind of confidence is why I'm confident that history will judge us as the most effective, get-things-done government in B.C.'s history.

Taking a fresh approach means being courageous, as we were over Bill 19; sometimes being courageous brings political heat. Madam Chairman, I want the world to know that this government can take the heat, and whether it's from special

[ Page 2623 ]

interest groups or from those who simply resent change, we will provide progress in this province such as we have not see before. This government has set a positive course, a course that will continue, a course with continued political will and courage, and a course that will make British Columbia one of the greatest and most prosperous places anywhere in the world.

[4:15]

I'm certainly most appreciative of the good spirit that has existed in this Legislature over the past number of months. I think I'm safe in saying that of all the Legislatures anywhere in the Commonwealth, this is probably number one. As I said earlier, I think credit must go to all members of the House. I hope and trust that this spirit will continue, and that we can continue to debate and have our differences, but always have that common interest, the good of all British Columbians, at heart.

Let me close with a few words to British Columbians, wherever they may be in this truly super province of ours. We're going to keep building on the great momentum that has developed in British Columbia. If I may be colloquial, I'll close by saying to the people of our province: stand by, hang onto your hats, because you ain't seen nothin' yet; the best is yet to come.

MR. HARCOURT: I enjoyed that second throne speech. I too would like to, as the Premier has done, congratulate the Legislature for being a more civilized place, one that we can bring our relatives to. We don't have to cover the ears of schoolchildren. It is a place where debate is hard-fought, where we have different viewpoints, but we can agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I think that the new tone of civility bodes well for the fall session and other sessions, and I agree with the Premier that we should work very hard at maintaining that sense of civility built up here in the Legislature. We should all be proud of it, because on some occasions in the past the personal invective, the personal attacks have, I think, been unfortunate, and it demeans us all. The level of debate has not been that which the people of British Columbia would like to see.

I'm prepared, in this spirit of cooperation in the Legislature, to make a trade. If you will not use the title "pit bulls" of our side, we will not use the title "rabid rabbit pack" of yours, so that we can start with a clean slate.

Mr. Premier, I would like to say, personally, that you are to be congratulated on what you have said to your caucus and on the way your caucus has changed the tone and the operations of this Legislature. I think that's very important. Furthermore, I would like to say that I will continue to do that with our caucus. On both our behalfs, I think we should thank and congratulate our House Leaders, House Whips and caucus chairs, who are the ones who have to work out the hawks and the doves in our caucuses, who have to work out the difficult and trying times that do occur on occasion in the operations of the House. They have served us all well, and I think they deserve our congratulations, and we expect them to continue in that particular tone.

I would like to say to the Premier that the introduction of the bureau of internal economy was a very significant and positive change of the Legislature. We look forward to the initiatives that the bureau will bring forward for the sole purpose of improving our ability to serve the people of British Columbia better. I think the agenda items that they have before them now will allow our respective caucuses and this Legislature to serve our constituents better, and allow there to be more open government, with the ability to have straight radio and television telecasts of the proceedings of this House, and other important measures. So on behalf of our caucus, I say to the Premier that that was a very important and positive innovation, and we will continue to work through our two members of the bureau to carry out the mandate of the bureau of internal economy.

Now having said that — as our House Leader says — I think that tone of the change in the operations of the House is good, but it's too bad it didn't carry over into the business of the Legislature. We have had far too much incompetence, intolerance and extremism over the last many months. I think we have had an unfortunate progression, through the throne speech, the budget speech, the estimates and the bills, from people who expected better of the government. They gave a mandate to end confrontation, to get rid of the bitterness that has plagued this province for far too long.

We came prepared to cooperate in a bipartisan task force to get the economy going again; that was rejected. We said that we'll work through the committees; that was rejected. We went through a throne speech where there was very little mention of unemployment. It was a very uninspiring and dull throne speech. The budget speech: the budget was confusing, disappointing. It didn't give a very good signal to the people of British Columbia. It applied a bunch of taxes that were unfair, It was a budget that disappointed the people of British Columbia.

So we went from an anticipation of a fresh start to people being let down by the throne speech, to being disappointed by the budget, to being totally shocked by Bills 19 and 20 and the extreme reactions of this government, to being in a state of despair — very many British Columbians — about the treatment of the native people of British Columbia.

When the Premier was at the constitutional talks he told the native people they were pigs in a poke, and that he wasn't going to buy a pig in a poke. The genuine....

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. HARCOURT: Those were his exact words, that he wasn't going to get involved in self-government discussions because it was a pig in a poke. Twelve years to understand the concept of self-government, and he practised wilful blindness. He would not understand this genuine aspiration of the people of British Columbia. Those two initiatives blew it for a fresh start for this province for the next 898 days.

We gave a signal to the trade union leaders, the working people, the business community and the educators and people involved in the education system, with Bills 19 and 20, that we're going to have not only confrontation but more blatant confrontation in B.C.; that we're not going to have cooperation; that we're not going to have a Pacific institute of industrial relations; that we're not going to have an enthusiastic application of union pension funds to rebuild British Columbia; that we're not going to have trade union leaders involved in the economic development council; and that we're not going to have a combination of business and trade union leaders working with the government to cooperatively get involved in trade missions and economic missions to sell British Columbia. Bill 19 killed all that.

[ Page 2624 ]

Bill 20 didn't deal with the really overwhelming problems our education system is facing. It didn't deal with the central fact that teachers and parents and school trustees were trying to get across: that teachers' working conditions are our children's learning conditions. It doesn't address that. The shortage of funds for textbooks, the shortage of English-as-a second-language for students — it didn't address the real problems of education, but it sure as heck demoralized educators a lot more. It sure as heck divided administrators from teachers. It sure as heck sent the wrong signal to the people who have to work in that education system day in and day out.

What happened is that the expectations of the people of British Columbia were shattered in this session. Broken promises, or promises that the Social Credit government didn't make but delivered anyway — and I'd like to list some of those.

Here are some broken promises: an end to confrontation; strategies to introduce new investment; labour to be involved on an economic council; TV in the Legislature; legislative committees working and functioning properly; a task force on privatization that would involve both sides of the House; the Vancouver Island Highway; more child care; more forestry research funding; a task force on the disabled; negotiations on land claims. Those are just a few of the promises that were broken.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: These are your promises. You should remember that. The Premier should remember after the election what he has written before the election.

[4:30]

Even more unfortunate are the things that this government failed to promise but delivered anyway. We didn't ask for Bill 19 and Bill 20. We didn't ask for higher property taxes on seniors. We didn't ask for an increased tax on small business. We didn't ask for health care user fees. We didn't ask for the centralization of this government that's being carried out. We didn't ask for the phantom and shifting park boundaries of Strathcona and Tweedsmuir. We didn't ask for the lifting of the uranium moratorium or the lifting of the offshore drilling moratorium. We didn't ask for a gambling casino and a liquor store on every corner or the vice boat. We didn't ask for museum and heritage park fees. We didn't ask for the elimination of section 80 votes. And even more importantly, Mr. Chairman, neither did the people of British Columbia.

By the way, speaking of the people of British Columbia, I heard there were record numbers coming over the Rogers Pass. The Premier got it wrong: they're leaving British Columbia. It's one-way traffic. It's people from British Columbia going to Ontario looking for jobs. I wouldn't use that statistic much longer, Mr. Premier. And I wouldn't be terribly proud of the fact that in this trimmed down, lean and mean government, my office increased from 13 people to 51 people — a 400 percent increase in the Premier's office. If that's lean and mean, boy, I'd sure hate to see somebody who's anorexic; they'd be the invisible person.

Mr. Chairman, it has been an improved Legislature in its operations, but it has been pretty dismal in its business. As a caucus, we're not disappointed for ourselves; we're disappointed for the people of British Columbia. We deserve better in this province.

In closing, I would like to talk about the Meech Lake accord. As you heard previously from our caucus, we're very positive about the fact that Quebec has been included as a fully participating member of this great Confederation of ours. We generally welcome the accord. We think that was a positive step in this country. But we also have some concerns we would like to see addressed to the people of British Columbia. We would like to see a process whereby the people of British Columbia can ask about these concerns. They are as follows, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, the social programs. Is this going to lead to a balkanization? Is this going to lead to a string of different social programs, to opting out of important national programs across this country? This is a question we ask.

The second question is: are we finally going to do the right thing with the native people of this province? Are we going to sit down and address with goodwill and good faith the issues of aboriginal land claims, the issues of self-government, the issues of aboriginal rights, the issues of subsurface development? Are we going to talk about the issues of native education? Are we going to talk about the issues of the devolution of educational and other programs to the tribal councils throughout this province that are asking for more responsibility? We think the native people in this province should finally be dealt with in good faith and goodwill, not as they have so far. That is a question we'd like to ask around the province of British Columbia.

We think it's unfair that there is a one-province veto now, which could lead to the new emerging territories not being able to become provinces because of one veto. Where would British Columbia have been in 1871, or the new territories my relatives came to in 1905 to start the province of Alberta? We think it's unfair that the Northwest Territories and the Yukon can face the blackball — the ding — of one province. We have a concern about that, that these maturing areas of Canada could be blackballed from being a province.

We also feel that the Senate's time has come and gone, that we should accept the triple-E proposal, which has been voiced on a few occasions. My learned colleague here has quoted it in the past in the heart of triple-E country, in Calgary. Triple-E actually stands for the Senate being elderly, expensive and expendable. We in turn put forward a proposal for a triple-A Senate, Mr. Chairman. It deserves to be attacked as a useless appendage in this day and age. It gets the abuse it deserves due to the attendance of a lot of the members and the interference in the House of Commons business of parliament, and therefore it should be abolished.

We should strengthen the House committees and the work of the provinces with the federal government. We don't see why we should keep this third leg, this third arm. It has come and gone. Let's let it drift off into the sunset, pensions in hand. As for the remaining senators, let them be part of the history books, not part of our current history. It's an institution that should be triple-A, not triple-E, Mr. Chairman.

In conclusion, on behalf of the New Democrat caucus, I wish all of the members of the government side of this House an enjoyable British Columbia summer. I may say that I regret we won't see each other for at least the next six weeks. But we're going to have a chance to rest up. We've all worked hard — darned hard.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We'll be working.

[ Page 2625 ]

MR. HARCOURT: I'm sure you will. That's what worries us. We want you to rest. The province can't stand any more of your work. Please, for all of our sakes, play golf with the hon. member from Penticton; go fishing in the Kootenays; wrangle in the Cariboo — anything but work.

Let me say that I am looking forward to going to my place in the Gulf Islands and to assisting the business of the House by talking to my friends and neighbours about the Islands Trust. But regrettably I will not be participating, as I'm not a member of committee on that particular item.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You quit.

MR. HARCOURT: Oh, no. I'm just prepared to put my very successful land holdings out front, and not hide them. I don't like to have any conflicts. As a successful person, I think it's important for me to put my 100 acres out on the table and say: "I have a conflict here." I don't think I should be involved in decisions about my 100 hard-earned acres of this beautiful part of British Columbia. As a successful business person and a successful socialist who believes, as all of us do, that what we wish for ourselves, we wish for everyone, I'm prepared to say that I may have, if not a real conflict, an apparent one, and therefore I am going to make sure that I follow the proceedings through the newspaper of North Pender.

So, in the good spirit of this Legislature, may I wish you all an enjoyable summer.

Vote 4 approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report resolutions.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee rises and reports resolutions.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the report be considered?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on April 6; May 21; June 18, 26 and 29; and July 6, 9, 13, 14, 15 and 16 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $9.497 billion towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 1 of Supply Act (No. 1), 1987, and section 1 of Supply Act (No. 2), 1987; and the sum of $410,913,000 for recoverable disbursements required for the purposes referred to in schedule D of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 2 of Supply Act (No. 1), 1987, and section 2 of Supply Act (No. 2), 1987.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 3), 1987

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 3), 1987.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for government programs for the 1987-88 fiscal year. The amount requested is that resolved by vote in Committee of Supply after consideration of the estimates. In order to maintain uninterrupted delivery of government programs, it is essential that this supply be granted expeditiously. Because of my understanding that the House is about to enter an indefinite adjournment, I request that this bill be permitted to pass through all stages this date, pursuant to standing order 81.

Bill 54 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be committed for second reading forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would ask you to remain in your seats for a few minutes while the bill is being circulated.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Premier wants to table a document.

MR. SPEAKER: Could the Premier have leave to table a document?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a document referred to in Committee of Supply. This document will stand in my name on the order paper as a resolution to be debated at the next sitting of the Legislative Assembly.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, while the documents are being distributed, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in the House today are three businessmen from Vancouver. They are tourists in Victoria and are going to visit the museum before they leave — and pay an admission fee. The House Leader's wife, Beverley, is also here as a tourist, and she's going to visit the museum today. Mr. Speaker, it's with pleasure that I introduce Mr. Bill Waring from the Dutch Pannekoek House, William Brown from Andres Wines, and Michael Francis from Milton Manufacturing. Would the House please make these three gentlemen welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 54.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 3), 1987

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, this supply bill is the third and final for the fiscal year 1987-88. The first,

[ Page 2626 ]

introduced on March 21, 1987, authorized the value of appropriations for three months; the second, introduced on June 25, authorized the value of appropriations for one month. This bill, which is in the general form of previous years' final supply bills, requests a total supply of $9.497 billion for a vote of the expenditures as outlined in the schedule to this bill, and the sum of $410.913 million for recoverable financing transaction disbursements as recorded in schedule D of the main estimates. These sums include that authorized under sections 1 and 2 of Supply Act (No. 1), and sections 1 and 2 of Supply Act (No. 2), 1987.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I point out the requirement for passage of this supply bill in order to provide for the expenditures of the government for the 1987-88 fiscal year. I move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I would assure the minister that we can give speedy passage to this legislation. I think we agreed earlier in the debate today in discussion of a couple of bills that it's probably $400 million or $500 million short of what the government will actually need this year, but we'll deal with that at a later date.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 54 to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 54, Supply Act (No. 3), 1987, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 3), 1987

The House in committee on Bill 54; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 54, Supply Act (No. 3), 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that His Honour is in the precincts. Perhaps we could maintain our seats for a moment, and His Honour will join us shortly.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1987

University Amendment Act, 1987

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1987

Waste Management Amendment Act, 1987

Forest Amendment Act, 1987

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987

Local Election Reform Act, 1987

University Endowment Land Amendment Act, 1987

Motor Carrier Amendment Act, 1987

British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Financial Restructuring Act

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1987

University Foundations Act

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to these bills.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Supply Act (No. 3), 1987.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, members will note standing at the end of the assembly three members of the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff. They are retiring today; this will be their last session. Would the House please give a nice warm round of applause, congratulations and thanks to Mr. Harold Bleay, Mr. Andy McNamee and Mr. Jim Crawford. I'll just point out that Harold has served us for 11 sessions, Andy for eight sessions, and Jim Crawford for eight sessions.

MR. ROSE: Could I express, on behalf of the opposition, our thanks for the work of these gentlemen and wish them a happy, pleasant and fulfilling retirement. I sometimes yearn to join them; sometimes my constituents wish that I would as well. But seriously, I haven't served enough time here yet. I don't enjoy the longevity of these gentlemen. But I promise I won't do it either.

I really do sincerely thank them for looking after us, thank them for all their loyalty and good work and wish them bon voyage.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, as they say in some circles: happy to meet, sorry to part, happy to meet again. I move that this House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet, or until Mr. Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the first session of the thirty-fourth parliament of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and as the case may be may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and that date, and that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to

[ Page 2627 ]

act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order, as, in duty bound, I do so move.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: May I say, hon. members, before we adjourn that I think it would be appropriate.... Some of the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff got some applause, but we have a great staff in these buildings, from the Sergeant-at-Arms to the library, to the staff who work in our offices, and I think they deserve a great round of applause.

I might also mention the Pages, who usually are still going to school when we finish but this year have given up some of their summer holidays to come here and be enlightened; they've all told me what a great time they've had.

Also as Speaker, on behalf of the table and myself, I'd like to thank all the members for a very worthwhile session and one in which the cooperation of all sides was greatly appreciated by the Chair and by the gentlemen at the table.

The House adjourned at 5:00 p.m.