[ Page 3461 ]
Routine Proceedings
Oral Questions
Sale of B.C. Place. Mr. Williams –– 3461
Lake Koocanusa water level. Ms. Edwards –– 3461
Verrin decision quote in Info Line. Mr. Sihota –– 3462
Lunch program in schools. Mr. Cashore –– 3462
Tabling Documents –– 3463
Throne speech debate
Mr. Loenen –– 3463
Mr. Rabbitt –– 3466
Tabling Documents –– 3470
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
HON. MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery today is my wife, Sheila, and a friend of ours, a former resident of Burnaby, Dianna Dobson. I would ask the House to make them both welcome.
MR. CASHORE: I would like to acknowledge that present in the House yesterday for the throne speech was Mel Hurtig, a distinguished Canadian publisher, a defender of Canada and founder of the Council of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to invite the House to join me in congratulating the Coquitlam Centennial Centaurs, the girls' basketball team that for the second year in a row has won the B.C. AA championship. We would like to congratulate all the members of that team, their coach, Steve Pettifer, and two members who were appointed to the all-star team, Tanys Gerrard and Laura Betcher. Please join me in congratulating them.
MR. DAVIDSON: I hope the House will join me in welcoming Mr. and Mrs. Bill Dick, who are visiting from Ontario, friends of my father. I'd ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.
MR. PETERSON: Would the House please join me in welcoming Mr. John Gilchrist, who is a director on our New Westminster Social Credit executive.
Oral Questions
SALE OF B.C. PLACE
MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier. Because of selling off all of B.C. Place as one parcel, you have effectively closed off the bidding to all but the greatest economic powers in the world, Bell Canada and Mr. Li from Hong Kong, with no opportunity for small- or medium-scale entrepreneurs in British Columbia. Could the Premier explain if he's reconsidering the decision of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation to sell off another $700 million in great land assets — Songhees, Westwood Plateau and bank loans — all in one $700 million sale.
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What we are seeking is the best deal for the people of the province. What we hope to accomplish — and certainly expect to accomplish — is an opportunity to create investment, new development, many jobs, not only for this year but for many years to come. It's a very positive program. That's the goal of government, and we're making good progress.
MR. WILLIAMS: It's very clear that smaller-scale land sales return greater returns throughout the private sector than large-scale land sales, and you have exempted all small British Columbia businessmen, entrepreneurs and developers by having $700 million sales. Are you not reconsidering, or have you given up faith in the small businessman of British Columbia?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I repeat, if we were simply attending to real estate I suppose we could piece things out over a long period of time, but I believe we owe it to the people of the province and the people of Vancouver to get the very best development possible, the 'greatest return not only in money and dollars over the long haul, but certainly as well in terms of jobs, in terms of building a better province.
MR. WILLIAMS: By selling this way to only a handful of billionaires on a global scale. you are removing the opportunity for small-scale British Columbians in this sector. Can you explain why you would not sell parts of these lands separately? Can you explain why you would sell $300 million in bank loans along with S400 million worth of land as one package that excludes all British Columbians and all British Columbia corporations" Can you give the House assurance that the surpluses to be made off these great lands will be reinvested in British Columbia when it will likely be an offshore owner who gets the boodle?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Obviously the member is simply attempting to phrase a question around certain assumptions that he's made for himself.
LAKE KOOCANUSA WATER LEVEL
MS. EDWARDS: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture. An all-time low level at Koocanusa Lake in British Columbia and Montana this summer is expected to decimate the recreational value of the lake in the highest kokanee spawning season of its cycle. Has the minister decided what to do to offset this major negative impact on the tourism industry and the recreational enjoyment of 18,000 campers and fishing enthusiasts?
HON. MR. REID: Well. since I was not aware of the concern, I'll take it on notice and get a response back.
MS. EDWARDS: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. The range manager has estimated a cost of $52,000 to be able to control Crown range for domestic and wild animals during this single year of low water in the Koocanusa Lake reservoir behind Libby Dam. These improvements are unusable when the water level returns to normal. Has the minister decided to protect the delicate, ever-diminishing range resource by approving an expenditure for this range fencing?
HON. MR. PARKER: I'll take the question as notice.
MS. EDWARDS: I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Parks. Has the minister directed his staff to examine the kokanee fishery to determine whether the excessive draw-down by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at Libby, Montana. can be offset in this banner kokanee spawning year?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Actually, I was going to give an answer, but I'll take it on notice, if that's what you prefer.
MS. EDWARDS: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Has the minister reviewed Hydro's function, to ensure that B.C. ministries, agencies and the public are properly warned of possible
[ Page 3462 ]
problems from Columbia River Treaty reservoirs being managed in Oregon by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers?
HON. MR. DAVIS: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes. Unfortunately, rainfall over the last several years in the Inland Empire in the United States and indeed in southern B.C. has been below average; it has been above average further north in the province. The main problem is lack of rainfall.
MS. EDWARDS: A supplementary to the minister. The question was: have you considered ways in which B.C. Hydro, which is the entity in B.C., will contact and communicate with ministries, agencies and the public about what's going on?
HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I understand that B.C. Hydro has been in touch with the other ministries and, indeed, I believe that the chairman of B.C. Hydro and some of his staff will be here in the next several days to describe the problem and further communicate with members and, of course, with the public.
[2:15]
VERRIN DECISION QUOTE IN INFO LINE
MR. SIHOTA: I have a question for the Premier. I have with me in the House today the Info Line as it relates to the Verrin decision, and I am sad to say that this is quite honestly deceptive and misleading. On page 3 in boldface in that Info Line it says: "The province" — and those are the operative words — "is not required to keep these persons in exactly the same job they held before the contracting out." That quote is attributed to Mr. Stephen Kelleher, a labour arbitrator.
That quote is doctored. The decision of Mr. Kelleher in which he made that comment has nothing to do with Verrin, and it has nothing to do with the provincial government. Why has the government chosen to mislead affected employees by boldfacing that quote and referring to it in Life Line?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Since this is a matter under appeal, I will refer it to the Attorney-General.
HON. B.R. SMITH: I would just remind the member that that case and that decision are not only under appeal, but there have been now about four different decisions on the very point in issue that he keeps belabouring in this House. An arbitrator reached one decision, the new labour appeal tribunal reached one decision, the LRB reached another decision, and the judge reached a different decision.
So rather than waving it around as some kind of final position in this province, he should await the appeal process like everybody else does in this province.
MR. SIHOTA: The government talks about the decision when it's to their advantage to talk about it and tries to pass it off as being in front of the courts. But what's not in front of the courts is this Life Line. And the decision stands in terms of giving employees a choice. My questions were not to the decision, but to this falsehood that the government is passing about.
Again to the government document, not to the decision: the government document Life Line says on page 1 on the left-hand column, and I quote if the Premier wants to listen: "Arbitrators have ruled that government does not have to place employees affected by Article 24 in the same job they held before contracting out." The only decision involving the government on this point is the December 20, 1985, decision which held exactly the opposite: that employees had to go to the same job.
Again to the Premier: why is this comment in Life Line a falsehood? Why are you misleading your employees?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I've not seen the information, but I will take it on notice.
MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew to get to his questions maybe just a little quicker.
MR. SIHOTA: I'll try to keep them as short as I can, Mr. Speaker. I'm just quoting.
The Premier says that he hasn't seen this document. It seems to me that as a basic precept of government accountability the government must be accountable for this document. The document refers to a Supreme Court of Canada decision upsetting common-law principles. The decision in Verrin says the people have a choice as to whether they should go to the private sector or the public sector. The British Columbia Court of Appeal has held that those very common-law principles that this document rejects hold in this province. Why has the government again chosen to mislead its employees? Will it now, in light of these falsehoods, apologize to its employees?
MR. SPEAKER: The question is taken as notice.
MR. SIHOTA: One final question, Mr. Speaker. Again, to the Premier — and it doesn't relate to Verrin or this item. But without even reading the Verrin decision, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) was quoted as saying that it would not halt the government's privatization plans. Does the Premier not agree that this Info Line serves only to reinforce the fact that the government will bully through with its privatization plans, with falsehoods and deceptive and misleading information? Isn't that really what the government is doing here?
LUNCH PROGRAM IN SCHOOLS
MR. CASHORE: A question for the Premier. The government continues to refuse to kick in its share of funding for hungry school kids. Does the Premier realize that his refusal is denying federal dollars for the Vancouver School Board and hungry schoolchildren?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Any matter with respect to social services or a request for such should be deferred to the Minister of Social Services.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: To the member, I've made it very clear in this House and through the media what our position is on the schoolchildren in Vancouver. I will reiterate it, since he has brought up the matter again: we choose to look after the well-being of all the children in the province, not just those in six selected schools in downtown Vancouver, Mr. Member. Our concern is for all the children — the preschoolers at home — who may be going hungry. We ask
[ Page 3463 ]
again that the Vancouver School Board cooperate with us in this venture.
MR. CASHORE: Supplementary to the Premier. That was a "let them eat cake" answer. In view of the Premier's high-falutin talk of family values and of his costly media hype supporting families, will the Premier now do the decent thing, be consistent with the public image he is promoting and kick in the provincial share to free up federal moneys to feed the hungry children?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This matter is with respect to a possible social services program, and I would therefore defer to the Minister of Social Services.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Once again, I would just like to reiterate that our mandate is to look after the well-being of all the children in the province of British Columbia. We take that mandate very seriously. We have said — and I have said personally on may occasions — that we will put whatever resources necessary into the well-being of children, but we will put it in at the family level to support and strengthen the families in this province, as is our policy — not only the policy of the Premier, that the member referred to, but of every member on this side.
We believe in the strength of the family, and that is where we wish to direct our resources. On behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia, I will reiterate for the member that we will put the money into the program at the front end but not at both ends. If the Vancouver School Board determines that they must enter into a program to feed children in six selected schools, then that is their decision.
Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the eleventh annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Public Service Benefit Plan Act for the year ended March 31, 1987.
Orders of the Day
THRONE SPEECH DEBATE
MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, hon. members, it is with great pleasure that 1, the second member for Richmond, present the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), on behalf of the people of British Columbia and the government of our province: "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session."
It is indeed a singular honour for me to move the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I do so with a great deal of enthusiasm. The Speech from the Throne is optimistic. It is forward-looking. It is challenging. It sets the tone. It provides great leadership. It is visionary, yet realistic. It encompasses the hopes, the dreams, the aspirations of the people of this great province. It allows us to move forward, and to face the future with a great deal of confidence. Together we can do it.
On behalf of all members assembled here, Mr. Speaker. I wish to welcome you back to this second session of the thirty-fourth parliament. We all appreciate the dedication you have shown in performing your duties.
The legislative agenda before us is vigorous and strong. Why? Because it springs from a will to make things better for all. It provides a realistic basis of hope for the unemployed, security for the elderly, support for single-parent families, increased educational opportunities for young British Columbians and strong support for families and our children, because they represent the future.
The government's message to the people of British Columbia is that golden opportunities await us — opportunities which can be ours if we show drive, initiative, determination, zeal and, above all, the will to work together. We, the government of this great province, challenge all to cooperate, to acknowledge our dependence on each other. Building a better society is a communal undertaking. The different geographical regions throughout our great province need each other. The different sectors of the economy need each other. Employers and employees, trade unions and employer organizations need each other. Men and women, government and opposition, professional and client, consumers and producers all need each other.
Mr. Speaker. the Speech from the Throne is full of vigour and vitality, because our government believes in people. We trust people. People are our greatest strength. our finest resource. Government is not the expert: people are. Ordinary British Columbians within the context of the shop floor, the office, the small business. their sports and other voluntary organizations. are the experts. They know the problems, and they know the solutions. The so-called professional experts are not the answer. Victoria is not the answer. Government bureaucrats are not the answer. It's the ingenuity, the drive, the dedication, the skills and the abilities of ordinary British Columbians. Our legislative program has one aim, and one aim only: it is to unleash that boundless reservoir, that tremendous resource, people power.
British Columbia has a people's party. It is called Social Credit. I am proud to be with this Premier and this government. The promise was open government, and we have delivered. Someone once wrote: "There is one thing better than good government. and that is government in which all the people have a part." Open government means not only accountable government — it certainly is that — but also pooling everybody together. It means creating a structure which allows everyone to make a contribution. That is democracy at work. Mr. Speaker. that is why I am pleased that this second session of the thirty-fourth Parliament will continue the privatization. decentralization and restructuring of government initiatives.
In addition, I support the activities of the numerous advisory bodies. the active participation of this Legislature's standing committees. and the various task forces. If we were to list all the various task forces and the commissions and the advisory bodies, it would fill more than a page — almost a page and a half. In fact. the degree of citizens' participation in this government is absolutely unprecedented.
A well-thought-out plan for the future is essential. I look forward to the White Paper which will chart a plan for economic development and the provision of social services during the next decade. I am especially pleased that this plan will be taken to the people for public input. Mr. Speaker, through you I commend the Premier for setting such a positive tone and providing such strong leadership.
I now wish to address some particulars.
Our record of creating jobs, of increasing employment opportunities. is absolutely the best in the country. British
[ Page 3464 ]
Columbia's employment growth rate was 7.3 percent between January '87 and January '88. That compares with a national growth rate in jobs of 4.1 percent. However. the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 10.1 percent is still very high. Our number one social problem remains unemployment.
[2:30]
There is nothing more devastating, for young people particularly, than to be told there is no place for them; that after all their schooling and training they are unable to obtain a job. The psychological effects of that are immense. We are committed to increasing the job opportunities. We are committed to providing all our energies, all our output, to creating those jobs so necessary for our young people.
When we think about that number one social problem of creating jobs for those members of society who have the abilities and the talents and the resources to make a productive contribution, we should also think about what wage increases can do to meeting that problem. Because wage increases have an effect on the jobs, the number of people who are employed. We are a trading province, and high wage increases and labour unrest impede trade. We know that.
Recently I was confronted with this in a very graphic way. I came across a book of pictures about British Columbia. This excellent book was published in North Vancouver. It was typeset in Connecticut, in the U.S., and printed in Korea.
That is the reality we face. We are in a global village. We compete not just with our own industries; we have to compete with the world that is all around there, because modern means of communication and technology mean that those jobs can be placed anywhere in the world today. That is the reality, and when we talk about wage increases and the number of union contracts that fall due this year, we have to remember what it does to our employment picture and to our ability to compete with the various economies of the world. We have to be mindful of the fact that we still have an unemployment rate of over 10 percent.
Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying is that we have to be creative; that we have to be a caring society; that we have to look at job-sharing; that if we want to meet the needs of those who do not share the good life, we have to look more creatively at the kind of union contracts we conclude. Because wage increases can truly be justified only if there is an increase in productivity. That's the only rational basis for a wage increase. We ought to be aware of that.
We have a very large sector of our economy, the public employees, who somehow are exempt from that fundamental natural law, because how do you measure the productivity of the public sector? In that case, the only justification is where wage increases are tied to productivity level increases in the private sector. I think it's relevant for us to remember that, because for the last two years public sector wage increases have been double those of the private sector. I'm quoting here from some statistics prepared by the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services and Statistics Canada. In '86 and '87, public sector wage increases amounted to 5.4 percent, whereas private sector wage increases during the same time period amounted to 2.6 percent, which is exactly half. The question remains: are we pricing ourselves out of world markets? Do high incomes for some mean no income for others? The low-income sectors, which include the women of our province, will be watching to see whether we have justice in the way we apportion the benefits that accrue from our economy.
Many of the people across the way will talk about equal pay for work of equal value, and that's a wonderful concept. It's motherhood; we all love it. But how do you implement that? How do you measure that? Be reasonable about this. You would require a machinery; you would require a Big Brother bureaucracy that is worse than anything George Orwell ever dreamt of in the brave new world. What we need instead is equality of opportunity for all. I just hope, as we look forward to concluding many very important labour contracts, that we keep in mind that our demands ought to be responsible over against those sectors of the economy that do not participate in the good life.
I hear the IWA talk about two-dollar-an-hour increases. That's very substantial. Such an increase would have a very unsettling effect; it would put a squeeze on the small operators. Yes, the big operators might be able to handle it. It would increase the disparity between the low-income and the high-income wage earners, and it would largely be a function of sheer muscle power. At-the same time, we ought to remember that whenever we increase the cost of the labour factor, it becomes that much more enticing to buy a machine to take the place of those workers. It's self-defeating to keep pushing for these kinds of increases, if indeed that is a serious proposal. If within the forest industry there are those kinds of benefits, those kinds of profits, they ought to be redistributed to all the people of British Columbia, not to a select few who have a lot of muscle.
That leads me into another topic that I'd like to speak about for a few minutes: the employees' stock-ownership plan which was introduced last session by the Ministry of Economic Development. These employees' stock ownership plans will promote a lot of good things. They will promote more cooperation and harmony between employer and employee; they will raise productivity. All of these are good things. But more significantly — and most importantly —they will give the workers a piece of the action. That is fundamentally important, because what is happening....
When I was a kid I used to be told that if you work hard you'll do well, and in some ways that's true. But the fact is that in today's highly technological society, wage income, income from earnings, salaries, are insufficient to meet all our needs, never mind all our demands. Most income in our economy is produced not by hands and brains but by machine. It is capital income that produces most of our income. Because of that, because people's wages are insufficient to buy all the things they need, we have to have free education, free health care, etc. — all that infrastructure that government supplies. What it means is that we see the need for government, through these welfare state programs, to forever redistribute income in a massive sort of way. I submit to you that it would be fundamentally far more sound if we allowed the working men and women of this province a piece of the action, and that is what this employees' stock ownership plan aims to do.
If the labour unions and our loyal opposition across the way were truly interested in the well-being of the working class of this province, they would support this, and we wouldn't have Georgetti standing up and throwing cold water on these very good plans. There's nothing more important, upon having completed your productive years, than that you can look forward to some security in addition to government state-supplied pensions, and that is what this plan will do. I know that there are a lot of problems with it as well, and we can learn from the examples in the U.S., because there have
[ Page 3465 ]
been some problems, but this is a very fundamentally important program.
If we want to downsize government, if we want to give more choice to people, we have to give them the ability to purchase what they need and what they want, and we cannot expect to have political democracy unless there is a great degree of economic democracy. I think the members across the way would agree with me on that. The way to implement that is through these kinds of plans, whereby the working men and women of this province can get a piece of the action.
I want to talk about free trade. When I was a kid growing up in Holland in the early fifties, there were raging debates about whether or not tiny little Holland ought to join with the other European Economic Community leaders. And here was tiny little Holland; they had just gone through a war; think of the emotional appeal that the nationalist forces could muster. Big bad Germany is going to do to us during peacetime what they couldn't do during war; why did our boys go to war? — etc., etc. We were going to be swallowed economically; we were going to be swallowed politically. Did any of that take place? No, Mr. Speaker, none of that took place. We should listen to history. We should look at the examples of history. Because it has been an unmitigated success. Who today in Europe would deny that it has been a great improvement, particularly to those small countries?
When I hear people say that we're going to be swallowed by the U.S., and that they are simply going to make us a branch plant, and even that it will lead to political annexation, etc., that simply is a scare tactic. This kind of free trade agreement is forward looking. It's progressive. It has worked out between New Zealand and Australia; it has worked out between Israel and the U.S.. In fact, the small countries are usually the greatest beneficiaries of these arrangements. For years and years — as long as I can remember — we know and we've talked about the need for secondary industries in the manufacturing component for British Columbia. We know how important that is, because that's where the jobs lie.
[2:45]
Why is it that with our well-educated, highly skilled workforce and with all our natural resources, we have been unable to really take hold of that secondary industry? It's because we don't have the markets. that's why. But in California there's a market that's as large as all of Canada. California is the fifth-largest economic block. By the year 2000, it will comprise some 30 million inhabitants. We need those markets. We need the challenges that those markets provide for our people. I support the free trade initiative, and I hope that the members on this side will as well.
I'd like to talk about integrated health care for seniors. Quality health care, particularly for our seniors. is a priority of this government, and I am happy to see that the Ministry of Health is looking at a pilot project that seeks to integrate the services we provide to our seniors — a one-stop seniors centre. Right now what we have is all these divisions. We have personal care, intermediate care and extended care. But there's nothing more disruptive than for a senior to have to be moved from one facility to the next. Those kinds of facilities ought to be combined and put under one roof.
We have some examples in the province already, but I'm glad that the Ministry of Health is looking into that more fully, because any time those seniors need to be moved to a different facility, it's extremely disruptive. You cut off the ties they have been able to create with people in the communities in which they were housed. I'm looking forward to that with a great deal of anticipation. I know that the need for extended care is extremely severe. In our Richmond situation, there's a shortage of over 100, and the extended care beds are clogging our Richmond General Hospital.
My experience is — in the case of our community, for sure that the private care operators provide a better product at less cost than do the non-profit ones run by community boards. Why is that? Well. it's very simple to see. It's simply that there is no accountability in the case of the non-profits.
If the government has a contract with a private operator, and the private operator does something that he ought not to, all we have to do is tell him and break that contract at any point. Have you ever tried to break a contract with a community based non-profit society? It is impossible. I would urge the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) to take a good look at private operators for these kinds of care facilities. I hope that the Ministry of Health will be able to implement a true free enterprise philosophy because it hurts me to see that time and again the Ministry of Health picks the side of the non-profit operations.
Recently in Matsqui we had an example of that. The Ministry of Health gave out a contract to a facility, and I was told that there were private people interested in it. But no, it was given to a non-profit organization. I don't understand that. I believe that we should make sure that our free enterprise message will penetrate into our ministries, particularly the Ministry of Health.
Our colleague. the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen), recently brought to our attention the Canadian Medical Association Journal. which spoke in glowing terms of how, in many instances in Alberta and Ontario. privately managed hospitals are producing excellent results. The key is accountability. I'm not talking about a two-tiered medical services plan. What I'm talking about is the need to tighten up the management practices in our hospitals and health care facilities.
This government supports equal economic opportunities for all British Columbians: young and old, rural or urban, male or female. Our government recognizes the need and the importance for women's initiatives. Women earn 60 percent of what men earn, and I want to hasten to point out that this is not because of discrimination. It is because women are, on the average, in the low-paying jobs. The answer to this is for us to provide the facilities necessary for them to upgrade their education and their abilities. The answer is emphatically not that we enforce, through some kind of quota system, equal pay for work of equal value.
Our government aims for equality of opportunity, not enforced equality of results. There's a big difference, and that is why the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training has a whole host of programs, such as the women apprentices program. the women's non-traditional employment programs, women as business owners, self-employment trends for women, as well as increased student aid.
I am happy to see that our government is committed to providing more affordable and higher standard day care centres, and that we will continue the subsidies to low-income parents so that they can exercise their choice of where they would like to purchase the day care they need for their children. We are committed to providing 20,000 more spaces over the next seven years and 6,500 of those in the first two years. In addition. the Minister of Social Services and Housing is promoting an accreditation program to ensure that we have the kind of quality necessary.
[ Page 3466 ]
In addition, the government proposes comprehensive programs to strengthen our families and to support them. This is so important, because at the root of a strong, healthy and vibrant society are families that are caring, compassionate and secure, and good families produce well-adjusted and stable members of society.
I would just like to remind the House that investing in families pays big dividends. That's why I support the marriage preparation program. We must also recognize and take note of the fact that a two-parent family with one parent at home to care for the children is no longer the norm, and we must adjust to that. Forty-two percent of our workforce are women. There are 89,000 single-parent families in our province, most of these headed by women.
This government is committed to ensuring that employment practices are fair and just and that support services are sufficient and adequate. I also believe that we need to do all we can to provide the necessary support services to provide alternatives to abortion. We must try to find alternative solutions; this government is committed to providing them. Through education, public awareness, proper counselling, adoption services, support services and the provision of shelters for women facing unwanted pregnancies, we will do all we can to provide those kinds of alternatives.
I would like to talk about the federal-provincial relationship. The message needs to be heard — and I hope that our media can help us — that we are putting more into Confederation than we are getting out of it.
I would just like to read from these statistics regarding the federal procurements: "B.C. received 4.1 percent of all federal contracts issued through the Department of Supply and Services in 1986-87." This is a decrease of nearly I percent from the 5.3 percent procurement rate in 1985-86. The 1985-86 per capita procurement rates by province show that B.C. gets the least of all the provinces in the way of procurement contracts. We receive $114 per capita, whereas Ontario receives $388 and Quebec $391 per capita. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. They are our taxpayers' dollars, the dollars of the people of British Columbia, going into Quebec and Ontario.
What is really worrisome, and what ought to worry the members opposite as much as the members on this side, is that the trend is getting worse — as I've shown from the stats. It's getting worse instead of better.
Mr. Speaker, we ought to treat this with seriousness. For years we used to blame it on the wicked Liberals and the Trudeau administration. Now we have Mulroney and the Conservatives. It is not the people who are at fault; it is the very system under which we operate, under which we are partners in Confederation. The city of Toronto has more representatives in parliament than all of B.C. does. The system is designed to favour central Canada. We ought to carry that message across the Rocky Mountains, and I hope that the media people will help us, because this is very serious.
The relationship between the federal government and the province of British Columbia is a two-way street. As the Speech from the Throne mentioned, in many instances we've gone out of our way to make Confederation work, to help the federal government and the Prime Minister. But we ought to recognize that a relationship between provinces, as between people, is a two-way street. It's high time we get not an extra consideration, not special treatment, but simply what is our due, what is equitable and right.
In the minutes that remain I wish to talk about our debt and deficit. Often it's not popular, and people don't like to be reminded of it. But it's absolute foolishness if we keep closing our eyes to the tremendous public debt that has arisen not only here in British Columbia but particularly in Ottawa. I'm delighted we have a government that's committed to doing something about this. Our direct public debt stands at nearly $5 billion; the per capita is $1,710 for every man, woman and child in this province.
I used to be a small businessman — in house construction. No matter how hard you work, there is no force that affects people in small businesses more than the rise or drop in interest rates. The effect of that is absolutely astounding.
[3:00]
Interjection.
MR. LOENEN: I'm talking about the debt.
As long as governments are in the money markets securing their financing, it drives up the price of money. What happens is that we, the small business people of these communities, are the victims. In 1982 the Canada Savings Bond rate — money the government was paying out — was 19.5 percent. I knew small businessmen who simply packed it in, put their money into the bonds, sat back and collected the interest. That's extremely unhealthy.
We ought to recognize that every time we create another inflationary period, followed by a depression, it takes longer to get out of it. It's so short-sighted for us to overlook this, to take the easy way out, to not talk about the debt, to just roll that over onto our children and their children.
We are committed to doing away with the government debt, and I admire our Premier for taking that tough stand. We have had the President of the United States promise that he was going to do something about the debt. We've had the Prime Minister of this country promise that he was going to do something about the public debt. We all know that it's right. We all know that it's necessary. But we are doing something about it.
Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that remain I'd like to say a word about decentralization. I believe in open government. I believe that we have to create channels of communication, that there must be a way in which we can put our ear to the ground and listen to the people of this province — and that is what this initiative is all about.
Looking at my own region, region 2, there is a great need to not only listen but also look at, for instance, the transportation needs of that region. The transportation corridors and needs require the cooperation of many ministries, of many levels of government, The minister of state for our region is uniquely situated to bring together these people and to tackle a big problem such as transportation.
There is much work ahead of us. There are great opportunities for us. I am proud to be part of this government, and I am anxious to help and to get on with the job, and to build a better society for all.
MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure and an honour for me, as the elected representative of Yale Lillooet, to second the Speech from the Throne, just moved by the second member for Richmond.
I would first like to note that my dear wife, Eileen, has journeyed from the riding to join us in the opening of the second session of the thirty-fourth parliament and is seated in the gallery today.
[ Page 3467 ]
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues in the House for appointing me as Deputy Chairman of the Committee of the Whole. I will do my best to fulfil the role in an honourable way which will meet the expectations of this assembly. I would like also to mention that I'm very pleased to be part of this great tradition.
I offer my sincere congratulations to the hon. first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) on his reappointment as Deputy Speaker.
I'd like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate both you and the Deputy on the fine job you have done. Your impartiality and adherence to the rules of this Legislature have added immeasurably to the quality of the debate that takes place in this House.
Mr. Speaker, this throne speech offers British Columbians a vision for the future. It is a blueprint that details our government's plans to ensure the long-term well-being of our province.
Ours is a government of action, not one of empty promises. British Columbians, regardless of where they live or their political viewpoints, are concerned with the economic and social future of this province. In the throne speech our government has charted a course that will successfully steer British Columbia into the twenty-first century. We are not only planning for today, but we are also planning for tomorrow and the many tomorrows that are to follow.
Planning for the future, I believe it is important that we also take stock of the past. As someone once said, a person without a past has no future. I'm proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that Social Credit governments can be proud of their past.
I am also proud to say Social credit governments in our province have always been concerned with this province's future. The present administration, along with previous administrations — whether under Bill Bennett or W.A.C. Bennett — all were concerned with securing a prosperous future for all British Columbians. The W.A.C. Bennett vision brought forth many of the programs and services that we enjoy today. People programs, such as medicare, hospitalization and a first-class highway system, and two universities, namely the University of Victoria and Simon Fraser, were all established during the senior Bennett's regime. Bill Bennett continued the vision for British Columbia. He brought forth and undertook many innovative projects, such as shelter for elderly residents, Pharmacare, the Knowledge Network, B.C. Place Stadium and Expo 86, and he continued to expand upon our first-class highway system.
Our government, like previous Social Credit administration, has a long-term plan to ensure a prosperous future for British Columbia. For while we have the same goal for British Columbia as the previous Social Credit administrations, we are also cognizant that new times bring new challenges. Our Premier realizes this. We have a Premier who is dynamic, who has a vision for British Columbia. We have a Premier who is not afraid to challenge the status quo. We have a Premier who has the courage to fight for his convictions. Political debate has been enlivened under our Premier. He is willing to test our basic assumptions. I believe our Premier is not only concerned with the challenges of today: he is preparing our province for the challenges of tomorrow. Our government's plan is built around economic realities of the eighties and designed to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.
Our government's resolve to eliminate the deficit is an initiative of our concern for the future. As the leaders of today, we cannot in good conscience saddle future generations with public debt which, if remained unchecked, would eventually threaten the quality of life that all British Columbians enjoy. By eliminating the public debt, we will build a more stable province in British Columbia, providing social and economic security for all British Columbians, both young and old.
Our government's emphasis on privatization and regionalization are two important steps that will help ensure a prosperous future for our province.
I am very proud to be a member of this government, which in the last year has shown strong leadership and initiative. I am proud of the effectiveness of this government, and our economy is continuing to improve. Traditional resource-based industries like mining, pulp and paper and the forest industry are showing continued growth, particularly in the area of added-value products.
Our job creation is second to none in Canada. Between January 1987 and January 1988, 95,000 new jobs were created in this province. and we are confident that 1988 will bring continued growth to British Columbia. This confidence is not based on a false hope; rather, it's based on solid economic indicators. For example. economic forecasters believe that the real GPP will rise 4 percent to percent in 1988 — the strongest gain since 1981.
The B.C. average unemployment rate may fall to 9.5 percent by the end of 1988 and 8.5 percent by 1989. Retail sales could be up by up to 5 percent in real terms. These figures are not from government data; these are not from Social Credit research. but from a newsletter produced by Pemberton entitled "Western Commentary." The newsletter goes on to say that British Columbia's economy will out perform the national average. I believe our province's unemployment rate will decline, and that employment growth will continue.
As well, the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada said that capital investment in our province continues to far exceed the Canadian average. up 21 percent to $6.2 billion in 1987. This compares with a national increase of only 8 percent. Clearly. our economic record in the past year is one that our government can take pride in.
In January 1988. our employment level was 6.6 percent higher than when the government took office in October 1986. This is considerably higher than the national average of 4.7 percent. Economic growth is not only taking place in our mainstay industries of forestry, miring and pulp and paper. but many other industries continue to grow. I am pleased to see that our throne speech mentioned that high-tech industry now employs more than 10,000 people and has an average growth rate of 20 percent since 1983.
With over $11.2 billion invested in our province last year, investor confidence is clearly on the increase. While economic growth and diversification has taken place, we as a government do not believe in standing still. By increasing funding for education and increasing post-secondary support, we are laying the groundwork for tomorrow's economy.
I'm especially glad to see that our government has made a commitment to further improve financial assistance to students. It is important that we as a government provide equal access to our post-secondary institutes for all British Columbians, regardless of where they reside. Students outside the lower mainland and a greater Victoria face a much greater task in attending a post-secondary institute, especially a university, than do students who reside in a major urban area. I hope
[ Page 3468 ]
that this increase in student aid will lead to larger numbers of rural students attending post-secondary institutes.
[3:15]
Increasing the number of computers in our classrooms is indicative of our government's concern for our province's future. To all those teachers in my riding who contacted me urging this initiative, I say: "Your government listened and acted." It is important that we as legislators realize that by investing in education, we are investing in our future and our children's future. Further, I am positive that the Royal Commission on Education will come forth with recommendations that will serve to further enhance the quality of education in the province. Education is the launching pad of our province's future.
I am also pleased that our government is preparing to put into place a long-term strategic plan for our province. Ours is the only province that is venturing in developing such a longterm plan through a process of public consultation. In developing a long-term plan for British Columbia, we will seek input from all residents, be they cabinet ministers, senior citizens, university students, employers or employees. All will have input in developing this plan. This is a plan for British Columbians by British Columbians. Not only will we develop long-term objectives but as well we will develop a strategic plan to meet these objectives. We will also monitor and evaluate our goals and objectives in order to ensure that they are being met. Ultimately, our long-range planning initiative will lead to planning determining budgets, not budgets determining planning. Our long-range plan will be built around the concerns and needs of three million people who reside in this province.
As part of our commitment to the future, I am pleased that our government supports the free trade agreement with the United States. British Columbia is a trading province. Our economic livelihood depends on our ability to sell our goods in the international arena. As a province we cannot afford to isolate ourselves from economic reality. In today's interdependent global economy, it is imperative that we have access to open markets. Since British Columbia is a world trader, we must also seek to enhance our trade ties with other countries, especially those in the Pacific Rim. I am pleased that our government will make British Columbia known around the world and is concentrating on the Pacific Rim. By profiling our people and our products, we will be able to take advantage of our strategic position and economic diversity.
I am pleased to see that our government will back up words with legislation that ensures our province maximizes our trade with the United States and our Pacific Rim neighbours. We will also be providing assistance where required so as to help business adjust to the free trade agreement. We will ensure that the needs of our agricultural community are met. My riding of Yale-Lillooet is aware of the advantages of free trade, and I have spoken of the benefits of free trade to our province. Yale-Lillooet will directly benefit from free trade. Mining, ranching and the forest industry will all be winners because of this agreement. These are all industries which have been of historic significance to my constituency.
Yale-Lillooet and its pioneers played a major role in the development of this great province. The Hudson's Bay Co. recognized the potential of this area early on and dealt in both fur and gold. News of the rich gold fields in Yale, Tulameen and Lillooet traveled fast. In 1858, 25,000 people came to Yale to pursue their fortunes and their dreams in the gold fields. Later many more adventurers traveled along the Gold Rush Trail through the Fraser Canyon on their way to the Cariboo fields. Both the beauty and the rich agriculture and economic potential of my constituency lured many of these early travelers to settle in this area. My family is one that came and stayed.
The livelihood of the pioneers in the early days of our area is still reflected in the type of economic activities which dominate our economy today. Mining, forestry and ranching continue to be the mainstays. Today copper and moly mining are a major employer in our region. The Highland Valley copper mine is currently the largest base metal mine in North America and ranks in the world's top three when considering total tonnes mined and milled each year. It is essential to the mining industry that we remain competitive in the world market. Our government's commitment to examine and review taxes on profits in the mineral industry should be a positive step in the right direction.
The early settlers recognized the agricultural potential of the areas of the Nicola Valley. The historic Douglas Lake Cattle Co. is still one of the largest ranches in the world. Yale was on an important transportation route, and that role has continued today as a historic tourist stop. In today's world of fast and efficient transportation, people are traveling for pleasure as well as for business. Travelers can choose the fast and efficient Coquihalla or the scenic Fraser Canyon or the Hope-Princeton, or they can take one of the less traveled routes and enjoy some of the unsurpassed scenery on routes like the Duffy Lake road.
Yale-Lillooet has tremendous tourism potential. We must continue to promote the historical Gold Rush Trail. After all, there is still gold to be found by those willing to follow the footsteps of those early pioneers. We must also develop the area's destination resort potential.
Whitewater rafters have already discovered the excitement of whitewater rafting on the Thompson. I am pleased to say that the throne speech proposes to bring forth legislation which will place commercial river rafting under provincial authority with increased safety.
Just as the people of Yale-Lillooet are concentrating on newer industries such as tourism, our province as a whole must realize that we can no longer just rely on the traditional sectors. Our government recognizes the importance of diversifying our economy. Though we will undertake initiatives to develop and diversify our economy, our government will also work with the federal government to ensure that we receive a fair share from Confederation.
Historically the federal government has viewed British Columbia as the spoiled child of Confederation. I believe this is unfair and a biased view. The very nature of the federal system in Canada has hurt our province. Despite the best intentions of our legislators in Ottawa, the fact that representation in parliament is based on population ensures that the interests of central Canada will take precedence over those of British Columbia.
Our province contributes significantly more to the federation than we save in return. To an extent, it's due to the fact that, compared to other provinces, we are a wealthy province. Nevertheless, on a proportionate basis, our share of federal resources and spending remains low. While other provinces receive considerable grants and subsidies. our province is far too often ignored by the federal government. We must remind the federal government that Canada is a confederation. By its very nature Confederation implies equality between the regions that comprise the country.
[ Page 3469 ]
I believe the Meech Lake accord is a positive step in the right direction. It will offer the provinces an opportunity to have a greater voice at the federal level. Our government has programs and initiatives that we would like to undertake, but these require federal assistance. Kaon and the Vancouver Island gas pipeline are two areas where federal assistance should be offered. Both projects are worthwhile; both projects are needed. No one can doubt that if these projects were in central Canada, funding would have already been committed.
As the representative for Yale-Lillooet, I am supportive of the initiatives outstanding in my riding and those that occur on the lower mainland and on Vancouver Island — such as the Island Highway. While my riding does not benefit directly from projects in Vancouver or Victoria, I know that the province as a whole benefits, and that's why I support them. Likewise, on the federal level, we must make MPs in other sections of the country realize that while a particular project may not be in their province, it should still be supported because it's in the best interest of Canada as a whole. It is only by pressuring the federal government and making MPs from other provinces aware of our provincial needs that we will receive our fair share.
Our government's commitment to ensuring British Columbia's economic well-being is pivotal. It is not only through the existence of a strong economy that we are able to afford these first-class social programs. Social Credit governments have always placed a high emphasis on maintaining top-quality social programs. We enjoy a health system second to none. In order to maintain our health care system, I am pleased that the government is undertaking an innovative approach in dealing with health care, particularly as it relates to the promotion of healthy lifestyles.
Our government is deeply concerned about the importance of family in our province. The family is the backbone of society, and I cannot overemphasize the value of that family. Our commitment to a new family support initiative will serve to promote the interests of the family. Over the past few years problems at the family level have steadily become the responsibility of the state. Despite the best intentions of government, government cannot replace the family. Therefore I am hopeful that our government's emphasis on the family unit will enable the family to again take a more effective and responsible role in society.
Increased funding for day care and increased flexibility in adoptions are two initiatives which I personally welcome. The economic and social realities that our government is addressing will provide for a better future for all British Columbians.
In closing, I would like to say that those of us who have been elected to sit as legislators are at a political, economic and social crossroad. The throne speech we heard is probably the most significant throne speech in the last decade. We are in a transition between yesterday and tomorrow: we are building today, learning from yesterday and planning for tomorrow. Previous administrations undertook to build all infrastructure for our province. Today British Columbians enjoy first-class transportation routes, social programs and health facilities. I believe our job as legislators is to build a new infrastructure, an infrastructure that does not replace the one already in existence; rather, this new infrastructure will be constructed around our future needs.
I believe we have set attainable and realistic goals. We have looked at our strengths and our weaknesses. We have put the challenge to the people of British Columbia, and I am confident they will meet that challenge. As one man who led the province for 20 years once said, that which is physically possible, desirable and morally right must be made financially possible.
[3:30]
As British Columbians we have a record we can all take pride in. There are those who undoubtedly remain skeptical. There were cynics on every major project. There were people who criticized the building of the domed stadium. There were people who criticized the building of the Bennett Darn and those who criticized the building of the Mica Dam. There were those who called SkyTrain a pig in a poke. Then there were those who said Expo would never work, and after Expo was a success they said our province was headed for post-Expo recession. But we know the benefits to British Columbia. British Columbians can and will do the job.
British Columbia is in a transition from an age of natural resources to an information and communications age. I want to emphasize that our natural resource sector is not a sunset industry. We will still rely oil the natural resource industries to build on that sector, for example, through the emphasis on value-added products in the forest industry. Emphasis will also be placed on advanced technological sectors, particularly those linked with our natural resource sector.
I believe the key factor in planning for tomorrow is educating our citizens for high-quality jobs today and tomorrow. This will require closer links between our educators and our business sector. We must train British Columbians for jobs in British Columbia. In building this new infrastructure, we will put emphasis on private enterprise to take the lead in ensuring that our economy grows. and I am confident the private sector will take up and meet the challenge.
Employers must invest in their employees. Both must take up the challenge and work with our government for the benefit of all.
Small and medium businesses are the backbone of our economy. Our government realizes this. That is why, through the Ministry of Economic Development and the Enterprise Centre, we offer entrepreneurs the opportunity to develop their ideas, regardless of where they reside in this great province of ours.
We must remember that while government provides the social programs we all enjoy. it is only private enterprise that creates the wealth that enables government to perform.
As I said in my opening remarks, Our government is a government of action. not of empty words. Neither is our government a government of empty promises. Our government is planning for Our future. Our Premier is giving us the initiative and the direction. I believe in our future and I have a dream. I see the opportunity of every individual. every man and every woman. every boy and every girl, no matter where they may live in this province, to participate, to contribute and to share in the future of this great province we call British Columbia.
I will conclude: this Social Credit government has been given a mandate to deliver and, let me tell you, deliver it well.
MR. ROSE: I regret that this exciting afternoon has to conclude: however, I would like to move on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition that this exhilarating debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.
Motion approved.
[ Page 3470 ]
Hon. B.R. Smith tabled the following annual reports: the B.C. Board of Parole annual report; the sixteenth annual report of the criminal injury compensation fund; the report of the official Administrator's annual returns for the calendar year ending December 1986; the annual report for the Legal Services Society; and the annual report for the Ministry of Attorney-General, completed to April 31, 1987.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm pleased to see that the hon. Leader of the Opposition will be speaking to us tomorrow — and, of course, he will be afforded the same courtesy that our members were afforded today.
I would like to advise the House of the sittings for the next couple of weeks, because there are going to be some differences. We will sit next Wednesday, which by standing order is when the question to the Address in Reply is put. The budget speech, as we know, is March 24. On Friday, March 25, will be the response from the hon. first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) to the budget. At that point, following business of the budget, we will adjourn for the spring break until Tuesday, April 5. Because of the standing orders and the speaking requirements for the budget debate, we'll be reconvening Tuesday, April 5, at 10 a.m.; it works out better that way.
Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 3:36 p.m.