[ Page 5593 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Mercier –– 5593

Mr. De Jong –– 5599

Mr. Harcourt –– 5601

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would just like to take a second or two before we get to the business of the day to wish everyone who is Irish, and everyone who wishes he or she were Irish, a very happy St. Patrick's Day.

MRS. McCARTHY: On this St. Patrick's Day I would like to present to the House some students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School. My colleague for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) and I are going to be meeting with them later. They are here with their teacher, Mr. Tuff, and some other representatives. I would like to ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are Mr. and Mrs. Evans with their grandson' Gregory Thomas. Would the House give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I wish to bid a very happy St. Patrick's Day to someone who is Irish: my wife, Sheila.

MR. MOWAT: On behalf of the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen), I'd like to introduce members from the CFB Comox language training centre. Taking a page from my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), I will do as tradition dictates and announce all their names. They are: Major LeBlanc, Corporal Beaulieu, 2nd Lieutenant Babin, 2nd Lieutenant Belanger, 2nd Lieutenant Boucher, 2nd Lieutenant Bourbeau, 2nd Lieutenant Guay, 2nd Lieutenant Harvey, 2nd Lieutenant Lavallee, 2nd Lieutenant Tremblay, Officer Cadet Bernard, Officer Cadet Lambert, Officer Cadet Leduc, Officer Cadet Tremblay, Mr. Wright, Mr. Muldowney, Miss Kilbride and Corporal Streeter.

MR. BARNES: First of all, I'd like to say that I'd like to be Irish for a day in the interests of St. Patrick's Day — with the approval of the House.

On behalf of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt), I would like to welcome our constituency assistants, Thelma Pankiw and Sharon Boyce, who are with us this morning.

HON. MR. PARKER: On a happy note, I'd ask the House to make welcome Mark and Amberly La Couvee, who are friends of mine visiting from Maple Ridge.

And on an unhappy note, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to advise the House that Richard Campbell passed away early yesterday morning. Richard was the secretary to the Pearse Royal Commission on Forest Resources. He was a member of the forest policy advisory committee that authored the new Forest Act, and of late he was a special consultant for the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands. We regret his passing and offer our condolences to his family.

MS. MARZARI: I'd like to welcome to the House one of the most dynamic, enthusiastic and happy people in our party, who staffs admirably well the Robson Street office of the New Democratic Party: Ms. Dixie Pidgeon.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to get on with the business of the throne speech, and I'm happy to announce that the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier) will move the throne speech.

Throne Speech Debate

MR. MERCIER: I don't know if I can work up to that applause a little, but I hope to.

Mr. Speaker and hon. members, it is with great pleasure that I, the member for the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds, present the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong), 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."

[10:15]

It is with a sense of pride and honour that I today have the opportunity to move the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I was advised that I have up to two hours, but I hope not to take that long. I would like to give a brief outline of the things I want to touch upon, because I understand that the response to the throne speech can be fairly wide-ranging. I want to offer some congratulations. I want to give a little bit of personal background so that you'll know, in the session ahead, how I come to my decisions as an MLA. I want to talk about my riding a little bit, again so that you have background on what it's like to be an MLA from an urban riding — for some of the people who aren't from the same kind of riding.

I also want to go back a little bit, just for five or six minutes, and talk about the history of parliament from the original concept, when members of the community in England approached King John and said: "Please don't give us any more taxes."

Interjection.

MR. MERCIER: Actually, the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) is so noisy right now that I can hardly think of what I was trying to say.

Especially in the original days, when parliament was first formed, the citizens were overtaxed. After I take my time, I can probably end my speech by saying that I think citizens feel they are overtaxed today.

[ Page 5594 ]

I want to talk about the transfer of wealth that occurs through the government's operations. I want to talk about events in the world as they relate to our operation in this session and the different levels of government that are really being carried by the producing sector of our society, and I'll refer to items from the throne speech.

As we all know, the throne speech is a general guideline. It highlights government plans for the third session of the thirty-fourth parliament. The government traditionally reserves the details of its plans for presentation at a later date in the session.

Congratulations. On St. Patrick's Day, I would like to congratulate those who are Irish. I think he believed in a two-party system. Two parties every day!

I would like to congratulate the MLAs who went on to national parliament, especially my dear friend Kim Campbell, who is now a minister in the federal cabinet — Minister of State for Indian and Northern Affairs.

I would also like to congratulate those new MLAs elected to our provincial Legislature. The most recently elected person, the only one I have heard say anything, is the new member for Vancouver-Point Grey. They were quite interesting, the things he was saying. It was like an anachronism. A lot of the battles he was referring to — the opposition actually has won those battles in the past. The reforms he was talking about — those battles were fought in the past. Although the opposition can perhaps take credit for all the good that happens, in the vast majority of cases we were the government that implemented the reforms.

I think the new member for Vancouver-Point Grey will probably have to get himself up to speed. He doesn't realize that a lot of the things he has touched on briefly have been taken care of most admirably by the government side of this House.

I would like to wish the new MLAs success, but since they are of a different philosophy from what I believe, I don't want them to have too much success. I would ask that they be true to their own causes — if there is anything left that they think we have not already adopted, implemented and improved on. I wish them well in their endeavours.

I notice a trend, though, that their leader shows. He is actually seeking to usurp my party's traditional turf. He sounds almost like an individual enterpriser. In any case, as a new individual enterpriser, I would like him to be welcomed to our team. Seriously, in this House, there are a lot of things we can do cooperatively, for the good of the people.

I feel it necessary to repeat some items of personal background. I never thought I would be here in this Legislature. When you start out in the political arena, you start at the local levels and you work your way up, and finally you think you've arrived. I arrived here two years ago and I basically spent the first two years learning the system and trying to understand. I am still convinced that municipal-level government is better run; on the other hand, we have a great opportunity to improve the things that we're obligated to do here.

I won't go into everything I said in my maiden speech two years ago, thank goodness, but I really wanted to say a few things. I think I have a balanced view, and I want to tell you why. I think I have the ability to look at both sides of an issue.

By knowing a bit about my background the people assembled in this House might understand where I take a position on certain issues. For instance, the single-parent issue: our family was raised by our mother, so I knew about single-parent families right from the grassroots view. I knew about the difficulties that a single-parent mother can encounter. Our family was on welfare. It's a very humbling experience, but if you haven't been there.... I don't know whether the newly elected member from Point Grey has ever been there, but basically what you want is a facility to go somewhere. You don't need somebody telling you that they're going to help you, and if they help you they get elected. I think it's important to know those things.

About housing: when you start out in a little house, four in a bedroom, you understand what the housing needs are. I'll touch on it later. I really think that if you haven't lived in a little house like that, you think that everybody has a house with 1,800 square feet and three bathrooms and things like that. So you have to know those things. If you haven't played on sports teams, you don't know what the teamwork aspect of achieving things is. If you haven't done municipal service.... It's a major ministry in the government here, so I felt it very useful to have served in Burnaby as an alderman and eventually as mayor.

It was interesting when we talked about transportation. Urban transportation to us means the light rapid transit system, which probably wouldn't be here today except for our Premier. He fought this issue through the provincial government when we were a highways-oriented province. It is a costly thing, and we are going to have to address a formula, but you can't deny that in an urban setting — a million and a half people — there was a time when it had to be built. That's when it was built, and I was happy to work with the Premier on that issue. I was representing the Greater Vancouver Regional District as the chairman of their first committee in 1980, and in 1980 the actual plans for the LRT were put in place and the budget drawn. I was happy to be the chairman of that committee and happy to set the plans and help set the budget.

I had experience for five years as a child living in a small mining town called Copper Mountain, near Princeton, B.C. If you have never lived in a small mining town and you come into an urban area.... It is quite an experience to make that jump from a small town.

On financial matters that we deal with.... Let's face it, the original Magna Carta and parliament were set up to deal with taxation. Taxation means finance. I am a chartered accountant, so one of the interesting things to me is following through the provincial

[ Page 5595 ]

budgets and appreciating the effort it took to bring the finances of this province, after a very difficult couple of years, back to being close to a balanced and manageable position.

As a small businessman, I understand that probably the most independent entrepreneurial people are the thousands of small business people, and they are the largest employers. Small business — companies and businesses of 20 and 25 people or less — employs more people than government and more people than so-called big business. Yet sometimes the people on the other side say: "Get the corporations!" I really think the corporations they're talking about getting are the big corporations, the multinationals. There aren't as many of them and they are easier to whack, but they are also important to us. But more important, don't group all the little corporations when you say that you want to bring in tax against corporations. You are talking about taxing the little companies, and when you decide to have regulatory forms, you're talking about putting in regulations that affect every little business. Those people don't have time to fill out forms; they are too busy carrying the rest of the people in this province.

I wanted to say that by having a manufacturing plant.... Actually it's a unionized manufacturing plant, a little plant with 27 people, and I've got three unions in it. I'm well unionized. We get along with them fine. We compete with another outfit, and after they set the goals for higher wages and everything, they moved their manufacturing out of the province to Alberta and Manitoba, where the wages were lower. So I understand that you can't play around with wages. People do move businesses, and you have to recognize what your market is.

I am also in the resource industry, and I think I understand the mining business. I also know about the companies on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. After learning the system here these past two years, when the member from Esquimalt (Mr. Sihota) gets up and rattles on with stuff that happened years ago, and stuff that isn't correct.... I think this session I'll probably have a few things to say to him.

Getting into the background of my riding of Burnaby-Edmonds, I know it quite well, because every school I went to is in that riding — elementary, primary, high school; and when I went to university, I went from out of the riding. This riding of Burnaby Edmonds is very special. It has a higher number of seniors than other ridings. It has serious transportation problems ahead of it, because major highway construction has to be undertaken. The LRT will probably be coming somewhere through the riding if it heads over to the Coquitlam area.

One of the problems we deal with in my riding office is new arrivals — immigrants to our country — so I understand some of the things that face new arrivals. Quite frankly, I think our federal government does a very poor job of dealing with the problems they have created for us. The federal government runs the gatehouse that lets the people into the country. Once they come into the country, that's the last thing the federal government does for them. The federal government must think that the people come into the country and spread throughout the country from the arctic to the U.S. border from each coast. And that isn't a fact. Most of the new immigrants now are coming into our urban centres. It is causing serious problems in social upheaval and also in the education system. I hope I have time to get back to that.

In my riding we have street kids and drugs. Probably if you are in 100 Mile House or Dawson Creek, everybody knows which kid is using what. But in the bigger, urban areas, the difficulty is knowing who is pushing the stuff and who is using it. With all respect to the minister, I hope that when we are dealing with that problem we don't build a huge superstructure. My kids tell me that all the advertising in the world isn't going to do it. What's going to do it is putting more workers on the street. Not a police force, but back up the police with social workers who can nip the problems in the bud. It's a social upheaval thing, and I am convinced that social upheaval is what leads to the kids getting into that pattern of life. Once they are in the pattern, it is very difficult and very expensive to deal with.

My riding also has a range of income levels. We have houses that cost a million dollars and apartments that rent for far too much for what they get in the apartment.

I would like to take a few minutes and talk about this parliament. The first thing I did when I was elected was read the history of parliament, because I wanted to find out what really happened and what we are really supposed to be doing here. I saw people pounding on each other over some sort of artificial philosophical or idealistic views, when really we are all here to solve the problems the best way we know how for the people that we serve.

[10:30]

I'd like to take a few minutes and say that.... You know, when you read about parliament.... I don't know if everybody is really interested in this, but I am going to say it anyway. It started with King John. The law originally was the mutual relations between the lord and the man, or the servant. It was the duty of the lord to maintain and protect the rights of his men. King John was accused of stretching his liberties so far that they infringed on other liberties that were in place. Although many facets of the Magna Carta are now obsolete, it still remains as a symbol of the rule of law.

There are a couple of relevant points currently, where we have to go back in history to establish why the basis of law is important to this parliament. Over a period of 200 years, the different governments and parliaments and kings and queens confirmed that the system they were adopting and perfecting was good. They were mainly reminding everyone that the laws be maintained and observed. It is important to note that at that time the laws were to be observed not just by the people but by the king too. It's a balancing effect. That was the foundation of the constitutional governments. It was that the liberties of all free men depended on the observation of law by king, lord and

[ Page 5596 ]

commoner alike. Because without the law — it was true then and it is true now — there is no liberty.

Currently, you take people who have a lawful enterprise, and you take other people who want to stop people from having access. The right of access to a lawful enterprise is really a freedom or liberty that goes right back to the beginning of the parliamentary system. Whenever we see people who are driving spikes in the bottom of a tree to stop somebody from cutting the tree down, you have a case where, if the tree lawfully belonged to somebody, the lawful right of that person to cut it down is in the roots of our parliamentary system. If the people don't want the tree cut down, and they are wanting to lobby and approach for a change in the law, they have the legal right to do so. But it's important that we remember that any groups that have special interests must observe the major law of the land first and deal with their personal gripe and their personal issue second. To reverse the process puts us right back into the twelfth century.

The earlier parliaments depend on something else. The liberty depends on the ordinary, reasonable man. We are sitting here, and we have to take that approach. When we are criticizing each other, to uphold the dignity of the parliament, we have to assume that we are all reasonable people. I think we have such a hunger to perpetuate ourselves in office that we tend sometimes to go to all lengths to either gain office or perpetuate it. I think that is not what the original intention was. I think we have to get back to that.

I'm getting down to the close of this part. In the seventeenth century it became law that no legislation could be passed, no taxation raised or armed forces maintained without the authority of parliament. I will come back to the taxation issue. It was also evident that protection of the liberties of England rested with parliament. In other words, we are here to protect the liberties of our people as much as anything.

The key to the parliamentary situation — and this is interesting too, for the opposition — is that it really evolved to where it is today around 1781 when Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition was created. In other words, before that time it was individual people coming to the parliament. Around that time I think you could say the battle lines came to be drawn between who were Her Majesty's opposition and who were Her Majesty's government. After the settlers took the laws and liberties of England with them to Canada and, interestingly enough, for all provinces except Quebec.... Our federal government has followed the English model, and all the provinces followed that model, except Quebec. When we are operating this House, the efficiency of maintaining liberty and fair taxation depends on the extent to which the principles originally enunciated are carried out by the legislation.

The reason why I want to go back in history is that I think we have current needs. Sometimes this body is a little awkward to deal with in terms of addressing issues as they arrive. I think we have overdeveloped our governments compared with what was envisaged, but I can see how it could happen. You take a little country like England — in terms of geographical area, even though it has more people — and you try and apply those systems to a country like ours, and then put in another layer, interprovincial, and I can say: no wonder the people of this country feel like we're over-governed. It's a fact. No wonder we have more government workers per capita than almost any country in the world. We've designed this ourselves. The politicians of the day, from time to time, taking on functions, have ended up where we almost have more people in government than doing anything else. Why is that relevant to us? Because we have a Premier who brought in a proposal to privatize, and we're continuing the privatization. It's the first time that anyone has had as much success at downsizing the bureaucracy, bringing into greater balance the number of people providing the services with those receiving them.

I hope it wasn't too boring to go through that history. Sometimes when we're sitting here and thinking of the next election and whether we can get our pension, we have to realize that the idea was no taxation without legislation. They certainly didn't envisage this in those days when they really just wanted to tell King John that he was killing them with taxes. They didn't say to him: "Give us pre-school. Give us all these hospitals. Give us all these care things that we have." We do them all excellently, but it's about time that we ask ourselves how much more remains to be done. That's probably why the federal members of the opposition party are having a great deal of difficulty getting themselves established as a national party. What more can they promise? Of course, our party has no aspirations federally, so we're quite comfortable to just run this province properly.

I think it's important to think how much more the people who produce things can give. That's not to say that there aren't people who need help and need services. What's the relevance of our actions? How much government involvement do we want in our lives?

I have a couple of points that are very personal, but I thought I'd put them into the context of the throne speech in this way. We are bringing people to our country because they want to be Canadians, but we're having a difficult time telling them that patriotism is more important than multiculturalism. I hope that when the government gets into funding programs for multiculturalism at the provincial level, we make it conditional that there be a patriotic bent to it. This is a very personal view, but I know it's shared by many I've talked to. In my mind, we're not trying to ask people to bring their country here; we're trying to tell them that we have a country that's been built in a certain way by a certain type of people, over time, and we want them to come here and contribute to future growth.

What we don't want to be doing is funding little factions that have no idea what the patriotic bent of this country is — perpetuating what I call their own social causes. It's important that they preserve their social culture, but it's important that it be kept in

[ Page 5597 ]

perspective with our total goals. I hope there's a chance to say more on this as the session goes on.

In the throne speech we mention international marketing centres. Probably the best thing we can do, as this globe shrinks in terms of communication and transportation, is to support these international marketing centres.

Grants to business. I'm not really high on giving grants to business, because it only forms about 1 percent of our provincial product. I've found that too many people have built their businesses up without any grants and aren't too happy when they're getting taxes and their money is going to help other people start up, sometimes in a competitive scene. I may be at odds with some policies we have in that area, but I think we'll work that out.

It's mentioned in the throne speech that the European Economic Community is heading to a combination in 1992 that no one ever thought would happen. They're continuing the formation of the European Economic Community. The target is that by 1992 all their financial institutions will be combined. If you had told some of those countries 50 years ago that they would have gone as far as they have towards a cooperative effort, after they came from being kingdoms and feudal lords and things like that, they would have thought you were out of your mind. But all indications are that by 1992 they will virtually have completed the total assimilation of all the major components of their different countries.

I mentioned the transfer of wealth in the opening remarks. We have a problem with the transfer of wealth in this country because the rich are getting richer, and the poor are not making headway. But what you have to decide here and what they have to decide at the federal level is what is fair. Who is going to say that when you're paying a tax dollar, and it's going into the hands of somebody as a rental subsidy, that the person getting the rental subsidy is entitled to live in a 1,000 square foot apartment?

I think the thorniest issue we're going to have, when we talk about programs and we want to expand those programs, is what is fair. Right now we're in a very fine balance where the people who are producing the funds, through their efforts and the efforts of their employees, are saying: "Why should I struggle?" Here's a single mother with three kids. Why should she struggle to pay $750 rent and keep a job, when she could go on some kind of social assistance where they would provide better accommodation for her with no headache? There's a point of conflict there that we're going to have to watch very carefully.

We have to recognize that some people have abilities that other people don't have. We have to help people whose abilities are limited, through no fault of their own. I really have a problem — and a lot of people who I have dealt with over the past 20 years in politics have a problem — with helping people who have no evident disability but are simply taking out of the system and following the easy road.

So it's a balance. When you talk about transfer of wealth, the governments — because of their tax mechanism — are the biggest transfer of wealth proponents that we have. We have to be careful that we don't kill the goose of the people who produce it.

[10:45]

The throne speech mentions financial support for social programs. The financial support can be generated only by enterprise and productivity. It requires a positive investment climate necessary to attract capital — world capital that's welcome from all sources. We can't afford to be discriminatory about where the capital comes from into our province. Interestingly enough, if the International Monetary Fund can take money out of our Canadian treasuries and give it to all nations around the world, then there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't welcome capital from all those sources.

In the flow of events, we are just a speck. We're very small in terms of the whole globe. In the capital movement, millions and millions of yen, dollars and francs are moving around this world every day. We're just a speck. But if you've travelled — I travelled to places like Russia before they had a leader who was trying to bring them out of the wilderness, and to Japan at the time when their economy started to heat up a couple of years ago, and Central and South America where they have huge inflation problems — you'll find that we're doing a darned good job in this province of managing our finances.

When you're talking about helping Guatemala and other countries in the world, naturally they will look to us as an example of how a government is well-run and how a Premier has the courage to say: "Let's put a hold on some things and get our house in order." It's very lonely at the top.

I like to visualize this province as an elephant that we're pushing. This elephant is moving in a direction, and we are very unlikely to change the general direction in a four-year term of office. You can whack it on the foot with a sledge-hammer, and you can bash it in the side of the head, but it is going to keep trundling along.

What we can hope to do is set a direction and tie our affairs in with the economy of the world and try to plan it so we don't have any dislocation of our services. If all things go well and follow the budget plans of the Minister of Finance that will be coming out, we should be able to follow a path that makes sense and gives confidence to the investors of the world. We have our own momentum, and we intend to do the job in such a way that we'll attract the investors and get the employment up.

Our influence as MLAs is very short-term, but the implications of what we do are very long-term. In the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, it states that B.C. Is Canada's gateway to the Pacific nations, that the fundamental belief and vision guides our government to fulfill the potential of our promise on joining Confederation. I believe in that.

I have a note about the different levels of government. Tax freedom day. For those who don't know what it means, it means that when you're a working person and you're paying taxes, there is a point in the year where you get to keep some of the money

[ Page 5598 ]

you've earned. The money in the first part of the year is going to pay different taxes. Tax freedom day for the country as a whole, last year, fell on July 1. This year the total average tax rate across this country rose above 50 percent of the income of everybody who's working, and that moved the tax freedom day ahead nine days to July 10. That means we are now working more for governments than we are for ourselves. How long can that trend continue? If the government deficits are represented as deferred tax, the citizens do not escape their indenture to the state until August 12. That is, the tax claim on the average cash income across the country when you include the debt works out to 61 percent. How do you feel about that?

I'm saying to the federal government that I'd almost be ready to secede from Canada if they don't address their deficit. Financially speaking, our provincial citizens would be a heck of a lot better off under our Premier's leadership in downsizing government and matching income and expense than we would be if we stayed in Canada. I've already told the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) that if they get on to the federal sales tax they're proposing, which is going to result in another transfer of B.C. money to the bottomless pit in Ottawa, then I'm going to fight it for the whole session.

In the throne speech the priorities were environmental. We have preservation of the environment and intelligent utilization of resources. There will be a lot more said about that, but our programs are solid.

In economic growth and diversification we are a real driving force. If we can start selling goods into the California market –– 24 million people there — and the Pacific Rim, we'll have a secure future for the citizens of this province.

We have an education policy that is moving ahead so well that in Burnaby the people involved in education are coming up to me and saying what a great Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) we have.

We're going to stick to this. The throne speech is perfectly clear. We're going to stick to sound fiscal management. We're going to stick to a strong private sector generating growth. We're going to try and match government capital programs to business cycles. On that one, Mr. Premier, I hope we do that with the LRT; it's a good time to build the extension if we have a recession. That's what happened last time, and it really is good planning, rather than competing with the expanded housing demands and so on. We can time it. Do the planning and build it when we have a recession.

Housing: we have an action plan.

Health is a little understated, but we are really on side with the health programs we have in this province. They're the best in the world.

The different committees and task forces: enough was said about them already.

I have just a few more minutes, Mr. Speaker, to wrap up my thoughts. The Speech from the Throne builds on the strength of our economic and social roots. It sets the province on a course that will allow us to take advantage of the emergent Pacific economy. The advantage of sound fiscal management is made clear by this document. It's a difficult but necessary decision that had to be made. Those difficult decisions of the previous Social Credit government and our government have given us a little more flexibility than we would have had, by getting towards a balanced budget. The Speech from the Throne recognizes the close relationship between the economy, the environment and education. That's where we are today.

It also outlines strong initiatives to protect the environment. It promises tougher regulations there. Most exciting of all, it promises the establishment of the environmental youth services program, which will provide seasonal employment for our youth working in environmental enhancement and reclamation projects.

The throne speech underscores the importance of a well-trained, well-educated workforce, and that's something I particularly believe in. It outlines the government's intention to share in the cost of employer-based training and retraining programs. I'd like to see the unions get involved. I'd like to see them do positive things with their workers to help these training programs fit, and not say, every time somebody has a job at a training rate, that it's sacrificing one of their unionized workers. It's a cooperative endeavour that we have to have here. The program that is planned promises to strengthen apprenticeship programs and to expand literacy programs throughout the province.

It's my great pleasure to express my support for the principles and the direction taken and contained in this address and to be part of the team that has undertaken the great task of guiding the province into the next decade of our history. I'd like to say to the opposition: "It's up to you and us." I'd like to remind them of the original parliament. Don't oppose just for the sake of opposing. You've got some bright people over there and some people that I consider friends — I don't know if they're still friends today. If you have some good ideas, then put them forward in the traditional parliamentary sense; don't save them up for an election. We're all going to make mistakes, but the opposition's obligation is to say how things can be done better.

Whatever we do, the taxpayers pay for it. There are some people I've seen in politics over the years who wouldn't pay a nickel to see an earthquake, but when it comes to the money that has been raised off the taxpayers, they're the grandest spenders. I think that's probably what's facing the federal government now. They have to learn that the people at the bottom of the pile who are paying the bill don't really want much more from them. They would just like to see justice and liberty and fairness.

In closing, if we do a good job — and of course we hope to do a better job than the opposition might suggest — ultimately the voters will decide, and it'll be a natural thing: the good guys will win. Right? We aim to do our job so well that we'll make your job difficult and, hopefully, redundant.

[ Page 5599 ]

MR. De JONG: It is indeed a great privilege and a distinct honour for me to second the Speech from the Throne moved by the hon. member from Burnaby Edmonds.

I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, and your deputy on the fine job you've done in the past year. Your impartiality, your adherence to the rules of this Legislature, have added greatly to the proceedings in this House. I do want to wish you and your deputy the very best for this upcoming session.

As the second member for Central Fraser Valley, I'm proud to be associated with a government with a sense of vision and clear purpose. It is not only the contents of the throne speech we should be celebrating today but also the process of public consultation that has helped to shape it. This Speech from the Throne could only be given because this government has governed with care, concern and deep respect for the people of this province.

The Speech from the Throne and its initiatives are a reflection of the past, an expression of the present and a very realistic approach for the future. The past two years have injected a new sense of optimism, initiatives and determination into all British Columbians. It was that same sense of optimism that made us, as a new immigrant family coming to British Columbia in 1947, start a new life in this province. We did not come with a pocketful of money. In fact, as a family of 10 — my parents with eight children — all we left Holland with was $400 in our pockets, barely enough to make the train trip from Montreal to British Columbia. We established roots and laid a foundation. We built upon that foundation collectively as a family. This government is no different; in fact, it exemplifies exactly what is experienced by many people. Whether by those who came in the fifties or the forties, or those who came 100 or 200 years ago, our ancestors built on that same philosophy.

[11:00]

This is a government that believes in the ability of the private sector to generate prosperity. And what is the private sector but the majority of British Columbians? It is upon that majority that the strength of this government has built its foundation. This is a government that has always believed in the private sector and in the abilities of British Columbians from all walks of life.

In virtually every area, this government has gone to the people for ideas and local perspective, and as a result we know that the foundations of fiscal responsibility and care for those with monetary requirements and need for justice are appreciated by the people. The people appreciate the sound planning to meet and enhance the development of our natural resources and our economy for the future.

This government, in fact, has consulted face-to-face with people in every community, region and area of this great province. They have communicated with the people on justice, elementary, secondary and post-secondary education, forest policy, environment, services to seniors and many other policy areas. At the same time, this government has managed fiscal matters with even-handed discipline, equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none. The result is a sound economic base that will be the envy of the rest of the country in the years ahead.

I would just like to speak a little at this point about my parliamentary secretary position with the Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch). The seed capital program has now been in existence for just about eight months or so. Yes, it had a slow start. There was a lot of criticism from the other side of the House last year on the initiation of that program. There is no question that perhaps we have done not too good a job in explaining and letting people know what this program is all about.

At the same time, I must say that during the eight months I have been with the ministry I have experienced not only the determination and the initiatives of British Columbians but a real, strong desire of many people to expand and start new businesses in this province. We have monthly meetings of the seed capital program committee, which determines whether the applications are sound ones to proceed with from the government perspective. Each month the number of applications is increasing, and surely this is going to have only a positive effect on the future of this great province.

While government likes to pat itself on the back, we really don't have to do that. The Investment Dealers' Association of Canada has done it for us. They recently predicted a decade of solid growth for British Columbia. And what did they attribute it to? Sound fiscal management.

This is proven time and time again, in particular by statistical information. Whereas 1987 was a boom year in British Columbia economically, in 1988 capital expenditures were up 18.3 percent over the year before. Housing starts and completions in British Columbia are at their highest level since the early 1980s. Urban housing starts reached almost 27,000 in 1988. Completions rose by 13.4 percent over 1987, to just under 25,000.

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne outlines an integrated approach to economic growth. It acknowledges the important part natural resources must play in our economy, but it also emphasizes the need to get more value out of them. B.C., for instance, is mining more coal than ever before. The production of coal in 1988 increased by 24 percent, pushing output to almost 22 million tonnes for the year.

Attracted by the strength of the economy, net migration to the province from elsewhere in Canada and abroad reached over 46,000 people in 1988.

The small business forest enterprise program will undoubtedly open up many new opportunities to increase value-added forest products. It continues the very successful economic diversification policy, the success of which was noted in the investment dealers' report which I quoted earlier.

At the same time, this government recognized the important part transportation plays in economic development. The capital rebuilding program to be undertaken by the B.C. Ferry Corporation will not

[ Page 5600 ]

only improve access to the Island but also create many jobs in the shipbuilding industry.

A provincewide comprehensive highways development program will see major initiatives undertaken in every region of the province. Transportation is one of the most important tools for the success of each and every community as well as the province as a whole. A planning process which is now in place — and I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition will agree to this — has been sought by municipal and city governments for many years. I'm very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to report today that throughout the region we have had exceptional response by all levels of government, regional as well as municipal. Many people were eager to join in on the planning process throughout our region. Their sense of volunteerism and commitment to their community will, without a doubt, be of great assistance to this government as well as to the people of this great province.

I'm happy to note the reference in the throne speech to the Vancouver Airport. We know that increasing traffic is at hand and undoubtedly will further increase since we are a very focal point in the Pacific Rim trade and business area. These transportation initiatives will have a dramatic effect on the infrastructure around which economic development is woven.

The government will also introduce an energy policy which will ensure environmentally sound energy for industry and for the community and will look into cogeneration projects that convert waste material into energy.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to speak in support of the training and apprenticeship messages contained in the Speech from the Throne. As we move into the 1990s and beyond, unemployment will present real challenges for all governments. As the profile of unemployment has changed over the last few years, new ways of dealing with it must be found. Looking back two years, though, this government has nothing to be ashamed of. We need only look at the statistics. The economic climate has never been better than it is today; 64,000 more British Columbians were working in February 1989 than in February 1988. This accounts for 27 percent of all new jobs created in the total country. B.C.'s employment rate of over 4.8 percent ranks the highest in Canada and greatly exceeds the national average of 1.9 percent. The size of the labour force increased by 27,000 people from last month and by 55,000 people from the same month a year ago.

This government has outlined a non-partisan approach which I think will be welcomed by all sectors of society. I am pleased to see that all current training programs will undergo a review to ensure that they are able to respond to today's needs. This is not to say that the colleges and universities haven't done a good job in the past. Together with many other MLAs we had the privilege of visiting Simon Fraser University in January. We also visited Fraser Valley College along with another group of MLAs, and the optimism and the enthusiasm among the staff is tremendous. They are very pleased with what the government has been doing and are certainly most eager to work together with the government to further improve education to match the job opportunities of today.

While there is a genuine concern among the general public about environmental issues, this government is very serious about the environment but also about the protection of it. Again, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to relate something from back in our own riding. We have a very efficient newspaper and cardboard collection service by Matsqui-Abbotsford Community Services. This service has been in existence for approximately 11 or 12 years. They've experienced some hard times, but the endurance and the will to succeed of those people that manage Matsqui-Abbotsford Community Services, in respect to this type of service, is phenomenal. They employ many people with minor handicaps. They have also been very successful not only in getting local government support, but they have total community support. I am very pleased that this desire is there not just with government but also with the people. Certainly the Matsqui-Abbotsford area is a very good example to follow for the rest of the communities of British Columbia.

I have no doubt that the direction laid out in the throne speech will ensure that our air, water and soil are clean, and that the food we produce is clean now and always. British Columbia is viewed as a clean place by many people who have visited this province. Our agricultural products are viewed as clean and relatively chemical-free. This of course is enhanced by courses now offered at community colleges for the safe application of approved chemicals, safeguarding the applicant as well as the public at large.

No other province, Mr. Speaker, has set its standards on quality control for dairy products as high as British Columbia. I must say that the dairymen throughout the province are proud to be able to deliver such high-quality food to the tables of British Columbia consumers. Along with this quality objective, of course, is the desire to be allowed to increase the volume of product under the Canadian market share plan, so that more British Columbians can enjoy the butter, cheese and other products produced in this great province. As well, there is a growing market for that kind of product in Europe and around the world. There is a one million kilogram agreement of sale of mozzarella cheese to Japan by one of the largest processing plants in our province. Legislation is foreshadowed by the throne speech which will put our province in a position to capitalize on that growing market. It is a very positive step. I trust that greater details of those initiatives will come before the House later in this session. As a member for Central Fraser Valley I know that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) and the people in the industry will recognize the opportunity being presented here and will support this initiative.

[11:15]

While I am not a specialist in the field of social services, Mr. Speaker, I am eager for this chance to say a few words about the social initiatives described

[ Page 5601 ]

in this speech. We have heard it said that prosperity is the rising tide that raises all ships. The responsible approach to cutting the deficit undertaken by our government over the last few years has provided us the freedom now to embark on several projects that might not have been possible otherwise. A minister of state for issues affecting women is timely and ambitious. It is as much an economic initiative as it is a social one. I know that this initiative will be welcomed by single mothers in particular. We cannot progress as an economy or a society unless we address the issue of training and job opportunities for women, day care, and related issues.

This speech also reaches out to children, and proposes to expand educational, medical and social services, and to assist and expand on this very important public service. I am happy to see that. Initiatives to stimulate affordable housing and senior housing projects, increases to the shelter portion of GAIN for income assistance recipients, and a renters' tax credit program will ease the burden facing many British Columbians today. All necessary, but also very commendable.

Mr. Speaker, the initiatives contained in the Speech from the Throne would not have been possible had this government, in its first two years, not worked hard towards a sustainable economy. Running a government, in many respects, is not much different from — in fact it is very similar to — managing the family budget. If you overspend, you can only pass it on to your children.

I have been somewhat skeptical of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition over the last few weeks. In fact, I had chills going up and down my spine, Mr. Speaker, particularly when I consider these remarks in light of what happened to the mining and construction industries during the period of 1972-75. Why did these industries not continue to function here in British Columbia? Why did a company such as Dominion Bridge, employing 1,000 people, leave the scene? Surely it was not because of unstable economic conditions. Do the socialists of today have such a different philosophy from what they had in those days? I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will take great pride, in the days ahead, in answering these questions.

There was a handsome accumulated surplus on hand when they took office in 1972. Did they spend it on roads or bridges? I am sure it is to the contrary. The fact was that the highways and bridges in British Columbia in 1975 were in total disrepair. Did the socialists have the social, education and health programs we have today? Surely not. This government has embarked on a wide range of programs reaching the real needs of the people far better.

I am confident that the people of this province can identify with this government's aims and objectives, which are clearly outlined in the Speech from the Throne. They are: sound fiscal management, expanded education opportunities to prepare our youth for tomorrow's technology and workplace and to provide for the social needs of those affected by the winds of life.

This is a throne speech anyone in government would be proud to be part of. It does credit to the province of British Columbia and to the people who helped shape it. I am convinced that the people of this province are looking forward to the implementation of these interesting and exciting initiatives contained in this speech.

In conclusion, I am happy to be part of this great government and to assist in this great task. I trust that God will give us — each and every one of us — the strength and wisdom to work together in unity for the betterment of the people of this province.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, it's clear that the people of British Columbia are way out ahead of this government. It's clear from the tired old rhetoric today and the government's throne speech of yesterday that for this government to find out what British Columbians are concerned about, they have to check the polls.

After everyone else in B.C. knows about pollution, they've just learned how to spell the word "environment." Now you have appointed a task force to tell you what it means. Well, the people of B.C. know what it means; they know what the problems are. They don't want another study; they want solutions. They want legislative action to protect the environment and create jobs. They want to know that the resources we have been blessed with in B.C. will still be there for their children. While you are studying the problem, we put forward concrete solutions. While you are thinking about it, we have tabled notice of legislation. British Columbians are way out ahead of this government.

Your name-calling is tiring and useless. We ask the government to give us solutions, not rhetoric. Where is the CFC ban? Where is the $1 million fine for polluters? Where is the offshore oil moratorium? Where are the reductions in dioxin emissions?

The throne speech is filled with study and review, and review and study. I am surprised we even had a throne speech and that you didn't want to launch a study of it first.

In the one area where there is nearly unanimous demand for a serious and comprehensive review, forestry, where the heck is a royal commission on forestry? Could it be that this government doesn't want anyone to know what they've done with our forests? Could it be that our forests are just another sweet deal for your friends and Socred insiders? Where's the action on forestry? Where's the ban on the export of raw logs? Yes, we do want that. Where's the TFL moratorium? Where are the new jobs from value-added manufacturing?

The only reference in the throne speech to action is in regard to housing. We're going to have a housing action plan. Again, the government is going to have to be dragged along by the people of British Columbia, who are saying give us a tax on real estate flipping. Give first-time home buyers a break. And bring back the rentalsman.

[ Page 5602 ]

Yesterday the Premier said: "This is the finest throne speech ever delivered in the history of British Columbia." Mr. Speaker, this speech is nothing more than an admission of the mistakes of this government on every issue of critical importance to the people of British Columbia.

On Monday afternoon I want to go into greater detail, not just about the areas of sustainable development — forestry, the environment and housing — and the lack of action by this government in the throne speech, but about other important matters as well.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:27 a.m.