[ Page 5169 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Resignation of UBC president. Mr. Rose –– 5169

Mr. Williams

Mr. Davis

Fiscal Planning. Mr. Williams –– 5170

Brain drain. Mr. Williams –– 5170

University tuition. Mr. Macdonald –– 5170

Federal-provincial reforestation agreement. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5170

Ministerial Statement

Princess Marguerite. Hon. Mr. Smith –– 5171

Mr. Williams

Private Members' Statements

Silviculture plan. Mrs. Wallace –– 5172

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Women in society. Ms. Brown –– 5173

Hon. Mr. Pelton

Mr. Reid

Ms. Sanford

Health disciplines review board. Mr. Reynolds –– 5175

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Mr. Cocke

Provincial fisheries. Mr. Hanson –– 5177

Hon. Mr. Pelton

Throne speech debate

Mr. MacWilliam –– 5180

Mr. Parks –– 5182

Ms. Brown –– 5185

FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1985

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would join me in extending a very special greeting to the women of British Columbia today, International Women's Day

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members to join me in extending a warm welcome to two friends from Abbotsford. They are our school district trustees, Mr. Sharp and Mr. Smith. Would you please welcome these gentlemen.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with me in welcoming two school trustees from School District 61, Donna Jones and June Whitmore.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I would like to take the opportunity to introduce some individuals important in my life. Present today, along with my wife Arlene and my son Matthew, are my daughters, Karalyn and Tana, as well as my mother-in-law Mrs. Rita Sundvick from the constituency of Burnaby North. I would like to introduce them to the House.

Oral Questions

RESIGNATION OF UBC PRESIDENT

MR. ROSE: I have a question for the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. We were shocked yesterday, Mr. Speaker, to learn of the departure of George Pedersen, the president of UBC and a distinguished British Columbian. Among the reasons he cited for his departure was lack of communication with government, and going to some jurisdiction with greater political stability — that happens to be Ontario — no partnership and constant meddling in the affairs of the University.

I want to ask the minister: when does he intend to stop meddling in the affairs of UBC?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I first disabuse the member who asked the question, and all members of the House: the government is not meddling and will not meddle in the affairs of the University of British Columbia. I categorically — and I restate categorically — deny such a statement. Having said that, I wish the ex-president of UBC well in the new post he has been offered at the University of Western Ontario. The pro tem president of the University of British Columbia, Dr. Robert Smith, is an outstanding academic who has been doing yeoman service in the administration of the University of British Columbia. He will provide strong leadership for that institution. I urge all members to get behind the new administration of the University of British Columbia.

MR. ROSE: Among the other things that the ex-president charged was the lack of academic freedom, and I think we can anticipate the departure of other distinguished people as long as there is no change in the policies. Has the minister any idea of others in the academic field who are about to leave the province?

HON. MR. McGEER: I suppose in every instance where an academic person would leave, it would be to a better-paying and a more advanced academic post. Many of the people who are recruited to British Columbia come from around the world. Dr. Pedersen himself, when he was recruited as the president of the University of British Columbia, was recruited partway through his term from Simon Fraser University. So I think one has to recognize that the pool of academic talent is a worldwide pool, and indeed — I say this as an academic — if there is not a brisk demand for people in the faculty of your university, the faculty aren't good enough. There must be demand for faculty, and if there isn't you need to be worried about their quality. So don't be concerned if there are people who have job offers elsewhere. We would like it to be that every single faculty member was in sufficient demand by universities around the world that he had several offers on his desk at any given time. That means you've got outstanding faculty.

[10:15]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, in the neighbouring province of Alberta budgetary information is indicated — in a general way, at least — to the institutions in the fall. This is not the case in British Columbia, so there are all kinds of rumours about program closures. I can cite some of them, if you like, including architecture. I'd like to ask the minister: when will the government be in a position to end this business of uncertainty and economic chaos so the institutions of our province can get some kind of information necessary for their advance planning and programming?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, there is no economic chaos. What we have in British Columbia is a situation where there are many unemployed — I don't know the exact figures today — and the difficulty of taxpayers' meeting the bills of our educational institutions and other social services. What needs to be recognized by administrators of universities, chairmen of school boards and administrators of hospitals is that taxpayers are having difficulty meeting their bills, and that they need to be careful in spending the taxpayers' money. We expect, and you in the opposition should expect, no more and no less from any public administrator than you would expect from a private sector employer meeting a difficult financial situation. They have all got to pull their weight, including the president of the University of British Columbia.

MR. ROSE: Is the minister aware that the provincial share of the universities has been dropping over the years to the point where the feds are paying 78 percent, the students 16 percent, and the province a puny 3.5 percent of the university budget?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, every single year since the Great Depression there has been a substantial increase in dollars provided to our universities in British Columbia, with a single exception: last year, which was the most difficult economic year for British Columbia since that Great Depression. As times improve, everybody in British Columbia will be in better economic circumstances. We're all in this together, and every single British Columbian, including the president of the University of British Columbia, has got to recognize that it's a requirement to pull your weight in tough economic times.

[ Page 5170 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, "meddling" and "lack of communication" are terms used by the former president of the University of British Columbia. Is the Minister of Universities questioning the integrity of this long-time university servant, the man who says that indeed there is meddling in the universities, that there isn't stability in government in this province? Is he questioning that integrity? Is that what it's...?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The hon. member is well aware that his remarks go well beyond those allowed in question period. They would be in order in a debate but not at question time.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I flatly deny every single one of those charges, and I am prepared to debate with this member, or anybody else in British Columbia, that particular statement. I deny it.

MR. DAVIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister please tell us what the annual rate of pay was of the president of UBC, and what retirement package did he recently negotiate?

HON. MR. McGEER: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker, and table it in the House at the earliest possible time.

FISCAL PLANNING

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance. When can we anticipate some rational fiscal planning for our institutions in this province, like Alberta, in terms of advance notice on funding and contributions from the province, so that there can be rational spending at these institutions, without having only two weeks to prepare their programs for the immediate fiscal year that's on top of them? It seems to me that that can't work.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the second member for Vancouver East, I would think that as a former minister, 1972-1975, he would know that the Minister of Finance allocates block money to individual ministries, and then the individual ministers and their ministries work out the arrangements and schedules with respect to transfer of money, in this particular case to universities. I would point out that it seems to me, as someone who was associated with local government, that indeed we were waiting not just a couple weeks when the NDP was in power; sometimes we were well into the new budget year before we had any information with respect to government funding.

BRAIN DRAIN

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of International Trade and Investment on the issue of export. The primary export currently in British Columbia is brains. I wonder if the minister would be carrying dossiers and resumes in the future, since clearly the people we need in this province are leaving all too often.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I don't think that particular member will have to be too worried about exporting his.

UNIVERSITY TUITION

MR. MACDONALD: To the Minister of Universities. The minister says that the students of 40 years ago at the universities had it soft in terms of the money they paid in fees compared to those today. Right? But in those days university education was the privilege of a well-to-do elite...

AN HON. MEMBER: Like you.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

...to the extent of about 80 percent.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Is it the policy of that minister to take university education back to the bad old days when it would only be available to those who could afford it, the privileged elite? Is that your policy?

HON. MR. McGEER: The member, Mr. Speaker, makes me doubt to some extent the statement I made about stiffer standards in those days. Certainly we do everything we can to support the ability of students to attend our post-secondary institutions. I think that was very evident in the figures which I tabled in the House at 6 o'clock last evening. I would ask the member to study those because they show that of our graduating secondary students — that is, grade 12 graduates — eligible to go on to university level programs, over 50 percent today are attending such post-secondary institutions. That's up. It has increased every single year, going from the high forties to, now, the low fifties. We are covering at the present time over half the eligible people at university level courses — let alone vocational level courses — so obviously the opportunity is there; and it's very widespread, Mr. Member.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL
REFORESTATION AGREEMENT

MR. MacWILLIAM: My question is to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). Because the Okanagan timber supply area contributes a substantial portion to the local economy, and because StatsCan figures announced recently — in fact, today — for unemployment were 24.5 percent for the North Okanagan, my question to the minister is this: in order to generate immediate employment in the forestry sector in the North Okanagan and throughout British Columbia, will the minister secure an immediate agreement with the federal government to secure that $300 million joint federal-provincial agreement on reforestation?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member for North Okanagan may not be aware that during this last two years lumber production from the interior of British Columbia has been at record highs, and employment has been at the levels that can produce this record high amount of lumber production. I will say again, as I have said so many times in recent weeks, that we are making every effort to conclude an

[ Page 5171 ]

agreement with the federal government, and I'm sure that member will be aware as soon as we have concluded such an agreement.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 35 to move the following motion, seconded by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly): that this House do now adjourn to debate the resignation of the president of the University of British Columbia, and a statement of the former president that British Columbia lacks political stability under the present government.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair will undertake to review the matter and bring a response back to the House at the earliest opportunity. The Attorney-General seeks the floor.

HON. MR. SMITH: I wish to make a ministerial statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

PRINCESS MARGUERITE

HON. MR. SMITH: As the minister responsible for the Princess Marguerite, or, more particularly, the B.C. Steamship Company, which is the Royal Victoria Navy, I have pleasure in announcing that early in assuming my duties — and these very pleasant duties of being admiral of the Royal Victoria Navy — and constituting a meeting of this board, I have two announcements to make.

The first announcement is that the first sailing of the Princess Marguerite has been advanced by one week — from May 9 to May 15 — as part of a major promotion of the service. During that week, to promote the service of the Princess Marguerite, we will feature half-fares for round-trip passengers from Seattle and Victoria. That will be advertised throughout the Pacific Northwest. We think it will be most positive.

In view of the 7 percent increase in tourism this year and the very strong U.S. dollar, we think that will attract an additional bevy of tourists to Victoria and the first week will more than pay for revenue savings.

The second announcement that I have to make in connection with my duties with the Princess Marguerite is that the board of directors of the B.C. Steamship Company have approved a lease to Island Jetfoil Corp. for docking facilities at its Seattle terminal, and we have also reached an agreement in principle regarding the facilities in Victoria. Details of that, when they are signed, will be made public, but I can assure the House that both leases and the terms of the leases are supported by independent appraisals.

The third thing that I have to announce is that we are going to have major marketing strategy in the year ahead for the Princess Marguerite — going into the Expo year, and that we will have the Ministry of Tourism's marketing capabilities totally available to us for the first time.

MR. WILLIAMS: I wonder if the minister responsible for the B.C. Steamship Company would provide the House with the various staff studies that have taken place with respect to the shoulder seasons, and the question of embarking two weeks ahead of schedule rather than the one. The one week is certainly an improvement for the Victoria economy, but it's my understanding that the staff studies initially recommended the two-week shoulder so that the local economy would benefit from two additional weeks of tourism, not the one that the minister has just provided.

In addition, I would hope we would have some assurance that the appraisals with respect to the leases will be made available to all members of the House in terms of this competitive enterprise with the Princess Marguerite. I would appreciate it if the House would be provided with all the details with respect to that, including information regarding who handled the negotiations for Island Jetfoil Corp. with respect to these various leasehold arrangements. I wonder too if a broader study was carried out with respect to the general benefits to the Victoria economy and the province in terms of sales tax revenue and other incomes from the province which would have justified the longer sailing of at least two weeks.

[10:30]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: I want to rise on a point of order with respect to the proceedings that have just taken place, namely ministerial statements. As an appendage to the standing orders that are in effect at this session, there are a number of references to consultation between the government and the opposition over certain matters — practice recommendations, albeit. Nonetheless, the spirit and the idea was that consultation would take place.

With respect to ministerial statements, May's eighteenth edition at page 332 advises of a certain course of action in Westminster in this regard. It says: "Since 1964, notice" — this is with respect to ministerial statements — "has whenever possible been given to members of impending ministerial statements by means of a notice placed in the members' lobby." What I am suggesting is in the spirit of consultation, which is embodied in the report of the committee unanimously adopted by this House, and might be a course of action to follow for ministers intending to make ministerial statements in the House. Through the courtesy within every one of those ministers, they could provide members of the opposition — from the appropriate spokesperson for that particular ministry — with an advance copy, if they find it inappropriate to post it in the members' lobby. People would know in advance what is to be stated and be in a position, thus, to prepare an appropriate response.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In response on that same point of order, it should be noted that the practice recommendations as printed in our new Standing Orders do not specifically identify questions of ministerial statements, although in some of the practice recommendations indeed there is reference to consultation.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is clear that the point raised is an interesting one, but it is a matter that is best discussed between the two House Leaders. Certainly it is not within the jurisdiction of the Chair to have any specific effect.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, for those who have not had the opportunity of reading the new book, they will find an order called 25A. To their surprise, but not to those who have read the book, we call Private Members' Statements for the first time ever.

[ Page 5172 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I note there is a time involved in these statements, that the person who makes the first statement has seven minutes. I'm wondering what you are going to do with your little red and green lights, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: That is another interesting question, hon. member, But we have a process: we will have a green light when there are two minutes left and then the red light at the conclusion, and the usual signs will also apply.

Private Members' Statements

SILVICULTURE PLAN

MRS. WALLACE: It's the luck of the draw! It's the first time for a new procedure in this House, and it couldn't happen on a better day — International Women's Day.

My subject relates to a subject that is critical to the lives and well-being of the residents of Vancouver Island. Members of the House may be aware that the municipal councils of Vancouver Island have joined hands in support of professional foresters and called on the provincial and federal governments to provide funding for a silviculture program for Vancouver Island, a program they term "Strategy for Survival." The plan is well named; Vancouver Island's economy is almost solely dependent upon the forest industry. We have high-site land, we have close proximity to markets and we have skilled and knowledgeable workers willing and waiting to work.

Like other areas, we are facing technical changes that increase productivity and decrease employment. Like other areas, we have not ensured a sustained annual allowable cut. The situation has not come unannounced. In 1945 the Sloan report warned us; in 1976 the Pearse report told us the same thing.

In 1980, we saw the current government introduce what was supposed to be a five-year plan for forest renewal, with a special fund to finance it. The plan, while welcome, caused foresters to wonder if a 100-year-old managed forest could survive 20 five-year plans, and so they should have wondered. The five-year plan barely provided enough money to keep abreast, let alone catch up on any backlog. Then in 1982, two years down the road, we saw the fund recouped and the whole plan capitulate.

Today I want to speak out in support of the strategy for survival as presented by the Island municipalities. It's not a new concept, but it is a valid one — albeit too little and too late. In 1978, professional foresters began lobbying MLAs through a series of forest memos. They warned us that no more than 50 percent of the annual allowable cut in the coastal zone, which includes Vancouver Island, was economically accessible. They told us that without an expanded commitment to forest management our provincial economy would be adversely affected. They told us that forestry was a $3 billion job in that year that created 85,000 direct jobs and 160,000 indirect jobs.

We all know that times have not been good for the forest industry during the last few years, but that's all the more reason that we take up the slack by renewing our forests for the future. In 1977 and 1978 the foresters said: "The practice of forest farming or silviculture is an important means of increasing yields by applying intensive forest management." They are still saying it, and it's still true.

Those same foresters took MLAs — many of us in this House today — on field trips. They showed us juvenile spacing; they showed us commercial thinning or conifer release. And they showed us the results by comparative cross-sections of logs, and they calculated the increase in return. They were the first to use the carrot-patch analogy as a graphic illustration for non-professionals. Many times we on this side of the House have urged the current government to take the advice of the professionals, but it hasn't happened. Now is the time for government to give more than lip service to forest renewal. On Vancouver Island there are at least 5,000 unemployed forest workers. The strategy for survival tells us that for a little less than $22.5 million per year they can create 1,000 jobs in silviculture. It's not enough, but it's a start; and it would be immediate. Those 1,000 jobs would create another 2,000 indirect jobs and $22.5 million would be injected into the Vancouver Island economy annually. It would be fuel for the engine that drives the economy and in the end would return stumpage to the government on an estimated one billion cubic metres of additional wood — an increase of 30 percent.

I think it's a good plan; the federal minister thinks it's a good plan; the provincial minister thinks it's a good plan; but nobody has committed any funding. Here is an opportunity for the current government to take a positive step to revive the Vancouver Island economy. The plan has the unanimous support of municipalities from Saanich to Gold River. It's spearheaded by the mayor of North Cowichan, who can hardly be considered an irresponsible radical. He's a former Social Credit candidate and one would think he might have the ear of his colleagues. I urge the government to support the plan by funding in the full amount for a minimum period of five years. This will create meaningful and lasting jobs on Vancouver Island — to quote my counterpart in Ottawa, the kind of jobs that people can build their lives around. Acceptance of the strategy for survival will bring a sense of economic and social hope for the future to Vancouver Islanders who depend on the forests for their well-being.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member who, through the luck of the draw, had the privilege of being the first member ever to make this type of statement in our Legislature, I congratulate her for the very well-thought-out statement she did make and the subject matter she covered. I don't think any of us can argue with the fact that those things being promoted by Mayor Graham Bruce and the other community leaders on Vancouver Island are very worthwhile causes. We do depend upon our forests, and I guess Vancouver Island is probably more dependent on the forests than other areas of British Columbia.

The mayors have made presentations, once to myself and some of my staff during our economic development committee meeting; they've also made them in Ottawa and to the forest industry. They have not yet suggested the source of funding, although they are talking about a tripartite funding arrangement whereby the two senior levels of government, provincial and federal, can provide funds together with the industry. I support that concept for funding and it's a matter of making the funding available. The programs they suggest are ones that have, in a smaller way than they suggest, been underway for some years now. As a matter of fact, the mayor of North Cowichan, Graham Bruce, has a very successful employment-bridging assistance program. I'm sure the

[ Page 5173 ]

member has either seen that or heard of it. It's an excellent program and I support it wholeheartedly.

I would hope that as a result of their efforts some funding can be made available, perhaps through the job creation money that has been talked about in Ottawa. It is even compatible with a part of the work that is planned under the provincial-federal agreement, which we are still negotiating and which I hope will come on in any event. The agreement would not replace the type of work they are planning, but would supplement it and also do additional work from what they are talking about.

[10:45]

However, Madam Member, I think we should broaden our horizons somewhat when we talk about this work, and realize that the whole of British Columbia and the whole of the forest resource is not on Vancouver Island, although perhaps the better quality resource is. We do have needs throughout the province for more investment in forest management, and we can buy a better future, at substantial cost, through investing money in forestry. We as a government have to make those choices. During difficult times, when all ministries of government have their funding constrained, it becomes necessary to make choices. In the last few years we have insisted upon continuing the expansion of our basic forestry program: that is, the planting after harvesting or wildfire. As times get better, and I hope beginning very shortly, we will be able to have more of the discretionary funding available.

I will look for a way of joining with others in the funding of such a program because I think it's very worthwhile. As the member pointed out, through automation there will be fewer and fewer jobs in the manufacturing and harvesting side of the forest industry. I've always said that I would like to see the day when as many people are employed in forestry work as there are in forest harvesting and manufacturing. I don't think I will live to see that day but I think it's an objective we perhaps should have. Certainly there is a lot of room for expanding in that direction.

I congratulate the member on her statement and in most cases I support what she says. I think it's a goal that we should all try to achieve together.

MRS. WALLACE: I assume that the minister has occupied his full three minutes?

MR. SPEAKER: That has no bearing on the member's available time.

MRS. WALLACE: That has no bearing on my three minutes. I thought maybe there were more speakers involved.

The minister has said what he always says: he gives lip service to this idea, but he's not prepared to come up with the bucks. I congratulate the minister for at least once trying. He did set up a fund for these kinds of things: it wasn't large enough, it wasn't secure enough, and then in two years he recouped it. He uses the economy as an excuse. By recouping that fund he has made the economy worse. If that fund had remained in place and been added to, we wouldn't have 5,000 unemployed forest workers on Vancouver Island and we wouldn't have the number of people on, UIC and on welfare on Vancouver Island. If that fund had been left in place and added to, people would be working, buying and paying taxes, and we would have an economy on Vancouver Island that wouldn't be a disgrace to all of British Columbia and Canada.

The minister has admitted that we are the area most affected because of the slump in the forest industry, the lack of forest renewal, and automation, yet all he gives is lip service: "Well, maybe if the feds come through; maybe if the locals can raise some; maybe I'll consider...." That's not good enough. We need this program, we need it now, we need it in full, and we need it secured for at least five years.

WOMEN IN SOCIETY

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am really very pleased that I have an opportunity to make a statement today on this very special day for all women, not just in British Columbia but around the world: International Women's Day. This is not just an ordinary International Women's Day; it's a very special one because it's occurring in the last year of the United Nations Decade for Women. The world was given ten years, from 1975 to 1985, to achieve equality and development and to bring some peace to the world. Our ten years are drawing to a close and will terminate, as you may know, with a conference in Nairobi in July of this year.

I can't think of a better way to celebrate this day than to look at the substantial and tangible contributions which women have made and will continue to make to the economy and to the society of this province. Of course, it's not going to be possible to do that in seven minutes. All I'm going to do in seven minutes is begin and, I guess, give a superficial kind of brush stroke as to the level of contribution which women make to our economy and to our society.

I want to start out by paying tribute to the women in the home. There are 1.4 million women residing in British Columbia. Of this number, 623,000 are married women, and of that number more than 300,000 are full-time homemakers involved in the job of raising and caring for children and husbands full-time. I don't think anyone would disagree that the job that these women do is valuable and very important indeed. The difficulty comes, of course, when we try to place a monetary value on it.

In a historic decision brought down by Mr. Justice Holland in Ontario in 1984, he actually placed the value of a full-time homemaker and spouse at $560,000 for seven and a half years. In bringing down his decision he included the fact that the woman in the home is an administrator as well as a nurturer and a carer and a giver of care to the residents in that family. In addition, a legal decision in 1973 in the United States placed the value of a full-time homemaker at $45,000 annually. Madam Justice Proudfoot in January 1983 placed the value of a full-time wife and mother at $50,000 annually. Statistics Canada tells us that 34 to 39 percent of Canada's gross national product comes from the labour of women in the home. The Chase Manhattan Bank has calculated that women in the home work anywhere from 99.6 to over 100 hours per week, doing everything from cooking and nursemaiding to chauffeuring — ministering to the family. The fact remains that, despite the women's liberation movement, despite technological changes — all the changes that have taken place in our society — most women are still in the home. There is no one who would say that their contribution to the life and to the quality of life of this province has not been a very valuable one, and that we would all be greatly impoverished without it.

[ Page 5174 ]

Mr. Speaker, 41.5 percent of the workers in our labour force are female. Of that number, 48.9 percent are concentrated in the service industries. To this day they still earn only 58.9 cents of every dollar earned by men. In 1984, 67 percent of all people in this province who were earning the minimum wage were women; and 72 percent of all part-time jobs are done by women. In addition, 84,000 women in this province who would like to work were unable to find work as a result of our high unemployment. Because the female worker in British Columbia does not receive equal pay for work of equal value, she subsidizes the economy to the tune of 38 cents in every dollar. As we are seeing, the economy is running on the exploitation of the female worker, as in the case of those women now striving for a decent wage at the three Eaton's stores in Ontario.

I do not believe that we can do more than guess at the monetary value of the contribution made by the millions of female volunteers to the economy and to the human life of this province. All we know is that more than 55 percent of all volunteers are women. All we know is that many resources in the areas of health, education, human resources, culture, and services to children, seniors and the disabled would not exist without the free and freely given labour of female volunteers. We honour them, and we are grateful to them for their generous efforts. We hope that when the government computes the substantive and tangible contribution of the women of British Columbia, they will pay special attention to the women volunteers.

I want to use this opportunity to call on the government today to prove that it is serious about recognizing the contribution of women to British Columbia, and to move immediately to implement services and measures to enhance and enrich their lives.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I didn't intend to rise to my feet and respond to the hon. member at this time, but I think it would be nothing less than totally remiss if someone didn't stand and respond to such a thoughtful and well prepared statement on a subject which has, certainly over the past few years, become one that has had a great deal of discussion. I don't place myself in a position of being an expert in any way, shape or form on this matter — other than to say quite freely that I respect the role of women in our lives. I would tell this House that if it weren't for my fine wife I would certainly never have arrived at the position I'm at today. I have five daughters who also, I think, qualify me to at least rise to acknowledge the things that the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds has said. So, hon. member, I would like to tell you that I appreciated your words. I listened to you very carefully, and I can already see a great deal that is going to be gained through this one time a week when we may all stand and have our turn to speak for just a few moments on the things that are nearest and dearest to our minds. Thank you.

MR. REID: Like the Minister of Environment I would like to commend the hon. member for her comments today. As a member of this House I have the same feelings relative to my position here, and I'm sure it's my wife's efforts that have allowed me to reach the position which I'm at. I also have four daughters, and would associate myself with the member's comments.

MS. SANFORD: It's interesting that no one on the government side was prepared to make any comments on this issue on this day, marking the tenth anniversary of the first International Women's Day, a day that was proclaimed by the United Nations.

[11:00]

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) outlined very clearly the difficulties and the economic position that women in this province and in this country have. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the only thing that we have received back from the government are some patronizing comments that, in fact, do not respond to the issue that was raised by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

In the time remaining to me I would like to contrast the statements coming from government with the position of the New Democratic Party on the issue of women and women's position in society. I am going to read that, and I hope I have enough time to do it very quickly.

"The NDP is committed to full equality for all women in B.C. As 1985 marks the end of the United Nations Decade for Women, we will use this opportunity to reaffirm our determination to build a society in which women will be free from violence, free from the degradation of pornography and free from the crushing burden of poverty."

No reference was made to any of that, Mr. Speaker, by the respondents on the government side.

The main issues concerning women are employment, and unemployment, technological change, poverty, cutbacks in services for women and children — by that government, I might add — freedom of choice in procreative matters and the increasing violence against women.

MR. SPEAKER: At this time, I must regretfully inform the member that the allotted time available for members to speak on this is concluded, and I must go back now for the final three minutes to the mover.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will ask if I might table in this Legislature once this statement time is over the rest of the position as outlined by the New Democratic Party on the issue of women.

MR. SPEAKER: It would have to be done at the conclusion of this event.

MS. BROWN: I would like to use my final three minutes to deal with the most tangible and substantial contribution that women have made to our society, and that is their efforts on behalf of peace. I believe that if we look at the history of Canada since after the Second World War through the Cold War, and the beginning of the Voice of Women and the efforts on behalf of the YWCA and the Council of Women and other women's groups, we have been in the forefront with our attempts to see to it that the world in which we live and which we pass on to our children is a peaceful world. Our efforts, Mr. Speaker, have been called upon once again to be redoubled, because once again we find ourselves on the brink of annihilation — maybe this time final.

For that reason, I would like to congratulate the women of the YWCA, the Voice of Women and other groups who came together last Saturday for a conference on women negotiating peace at which 500 women were present. I look forward to a similar conference on women negotiating peace to be held at the University of Victoria in April. These are going to be just two of many conferences taking place across Canada,

[ Page 5175 ]

culminating in Halifax in June at the Mount St. Vincent University, where women from all around the world will be coming together for five days to put our skills, abilities, energy and dedication into working for peace.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that despite everything else we have ever done in our lives, nothing would equal or be considered as important a contribution as one toward ensuring that there is a world when we are gone, that there is peace, and that our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy a quality of life and a society as a result of our efforts.

MS. SANFORD: Because the time was too short, I was unable to complete the policy outlined by the New Democratic Party on women, and I ask leave now to table the policy with this Legislature.

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, so we may in the future address this matter of points of order relating to this period, it would be appreciated if we could take those at the end of the period, so we do not infringe upon the time of other members who would be speaking — somewhat akin to the question period practice, for the benefit and guidance of members.

Prior to recognizing the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, it appears to the Chair that the subject matter that the member has chosen conflicts with Motion 1. Therefore I would ask the member to assist in making sure that he is in order by taking the necessary steps to discharge the motion.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Standing order 51 does not require leave, hon. members. The motion is withdrawn, and the member now has the floor.

HEALTH DISCIPLINES REVIEW BOARD

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to be speaking on this issue of the health disciplines review board of British Columbia. As a number of members know, I have had a motion on the order paper in the last session and in this one, and I have had the opportunity to debate this issue with one of the members of the opposition at a public forum. I think there is a lot of agreement on a form of a health disciplines review board of British Columbia. Yet the minister may consider that this might just add another bureaucracy to our bureaucracy, which is already large enough as it is. But I might suggest that a health disciplines review board, in my opinion, would save this province a lot of money by virtue of the fact that we wouldn't need as many cases going through the court system as we presently have.

In the past this House allowed chiropractors to call themselves doctors. We had the case of the College of Physicians and Surgeons taking chiropractors to court to fine them for using the term "doctor of chiropractic." All the costs for that were borne by the public. Yet when the chiropractor would eventually be fined, if he was found guilty the fines would go to the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

If you take a look at the case of Dr. Taams, I would suggest it might have been settled with a health disciplines review board. It would not have had to take up.... I don't know how much we spent on that case, and of course we'll spend even more on appeals. We had a situation there where the prosecutor for the government in the Taams case worked for the same firm that represented the College of Physicians and Surgeons. One wonders if the public can say that that person got a fair trial, when the lawyer working for the prosecution also worked for the same firm that worked for the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Lawyers, I am sure, wouldn't want to attack their brethren. But as an individual I certainly would say that there's a great conflict of interest in that case, and it should never have happened.

There were also questions there about the way the police investigated the case. We had witnesses in that case going to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) saying that they weren't treated fairly in the way they were interrogated to assist the Crown in their case.

In all of these situations, I would suggest that if this province had a health disciplines review board we might eliminate a lot of these things at the bottom line. The college has too many powers. The college should have to go through a health disciplines board, as well as other health disciplines. It would be made up, I would suggest, of people who represent the college and alternative medical practitioners.

It was interesting, Mr. Speaker. When I was preparing the motion for this session, I wrote a few hundred people in the province who have some interest in this. A number of them were physicians, and I'll read a couple of excerpts from some of the replies that I got. One came from a doctor who said: "This short letter is to enclose my recommendation for changes in the notice of motion which you requested in your correspondence of January 15, 1985. I have purposely not included chiropractics in the notice of motion, because first of all our College of Physicians forbids us to refer to a chiropractor or receive referrals from chiropractors."

I think that's pretty sad in a province that has got so many great practitioners — that we have a college that does not allow their members to refer people to chiropractors. Or, as you may have read in the paper a while ago, the college refused to allow one of their members the right even to lease some space in an office building to a chiropractor. Yet in other provinces chiropractors work right alongside the medical profession..

MR. LAUK: Is that a medical interest or an economic one, do you think?

MR. REYNOLDS: I would suggest it's economic. I don't think there's any argument from anyone in this province or anywhere in Canada — certainly not from the minister's office.... Chiropractors do a good job, yet the college seems to have something against them.

One other letter I got was from a doctor in Vancouver who is one of the top practitioners of what we might refer to as holistic medicine. He made some recommendations, and I would like to put them on record.

MR. LAUK: Name him.

MR. REYNOLDS: I will not name him, because I don't think it's fair. He would be attacked by the college, I'm sure, if his name was brought up. But I would be pleased to talk to the member privately and tell him who the doctor is. I think he already knows him.

The letter says:

[ Page 5176 ]

"It is the expertise of others to formulate such a new law, but I could give you a few points which I feel would be the intent of the new law.

"The public of British Columbia should be protected from incompetent physicians, harmful treatments and false promises. The public of B.C. should have a free choice of the type of medical treatment they seek. The purpose of various medical practices is to prevent, manage or cure illness.

"Illnesses are acute or chronic symptomatic or asymptomatic conditions interfering with optimum physical and mental functioning. A duly qualified practitioner should have the freedom to use whatever therapy he or she believes most appropriate. These practitioners should be protected from all discrimination or persecution for using innovative or alternative techniques in cases when the commonly used methods are less safe or ineffective."

"Through their policies the government should encourage unbiased medical research in areas which are currently neglected because of insufficient financial gains to the third parties — pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, etc.

"The presently existing laws dictating which professions a medical doctor may or may not associate with and/or refer patients to should not be tolerated. Within the powers of the college there must be a provision for the protection of alternative practitioners. Specifically, peer review of their performance must be by physicians who are familiar with the alternative methods.

"I hope these suggestions will be implemented in the new law."

Mr. Speaker, that's from a man who takes a long time to get in to see; he's a very well-known doctor in Vancouver. Yet he's afraid to go public with some of these things because of the power of the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

I would hope that the minister would see fit in the near future to give some serious consideration to a health disciplines review board of British Columbia so that all of these practitioners are not afraid of their peer group. Make them report to an independent group. It does not have to be paid. They can be volunteers from all the different agencies who would then report to the minister. They would still have recourse to the courts as a final avenue. I think it's time we looked very seriously at the powers of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. They're too strong. They're not serving the public of British Columbia in a good manner.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, although I think the concept of a health disciplines review board was not dwelt upon in the detail I would like to have heard. Rather the member spoke about certain opinions of practitioners with respect to some of the problems those individuals have identified. However, there were certain statements in the member's comments that would apply in a general sense.

While the various organizations of health professions such as the College of Physicians and Surgeons do enjoy certain authorities and have had certain authority for the length of their history, and other organizations which also represent and discipline a certain area of health practitioners have similar authority, I think it's difficult to simply say they either have too much authority or they should not have authority. I think it's very important that we review the condition and state of health care as offered by any one organization at a given time in history. We do that by looking at what is occurring today.

[11:15]

We cannot ignore the health care that has been offered to our citizens historically by referring to some other dates. I presume at those times the governments of the day, in whichever jurisdiction, took it upon themselves to ensure that the protection of the public would be paramount, by organizing in some manner associations of professionals who would take upon themselves the responsibility of ensuring that those who are practising medicine within their organization do so in a certain manner. Members of the House would be of sufficient age and experience to recall a very common occurrence in our society not many years back, what was generally referred to as the practice of quackery.

Mr. Speaker, we do have an excellent health care system in Canada and in British Columbia. Indeed there is room for alternative forms of practice. British Columbia has been foremost among the provinces of Canada in recognizing such practitioners as chiropractors, optometrists, podiatrists, naturopaths and others.

The college is provided with certain authority by statute. It is this assembly and the assemblies which have been represented previously who have in their wisdom provided them with that authority. The college itself has made suggestions that perhaps there should be amendments to relieve them of certain responsibilities such as prosecution. They have made that known, and changes will occur.

Mr. Speaker, generally a health disciplines review board could be a positive action for the government to take. The concept certainly is being reviewed. I might also say that some prominent members of the British Columbia Medical Association support the idea. I have lots of time for those people who have put forward the concept and idea in and outside of the various professions. While I think more detail would be useful as to how a health disciplines review board should and would function in British Columbia, officials in the ministry are well aware of how they function in other jurisdictions.

I certainly do not dismiss the concept or idea as put forward by the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. It would require careful review. We would have to know what we expect such a board to produce and how it would function, but I think the idea is worthy of development. I make no promises, but perhaps some day in the future we may be down to the point where indeed a health disciplines review board is being considered most seriously.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I think we're going to have to talk about this sometime later on.

I thought the member's suggestions were very vague. I think the Minister of Health dealt more aptly with it. I believe that there is a need to go beyond where we are now: that is, a need for some kind of umbrella legislation for all health care people in the province. It's interesting to me that the member has changed his motion.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, I'm sorry. I'll get up on a point of order after this.

[ Page 5177 ]

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for New Westminster that we need to go beyond where we are now, and I think the minister in his reply indicated that he is prepared to go beyond where we are now. Both the minister and the member for New Westminster wished I would have presented more detail with regard to the health disciplines board. Mr. Speaker, I purposely didn't provide detail with regard to a health disciplines board in British Columbia, because I feel that is something that the minister could provide us with — allowing a committee of this Legislature or another form of committee with members of this Legislature to tour this province, or have people from the profession come to Victoria to explain to us what they would like. I don't think politicians can make decisions of that magnitude without hearing from the people of British Columbia. If I turned my file over to the minister or even to the member for New Westminster, with all of the suggestions I've had from the different medical groups around the province.... It's over two feet thick already.

I was very pleased that the minister said it was worthy of development and that he would like more detail. I'm sure he will be receiving more detail and suggestions, because I will be forwarding to him most of the replies that I've received over the last number of weeks from all these various groups. I'm very pleased that he sees some positive aspects to a health disciplines review board for British Columbia. I know a number of people in the alternative practices will appreciate those statements. As he mentioned, a number of members of the College of Physicians and Surgeons don't agree with those people who are running their ship right now and would like to see some changes.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think it was a worthy debate today. I appreciate the support of the minister. I know we have support from many members of the opposite side. Hopefully we'll make some success of this in the very near future.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, could the point of order be held until the conclusion of this one hour?

MR. COCKE: It's not changing the hour, is it — the 15 minutes?

MR. SPEAKER: It's somewhat akin to question period, though, hon. member, in the one-hour term.

MR. COCKE: Is the hour going to include my point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. COCKE: I'll waive my point of order until the end of the sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: Until the end of this particular hour, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: No, the sitting.

PROVINCIAL FISHERIES

MR. HANSON: It's a pleasure to rise today to make the first statement in this House on the subject of fisheries. I'm pleased to advise the minister opposite that our caucus has determined that fisheries at the provincial level is of sufficient importance in terms of the economy of British Columbia that it warrants a provincial spokesperson from our side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you are aware that we are richly endowed in British Columbia with a precious resource in the form of our finfish and groundfish resources, which over history have not, for various reasons, been properly managed both at federal and provincial levels.

I would like to sketch out a couple of historical points and then suggest to the minister some positive suggestions from our side about what could be done to generate employment in this very important industry. As many individuals are aware, the 200-mile limit was established in 1976. As is often the case, other nations are quicker to realize the value of our natural resources — much quicker and astuter than we sometimes are ourselves. Some very large international trading companies wanting to secure a supply of one of the world's finest fish products, in the form of our salmon and herring, moved in and secured control of our processing capacity here in British Columbia through the form of debentures. There was competition to secure control of the processing industry in the province among a number of major companies — offshore primarily, with the exception of B.C. Packers, a part of the Weston empire. The consolidation process that followed the takeovers resulted in the closure of many processing plants throughout coastal British Columbia, loss of regional economic stability related to marine harvesting and processing, loss of lifestyle in many cases, and so on. As a result, we have moved into primarily an export situation. I say that advisedly, because export is defined in very strict terms. For example, in the raw form, fish are considered processed if they have the most rudimentary processing, such as basic cleaning and removing the head. Just to give this some context, I want to refer to some of the numbers from 1983 on the value of this commodity.

Salmon exported fresh in their tonnage — and there are very strict regulations about this — have an approximate value of $6 million. That's fresh unprocessed salmon, without flash-freezing, cleaning and so on. The frozen whole dressed, which is a market that's appreciated in Europe and Asia, is just cleaning and head removal of the four major species of salmon and has a value of $107 million. The employment surrounding that export is very little. We get very little value added in terms of employment. Herring: again, the total of that export, including herring roe, etc., has a value of $77 million. In other words, the dollar value of this resource is great, but the job potential is minimal.

After 1976, when the 200-mile limit was established and processing capacity and overcapitalization proliferated in terms of the fishing industry, the provincial government moved to freeze the number of permits that would be allowed for processing plants, an action that was a little late. What has resulted is a systematic closure of various plants around the province, resulting in economic dislocation and destabilization in our coastal communities.

The changes that occurred up until 1979 and 1980 resulted in very little, if any, increase in labour force. They merely redistributed the labour in seasonal jobs, and consolidated the processing capacity into large urban centres like Vancouver, Steveston and Prince Rupert. In our own community of Victoria, the fishing fleet has to go to Steveston to sell its fish — to Cassiar Packing in Richmond. It bypasses

[ Page 5178 ]

what could be a major centre for the marine resource industries, fish processing and so on, which would be a very valuable asset to our community. It is within this minister's jurisdiction, as the regulatory authority surrounding processing and as the minister responsible for the issuance of processing permits, to enter into agreements with the three major companies that control virtually all the processing in British Columbia. Enter into agreements that would stabilize the small regional communities where processing plants are in place but not functional because they are not of interest to these companies. It's in their interest to consolidate their processing into a few plants and have the fishing fleet come to them, which results in a loss of employment and a loss of regional and community stability on the coast.

It's on the shore side that we're primarily interested at the provincial level. We feel there's a potential for creating many good jobs in the processing side, adding value to a resource that we now export, and with very little added processing. As the minister is aware, the Scandinavian countries give much more attention, in specific ways, to the processing of herring, salmon, other groundfish and shellfish resources to create employment in their own countries. They are very sophisticated in smoking, pickling, jarring — all sorts of value added.

Mr. Speaker, I see that my seven minutes are up. It's a very complex industry and I look forward to my three minutes coming after to follow my line.

HON. MR. PELTON: I was enjoying what you were saying so much, hon. member, that if it were within the purview of the rules I would let you have some of my time. At any rate, certainly the statements up to this point have been very well taken, and I look forward to extracting them from Hansard and processing them through the ministry to see what we can come up with.

I am also pleased to hear you say that the opposite side is going to make a special point of discussing fishing from time to time. I've never objected to criticism, because, as we all know, good honest criticism is well worthwhile and is helpful.

In no way trying to rationalize the things that are already being done within the ministry insofar as fisheries are concerned, there are just a couple of points I thought I might make on this particular item. At the moment, it's considered the value of our fisheries runs at about $400 million a year. Within the industry, they employ some 12,300 persons in the processing part of the business. Some 12,800 persons are employed in the actual fishing, and then there are, I am told, an estimated 25,000 person-years where the employment relates to the repair of ships and to the sale and distribution of fishing equipment.

[11:30]

Certainly in no way, shape or form does that mean that we are where we should be in employment within the fishing industry in this province — far from that. There are lots of things I think we can do to improve it even further.

May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the growth in the industry is probably directly related to the improvement of fish stocks on the Pacific coast. I don't think that's particularly an oversimplification of the matter, but it certainly is the way it stands to my point of view. Improving these stocks — one of the things which was contained in the question posed by that member yesterday and which I will be bringing back a full report on on Monday — relates to the salmonid enhancement program and the effect it has on the restocking of streams and extra stocking of streams which eventually get into the ocean in this province.

I would suggest that the recent treaty that was signed between Canada and the U.S. will probably also provide some incentives for stock improvement, and therefore there will be some increased job generation through that.

The ministry, as you might possibly know, is presently working with industry to try to ensure — and I think you alluded to this when you spoke about the issuance of permits — that fish caught in our waters are processed in British Columbia.

There's also the point of mariculture, which is one that has had a great deal of discussion, and there's a great deal of ongoing discussion. Even as I stand here, Mr. Speaker, we have some 300 people employed in that industry at this time, and we fully expect that it will grow. We could have 1,000 people employed in that industry in a few years. I am working very closely with my colleagues in the Agriculture ministry and Industry and Small Business Development ministry to foster the growth of this industry by bringing in eggs for Atlantic salmon and trying to expand this particular new method of fish farming.

I can also tell the House that the oyster market continues to be strong, and local growers are expanding to meet this demand.

The sport fishing opportunities in B.C., in both salt and fresh water, are among the best in the world and attract tourists from far and wide. The annual employment generated in that particular endeavour is considered to be about 2,400 person-years and is growing. But like I said before, this is no reason why we shouldn't concentrate on having it grow even faster.

I guess.... . oh, my time is up. I only had about three more words to say. Thank you, hon. member, for your statement. I listened very closely, and I appreciated it.

MR. HANSON: In conclusion, I am pleased that the minister mentioned the federal funding on the salmonid enhancement. Our figures seem to indicate that they are about $9 million shy of what was promised here for salmonid enhancement. We are hoping that the minister can rectify that with his federal colleague at the national level.

With respect to the employment potential within the B.C. fisheries, the minister mentioned the number of individuals involved, but one statistic that I think is very important to understand is that because it is so seasonal, the average employment per capita in the shore side is really less than one week per year, which is less than even to qualify for unemployment benefits. It's 30.7 hours a year.

What we're trying to do is make suggestions to correct that, because we believe that there are literally hundreds of jobs that could be produced. I would like to just take the next minute or so to tell you where we think they could be made.

The principal instrument for provincial policy is the licensing power of the Ministry of the Environment. In exchange for continued licensing of current large processing operations, the government could enter into those production agreements which I mentioned earlier with these large companies — Marubeni, B.C. Packers, and so on — to guarantee the continued operation of smaller plants in outlying communities. For example, despite the public subsidies put into the processing facilities at Tofino, fish are now being driven past that plant to be processed in Vancouver. Similarly, The B.C.

[ Page 5179 ]

Packer crab cannery in Masset was shut down and relocated to Vancouver, which is an incredible inconvenience to the fisheries there. The resources are here, the skilled workers are here, the plants can be profitable, and we have a product that is highly desired all over the world.

Another important step to increase employment and the value of our processing industry would be the adoption of a policy that fish harvested in B.C. be processed in B.C. before export. Now I recognize that a lot of the desire for our product is in the fresh-frozen category, and we don't want to dislocate that market. But we do want to look at the tonnages we export and say to ourselves: "We can create more employment here by taking a portion of that catch and processing it here in B.C." The export of raw fish is analogous to the export of raw logs. We lose those jobs.

If the minister could take under advisement these recommendations and also at the same time in his portfolio ensure that we maintain the quality of habitat.... The Strait of Georgia is one of the most wonderful natural mariculture, aquaculture and fish-farming bodies in the world. It's superior to Norway; it's superior to Japan. And protein will be a commodity highly desirable in the future. It makes sense economically; it makes sense also in terms of us doing our part in developing the protein that is going to be so desirable world-wide and so important to feed the hungry of the world.

MR. COCKE: I rise on a point of order under 25A, Mr. Speaker, and I draw your attention to section 3 of 25A. Section 3 says that the proponent has a maximum of seven minutes and any other members have a maximum of five minutes. Under the circumstances of three of the statements and the replies, I have no objection whatsoever. The third one was a proponent who was a member of the government party being answered by the minister. Now this does not indicate to me that this is question period or that a minister should reply.

The House has continually moved from one side of the House to the other in order to have a debate. We could foresee a cozy little debate. If in fact the recognition of a minister in reply to a private member on the government side establishes a precedent for the future, then I think that the statement period would not be a debate at all under those circumstances. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this be given a great deal of thought.

As a matter of fact, there are some other areas here that I think have to be attended to as well, but I'm not going to bring them up now because I think they should be privately discussed. But this particular one is one that I would like to hear from you on, Mr. Speaker, because I don't believe that the statement period was designed for a give-and-take from one side of the House.

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, I think that this has been an interesting day. I won't take up a lot of time repeating the items that were alluded to by my colleague from New Westminster. But I would say that part of the planning process of this particular new rule was in finding an opportunity to develop more debate, and it was the intention that the debate would go from one side to the other on these three stages. I think that if the minister — for the sake of the private member on the government side — is to participate, he could participate in round three. The minister's participation is certainly valuable, and I'm not arguing that point, but I do feel it wasn't the intention. The idea was that it was to go from the proponent.... If the proponent were the government, the second speaker would be an opposition speaker, and then it would go back to the government. If it's essential for a minister to participate — and I think it's very helpful, especially if you're on the government side and you're the proponent.... But I don't see why then the minister couldn't participate under stage three, the three-minute stage of the debate, rather than at the second stage. That's the only point I make.

HON. MR. NEILSEN: On the same point, 25A is not as specific as some members or those who are reviewing this may wish. But I think it is consistent with the manner in which the standing orders have been drafted, where there are many cases where the specifics are not in detail and yet certain procedures to develop. Mr. Speaker, when 25A, the concept of private member statements, was drafted, emphasis was placed on the statements to be from private members — recognizing private members, no matter which political party they may represent.

It was specifically not suggested that phase 2 should be, with respect to the five minutes.... It was very specifically indicated to be "any other members," plural, rather than "government member" or "minister" or anything that specific. Mr. Speaker, we saw today in the second statement a number of people responding during that five-minute allocation. I do not believe it was the intent that it necessarily be one party responding to another party, but rather a private member and then a response to that. Quite properly, on occasion, it will be the minister responsible for that area of interest. It is also possible that, because of the manner in which the statements are drawn by lot, on any given day all the statements could come from one political party.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to draw to the attention of the members that today has been a first. I think it has been conducted in an extremely excellent manner. A new procedure will take some time to be understood by all. I mentioned that 25A(3) specifically says the period "shall not exceed one hour." I would only commend to members that during this period of time we discipline ourselves not to consume time within the hour on procedural points, and perhaps all of us who may be engaged in the statement period could wind down prior to the time allocation, rather than trying to use time beyond that.

Mr. Speaker, may I simply add that I believe today's experiment under the new rule 25 went very well.

[11:45]

MR. DAVIS: One further point. All members here are private members, other than those who are members of the cabinet — the executive council. Those who have been appointed parliamentary secretaries, I think, should be seen as private members except where they would address a question to the minister to whom they are attached. Then I think that kind of question should be ruled out, because to a degree they are within the council in that case. But otherwise we are all private members and can therefore initiate questions and have the first speaking period.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, some very interesting points have been made. The Chair is going to take these under advisement, and over the next little while, through the consultative process, will undertake to bring back some

[ Page 5180 ]

guidelines to the House. In the meantime, I thank the members for their courtesies and understanding.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I have found it necessary and indeed rather pressing to speak on a number of issues of concern in the past few weeks. In fact, as a new member I have found it rather difficult to keep my mouth shut around here. However, I'd like to take this opportunity to give what I consider to be my maiden address, even though I've had a few warmups. I beg the indulgence of this House to so permit — and indeed suffer, if that may be the case.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, It has often been said that a kick at the end of the spine can have a most stimulating effect on the other end. It is my sincere hope that the recent by-elections in Vancouver East and Okanagan North — a Social Credit stronghold for the past 32 years — have had such a beneficial effect on this current government.

My presence in this chamber today is proof that the people in North Okanagan and in fact throughout British Columbia are dissatisfied with this government since its reelection. They have voiced that dissatisfaction by their vote. I have come to outline their concerns, to voice their message, which was so clearly stated last November 8.

I come from an area of this province that has been blessed with a unique quality of life. People choose to live in the Okanagan because of its climate and its lifestyle. Simply put, it's a great place to live, and the people of the North Okanagan would like to keep it that way. That is exactly where the problem lies, because the people in the North Okanagan have grown tired of the insensitivity of this government to their concerns.

Let me give you an example. During the November by-election, as many will recall, the issue of sewage disposal in the Vernon area became a major concern. In an attempt to hide the serious problems caused by government inaction, the former Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) — and I'm saddened to see that he's not here — jumped into the issue with both feet and really caused quite a stink. [Laughter.] The truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, that Vernon cannot afford to play politics with sewage. We need help from this government to upgrade and expand our present land disposal system. It's overloaded. Excess effluent is now being dumped into Okanagan Lake. As a matter of fact the city of Vernon is preparing to dump excess effluent later on this month.

The previous New Democratic government demonstrated its commitment back in the early '70s to keep our lakes in the Okanagan clean by encouraging and by funding Vernon's present spray irrigation system. In 1974 New Democrats passed the Sewerage Assistance Act, assuring municipalities throughout British Columbia that 75 percent of the sewerage funding would come from the province. On July 8, 1983, this present government demonstrated its lack of interest in the quality of our environment by cutting the province's share of sewerage funding from 75 percent to 25 percent.

The city of Vernon will now have to front-load 75 percent of the cost of an expanded sewage disposal system. Yet this government is currently in the process of subsidizing the Ganges island sewage project to the tune of $6 million — 100 percent financing — for 93 residential connections. at a cost of over $48,000 for each hook-up. It just happens to be in the Minister of Finance's (Hon. Mr. Curtis) home constituency. But we'll overlook that point.

If the arithmetic were applied to Vernon's situation, the city would receive sufficient money to fund several first-class sewage treatment systems — not one but several. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) a few weeks ago in this House argued that the Ganges sewerage project subsidization was warranted for health reasons. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to tell the members in this House, that in Vernon the people swim in and drink the water in Okanagan Lake, where the city dumps the excess sewage. The people drink that water. Surely for the same health reasons the city of Vernon should receive a better shake than two-bits on the dollar.

This issue will not go away and neither will I. I'm going to keep pressing this government to assure that the needs of my constituents will be met. We have to protect the health of our citizens and protect the health of our environment, as well as our tourism industry up in the Okanagan.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is not here. I regret that fact because forestry is another local issue in the Okanagan which won't go away. It's especially true in the Arrow Lakes area, in the communities of Burton, Edgewood, Fauquier and Nakusp, where unemployment nudges 50 percent — not 15 percent but 50 percent. Our forests have been sadly neglected. In 1983 the Shuswap-Okanagan forest companies had a payroll of $82.5 million. Add to that expenditures in energy, supplies and fuel of $35.7 million, $82.5 million to contractors, and you've got a substantial portion of the local economy revolving around forestry. It's all going downhill.

What has this government done to help? Our provincial forest and range resources fund was gutted to the tune of $84 million in 1982, all in the name of restraint. In 1983 and 1984 an additional $10.4 million was chopped from the forest budget. Silviculture programs were virtually suspended. While other provinces have signed provincial-federal reforestation agreements, our Premier, who is absent today from the House, is trying to water down the $300 million joint agreement for reforestation. There are reports that he wants to throw some of this money at another megaproject — a gas pipeline to the Island. It may be a good idea, but I think it makes more economic sense to put our money into reforestation. If we don't there could be a decline of over one third of the annual timber harvest and a loss of 60,000 jobs in British Columbia in the next 20 years.

In the Okanagan we've been told to expect a timber supply shortage in five to 15 years that will exceed 50 percent, even if basic reforestation were practised. Since present reforestation continues to be less than even this basic level, the shortage is expected to be considerably worse, with a loss of at least half of our forest sector employment in the Okanagan. The consequences will be extensive social destabilization and a severely weakened economic base. Who is giving us this message about the dismal performance of government in the forestry sector? Our own Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has accepted and admitted the fact that the policies of his ministry are ravaging our natural heritage; they are

[ Page 5181 ]

destroying our primary resource industry. Those words came from the Minister of Forests himself. Some leadership; some record. I'm sad that he's not here today to listen to these comments.

Highway improvements were also a big issue in the by-election. I notice on all these issues I'm speaking to, the ministers don't seem to be present. I don't know if they knew it was coming, but it's unfortunate. I know they're there. Only a week before election day our Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) announced an $11 million four-laning of Highway 97 south of Vernon. I never thought for a moment it had anything to do with the by-election, but I am proud to say that even though my opposition lost that election, the minister stuck by his commitment. I compliment him for it. It does demonstrate, very clearly, how an effective voice in opposition can take long-neglected government promises and turn them into reality.

What about education? The empty seat says a lot, doesn't it? Communities throughout the Okanagan pride themselves in our Okanagan College system. As a multi-campus facility it supplied our students with a first-class education, until recently. People now are angry with the hatchet job that this Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has done to our college system. There is a $1.4 million shortfall that may close campuses, chop courses and eliminate second-year university transfer programs. It is threatening the very life of our college system. Such short-sighted economics will deny many of our young people an opportunity to receive a decent education. Education in British Columbia is a victim of restraint, of an ideology which brushes aside considerations of social values and of long-term economic planning as impediments to the magic remedy of austerity.

The present government is caught up in a frontier mentality, an anachronistic sentiment that all a young person needs is a strong back and a sharp axe. Mr. Speaker, the world has changed; it doesn't work that way anymore. From the perspective of families in the interior, the attrition of our local college system and the closing of David Thompson University Centre means that a university education has become a privilege for the wealthy few, and for the lower mainland. Those few who do benefit will more and more be trained only in the skills that serve enterprises whose goals are defined in terms of profit rather than any larger social context.

John Stoik, president and chief executive officer of Gulf Oil of Canada, in an article in the Globe and Mail last fall stated: "The ability of a country to improve its productivity and its international competitiveness is critically dependent on an advanced and educated workforce. Education is a strategic national resource for any industrial economy to compete in the global village." Those aren't my words; that's the CEO of Gulf Oil, and Gulf Oil is right. Today's mistakes will endanger the future of our young people and our ability to successfully compete in the international marketplace. Cutting education spending has become a Social Credit way of life. It's their way to show real leadership. Some leadership, Mr. Speaker; some foresight.

[12:00]

Unemployment. Three-quarters of my constituents feel it's the most important issue facing British Columbia today, and they're right. These people don't want any more cheap politics; they want jobs. Over 80 percent of the people throughout British Columbia know that unemployment in B.C. is worse than in the rest of Canada. When talking to the local media in the Okanagan this morning, I found out that today the StatsCan figure for unemployment in the north Okanagan exceeds 20 percent — an unprecedented high, and totally unacceptable. My constituents have lost faith in the Premier's promise of recovery. His record of restraint has left British Columbia with one of the worst rates of growth in North America. The father gave us the Bank of British Columbia; the son gave us the food bank — B.C.'s biggest growth industry today. Three years of restraint have left a legacy of failure: a 15 percent level of unemployment throughout British Columbia, a 52 percent surge in welfare, a 27 percent drop in investment and a 300 percent increase in bankruptcies throughout this province. This government should hang its head in shame.

Even the Royal Bank, an institution not normally noted for its radicalism or outspoken criticism, warns: "We're not so sanguine about British Columbia's prospects. B.C.'s problems include severe restraint measures, persistent disputes and depressed consumer confidence. Unless these mistakes are removed, it is very likely the province will remain in the doldrums."

Mr. Speaker, this mean-spirited government has led the way to the worst economic growth in Canada. It all adds up to one clear message: Social Credit restraint has devastated this economy. That's why throughout British Columbia New Democrats, Liberals, Tories, Socreds and even the odd United Party loyalist are voicing their anger at this current government's record of economic mismanagement. My constituents and all British Columbians are worse off today than they were three years ago when restraint was introduced. They know that restraint has hurt recovery in British Columbia.

The people of British Columbia have no faith in this government's performance. The people who invest their lives, the people who build their dreams here have lost faith in this government. Three years of restraint have meant three years of bitter confrontation, pitting worker against worker and neighbour against neighbour; three years of massive firings and cuts that have left tens of thousands of our citizens jobless, thousands of broken dreams and thousands of shattered lives. Families who put everything into their future are left without a future: broken dreams, broken homes and broken people. That's the legacy of restraint. And for what? To make the hon. member from Palm Springs look like a tough guy, to sell an image that the polls showed would help win the election. The Premier's former principal secretary, Patrick Kinsella, has admitted that the restraint program was nothing more than a marketing strategy. Those aren't my words; those are his words right in the Vancouver Sun: a marketing strategy, a strategy deliberately based on polling. Restraint was not based on any economic necessity; it was a scheme to sell a hollow image. I wonder how the worker with over 30 years of loyalty feels knowing that his job and his future were sacrificed for restraint. What about the young people whose futures have been compromised and jeopardized? What about the unemployed single mother stuck in the downward spiral of unemployment and welfare? All to sell the image of a tough guy!

Restraint has cost British Columbians dearly. They've paid the price. It was the wrong medicine at the wrong time. It was a cruel hoax played out by a government whose arrogance is only surpassed by its callous insensitivity to the problems faced by the people of British Columbia. It's time that this government recognized the growing anger of tens of

[ Page 5182 ]

thousands of British Columbians who have needlessly suffered at the hands of restraint. The people of British Columbia will long remember the legacy of restraint — a legacy of sacrifice for political expediency. The people will say of this government: they know only the rules of a generation of selfseekers; they have no vision. When there is no vision, the people perish.

Now the Premier has bought a new slogan. Restraint is out. The new buzzwords are "partnership" and "renewal." That's what the pollsters have sold him — at taxpayers' expense. But the people of B.C. are choking on the new line, because when you've been kicked in the teeth, it's just a little hard to turn the other cheek. Now New Democrats have been talking about a cooperative approach all along. We've been talking about it all along. We've offered the olive branch because we feel it is time for a new beginning. I just hope that the member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett) understands what we mean when we talk about cooperation and consultation. I hope he understands that the only reason that cooperation is an issue — the only reason that it's in the polls today — is because of his record of confrontation over the past three years.

We're not asking for a love-in in this Legislature. We've asked for input into the decision-making process as a means of participatory democracy. This opposition will embrace good legislation. It will embrace any legislation to get B.C. moving again. But I want to say that we're going to go to the mat to fight bad legislation.

That's the name of the game, Mr. Speaker. It's what we're elected to do. What we are asking, through you to the Premier — Mr. Premier, in your absence, I know you're out there — is that you start cooperating with the people of British Columbia. We're asking that this government sit down with people and consult: open your hearts, show some compassion, find a way to get British Columbia back to work. We need ideas to reverse the economic collapse that restraint has caused. Many suggestions have been outlined by the Leader of the Opposition in his previous address to this House. They're positive approaches that involve a process of consultation; a process of public debate about economic visions and industrial strategies, about values and priorities for the future of this province and for the future of our young people.

It's an approach that is predicated on a cooperative society, a society where people may choose their economic destiny rather than have one forced upon them. It's essential that serious attention be given to their concerns and their proposals, if the seeds of trust are ever to be sown again. We must regain the confidence of the people of British Columbia. We must harness their energies in the process of economic reconstruction, because in every region, in every community, our people have the talent and the enterprise to rebuild this shattered economy. The challenge we in this House — all of us — face today is to put those talents to work so that British Columbia may take its place as a leader in economic and social renewal.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I refer to the words of a great democrat who showed the guts and the determination needed to pull the U.S. economy from its knees 50 years ago. Franklin Roosevelt proved to be the right man at the right time with his program of action: firstly, to get the people back to work, and secondly to correct the government blunders that had contributed to the economic crisis of the thirties. I will leave you with this. Roosevelt said: "These unhappy times call for the building of new plans, plans that build from the bottom up, not the top down, plans that put faith once more in the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid."

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise and support the Speech from the Throne and to express my enthusiasm for its message of confidence and optimism. Notwithstanding the remarks of the previous speaker, I think that we have gone through — thank goodness we are now emerging from it — a period of economic and social change that I'm afraid has been painfully obvious to all of us.

I believe that the tone set by the throne speech signals a dynamic beginning to a new era of growth. Confidence and optimism are essential to economic renewal, and that fact is recognized by the people of all ideological persuasions. A shared sense of faith in the future is a necessary prerequisite to an economic recovery that will bring benefits to all British Columbians.

The indications are that a renewed spirit of optimism is emerging today in communities in every region throughout the province. Investors and consumers are engaging in their vital economic functions with renewed vigor. Countless community organizations have initiated programs to encourage growth and development, and thousands of entrepreneurs are establishing new businesses that create new employment opportunities for countless others. The unfolding story in British Columbia today is one of good news, news of thousands of positive events and the benefits brought by free enterprise and individual initiative. Our resourceful and innovative private sector, in concert with responsible and stimulative government policies, has initiated new businesses, new industries and new markets for British Columbia goods and services. That is why I herald the constructive tone of our throne speech: because it will reinforce and encourage that growing feeling of confidence in our provincial economy among all British Columbians.

[12:15]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The Salmon Ann Observer recently ran an editorial with the headline: "We Believe in Us:"

"There are good signs...and many of them. Things are happening. There is room and there is solid ground for...optimism, and that's what we need. A little injection of confidence" — that's what we need — "some belief in ourselves and where we're going, a positive outlook, and we too can begin to build again. It's time; time for a new year and a new attitude."

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that anyone could read that January 2, 1985 edition of the Salmon Arm Observer and not feel confident that recovery is well underway. That editorial not only describes the growing feeling of optimism in Salmon Arm; it also instills confidence in the residents of the community and, in turn, stimulates the local economy.

There are many examples that such optimism is both growing and becoming widespread throughout our province. Perhaps nothing illustrates this fact better than the multitude of Expo 86 committees being organized to celebrate this once-in-a-lifetime event. At last count, over 70 different communities in every region of our province have begun planning programs and festivities that will enable them to participate in the celebrations happening in downtown British Columbia. Such enthusiasm would not and could not exist

[ Page 5183 ]

in a stagnant economy. The Cariboo will be recreating the famous gold rush by raffling off a gold bar to tourists visiting their region, while in Lillooet, organizers will be staging a train robbery. Expo committees in Smithers, Kimberley, Armstrong, Chetwynd, Chilliwack and many other centres are doing everything they can to ensure that tourists to Expo will continue their vacation here in B.C., in that way spending several days and several dollars.

Expo has provided us not only with an opportunity to invite the world to celebrate our heritage, but more importantly has allowed us to work together in a spirit of cooperation and mutual interest so that all British Columbians will benefit. Visitors to our province will witness a celebration of British Columbia's dynamic future and our inherent confidence.

Mr. Speaker, the future is ours. It has been said that our world is going through an information revolution, that we are entering the age of information. Appropriately enough, the theme of Expo 86 is transportation and communications. Satellites, computers and telecommunications allow us to transmit knowledge and information anywhere in the world in a matter of seconds, if not milliseconds. New means of communications are bringing people closer together than ever before. So, too, Expo is bringing British Columbians closer together, both on site in Vancouver and in local communities in every comer of the province. All residents will have an opportunity to participate in the celebrations and to benefit from the economic impact of this major event.

Expo 86, like its theme, is illustrative of this new age that allows British Columbians to communicate and exchange information with each other in ways previously unheard of. New technologies are providing British Columbians with the opportunity of learning and acquiring new forms of knowledge. The Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications has established unique and innovative programs that will enable residents in every area of the province to acquire an education. The Knowledge Network now reaches British Columbians in almost 250 different communities, providing telecourses with college and university credit. Through the Anik C3 satellite, the Knowledge Network also reaches people living in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and even northern Alberta. The Open Learning consortium uses distance education to offer career, technical and vocational studies, as well as adult basic education. Through new technologies and new forms of communication it is now possible for residents of our province to receive a complete education regardless of where they live. British Columbia has become a veritable electronic classroom.

Another example of the way in which our province is being opened up by communications is the satellite relay telephone system recently inaugurated by SpaceTel, a subsidiary of B.C. Tel. Those living in isolated areas of the province will receive much improved service, including better transmission quality and privacy equal to that of our regular telephone service. SpaceTel, like the Knowledge Network, is utilizing the Anik C3 satellite.

The continuing growth of British Columbia and our increasing need to exchange information requires constant improvement and expansion of our communications systems. I believe it is instructive of the economic growth of our province that B.C. Tel is expanding its services in many of the areas throughout the province. The Peace River area will soon be undergoing a complete upgrading of its computerized telephone exchange system, and a new 36,000 square foot building complex worth close to $2 million will be constructed this year, creating both new construction and, even more importantly, permanent jobs. Kelowna has been selected as the site for the new Columbia divisional headquarters for B.C. Tel. That will in itself create 225 new jobs for that local economy. As well, B.C. Tel has opened its new education centre on Willingdon Avenue in Burnaby. These developments are positive evidence that British Columbia's economy is growing and that we remain in the forefront of advances made in the telecommunications field.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier the editorial in the Salmon Arm Observer, and I think we should remember that the news media is one of the most important means of communicating that we have. A member of the British Parliament, Mr. Macaulay, coined the phrase "the fourth estate" in 1828 when he stated: "The gallery in which the reporters sit has become a fourth estate of the realm." I think that the scribes in this Legislature should take note that the fourth estate is antecedent to the third. That comment in itself may suggest that a degree of subservience should exist in our relationship despite their lofty perch.

However, few can doubt that the news media are very important in shaping public opinion and reporting developments in our social and economic environment. Marshall McLuhan, in his book Understanding Media, noted that the newspaper is a hot medium. It has to have bad news for the sake of intensity and reader participation. Real news is bad news. As many of us know who have read the media in the last few years, that seems to be the manifest of many of the British Columbia written media. That too is changing.

As the editorial in the Salmon Arm newspaper indicates, some news media are not fixated on bad news stories. The economic renewal underway in British Columbia today is a good news story, and many newspapers throughout the province are beginning to write about it. In Fort St. John, the January 14th edition of the Northern News Agencies' newsletter published an editorial entitled "Atmosphere," which states the following: "It is hard to put one's finger on it, but I sense a general air of optimism in Fort St. John that I haven't seen for a few years. Logic tells one that there's something really heavy going on, and yet everybody you talk to seems to be really busy. We don't know why, but we're sure pleased."

The paper goes on to report that another local newspaper, the Alaska Highway News, is experiencing a noticeable increase in the amount of advertising bought by area merchants — another sign of a quickly emerging economy.

Victoria's Monday Magazine newspaper recently ran a special series of articles entitled "Econo '85," which offered the following observation: "To a great extent media attention on the downside reinforces the psychology that feeds economic depression. We decided it was time for some good news." The paper then has a series of articles on several people who have prospered during the last several years by being innovative, creative and hard-working.

The picture that emerges is one of confidence in our economic future and illustrates that economic renewal is not just beginning but is well underway.

Like other businesses, newspapers in British Columbia have become innovative and resourceful to meet the demands of our changing economy. Perhaps one of the best examples is the Vancouver Courier. In a campaign that started last summer, the Vancouver Courier has been featuring editorial and advertising coverage of new businesses opening in their local area. Every week two or three newly created businesses each

[ Page 5184 ]

purchase half a page of advertising in that paper, and the editorial staff contribute another half-page to stories and photographs of the new enterprise. The editor and the advertising manager report that the response to the project has been "phenomenal" from both advertisers and the public. Letters to the editor have been fully supportive of this type of cooperative endeavor. As many as six new businesses have been featured in just one weekly issue. The point to note is that no only is the Vancouver Courier reporting on this flurry of economic activity but it is contributing to it as well by informing their readers of the vibrant entrepreneurial spirit at work in their local community.

Other papers are experiencing our province's economic renewal firsthand. Circulation of the Vancouver Courier has increased 25 percent in the last six months, in part due to its innovative and exciting marketing policies. The South Vancouver Revue has recently expanded to a weekly format from its former twice a month appearance — again, in response to a growing demand from advertisers for increased exposure.

I'm pleased to report that in Coquitlam we're also sharing this increased economic boom. The Sunday News, which is published in Maple Ridge and distributed in Coquitlam, to this date has only offered a weekly service. I have been recently advised that the appearance of a mid-week issue is imminent. As the editor of the Sunday News stated to me, and he's repeating a very familiar theme: "Consumer confidence is increasing, and retailers want to increase their advertising to customers," again indicating that recovery is now well underway.

The Prince George Citizen, which formerly appeared daily Monday to Friday, initiated a Saturday edition last October and reports that its new supplement is receiving an excellent response from readers. Advertising sales set a record in 1984 and are expected to increase again this year. The Prince George Citizen is also taking an active leadership role in the community preparing for Prince George's seventieth anniversary celebrations in May of this year.

Perhaps one of the reasons that newspapers are reporting good news stories is because these same newspapers are benefiting firsthand from our transition to an information society. In one of last year's best-selling books, Megatrends, author John Naisbitt cites the rapid growth in the publishing industry for newspapers, magazines and books. He cites that as one example of our increasing need to have access to information. Our province is in the forefront of a similar trend in Canada, and there are a number of instances which show that we, probably even more so than many places in the United States, are interested in the information age.

The executive director of the British Columbia and Yukon Community Newspapers' Association reports that many of the member newspapers are expanding their operations, increasing from weekly editions to twice-a-week appearances or from biweeklies to weeklies. Circulation for the newspapers in the association has increased from 490,000 five years ago to 700,000 this year. According to the association, the future for community newspapers in B.C. look very good. To ensure that their industry is prepared for this anticipated growth, the B.C. and Yukon community newspapers annually provide several thousand dollars in scholarships to journalism students in community colleges around the province. I personally commend their efforts and wish them continued success in their industry. The Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers' Association says that advertising revenues in British Columbia are increasing substantially, a trend that is occurring across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbians are an intelligent, inquisitive and well-read group of people. This is reflected not only by the fact that the Social Credit government is continually elected to serve as government but also in the fact that we have the highest per-capita number of bookstores and the highest per-capita book sales in Canada. Our publishing industry is now the second largest in the country. The number of titles published in B.C. rose in the past year from 200 to 275, and the executive director of the Association of Book Publishers of B.C. reports that sales have increased from 6.2 million copies to 8.5 million. We should note that our government provides considerable assistance to this valuable resource through programs and policies initiated by the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development and the cultural services branch of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services ministry.

Communications are becoming increasingly important in our fast-paced, high-tech world. I am especially pleased that our government has undertaken to increase communication and consultation between the citizens of British Columbia and their government, in an effort to increase the flow of information in this province.

In the fall of last year the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) initiated a series of 28 public meetings in 28 communities throughout our province in order to discuss the topic of taxation and economic development. Over 350 verbal and written briefs were presented to the minister at these hearings. Representatives from the business community, teachers, local politicians, organized labour and other interested citizens had their opportunity to create dialogue with our government. All of the suggestions were and are being evaluated by the minister and his staff, and I am confident that the public hearings provided valuable input for possible taxation changes in this year's budget, if not in future budgets.

A further example of attempts by our government to provide relations between taxpayers and the Ministry of Finance was established by the taxpayers' services unit to provide assistance to the public and businesses with any tax inquiries. Last year for the first time a questionnaire was sent to the businesses after they had been audited by the consumer taxation branch. The questionnaire seeks comments from taxpayers on how the audit was done, asks if the taxpayers were satisfied with the results of the audit and solicits suggestions on what could be done to improve the service provided by the consumer taxation branch. Again, it is an illustration of the willingness to communicate with our citizens and to improve the delivery of government services.

[12:30]

The Ministry of Education, through the "Let's Talk About Schools" discussion paper, is actively encouraging public input in its efforts to improve our province's education system. The minister writes: "To be effective, schools, like other social institutions, must respond to the world around them.... 'Let's Talk About Schools'...therefore represents an invitation to all British Columbians to make their views on schooling known and, in doing so, to help shape schools of the future in this province." In fact, just last evening on my local community 10 station the "Let's Talk About Schools" program was aired in an extensive fashion, literally having the ministry brochure shown on screen; discussion as to possible answers and a general outline was

[ Page 5185 ]

given to the listening audience, with the opportunity to offer their thoughts and suggestions on this important issue. The Minister of Education has formed a Provincial School Review Committee to consider changes to the School Act, which will be revised for the first time since 1958. This new School Act will reflect the changes that have taken place in our society since that time.

It is through efforts such as these, Mr. Speaker, that our government is demonstrating its commitment to improving communications with the citizens of British Columbia. Increased communications can only have a positive impact on the direction in which our province is heading. The communications between any government and the people it serves are of paramount importance.

I believe that all in all the newspapers in B.C. do a fairly objective and consistent job of assisting in the flow of information. Now that economic renewal is underway, the transmission of good news will encourage the growth in confidence required to ensure continued prosperity. At the convention of the Canadian Community Newspapers' Association held in Penticton last July the Premier said: "A tremendous contribution is made by local newspapers in B.C." He then went on to congratulate them on a job well done, and I would like to echo the Premier's sentiments. In addition, I wish them the best of luck in the future.

Newspapers, books, magazines and the other forms of communication that I've mentioned today are becoming ever more important in our society, by providing people with the information that is being increasingly demanded. Also, with the increased information resources available in B.C. we as legislators must be doubly sure that our efforts meet the high expectations and diverse needs of the electorate we serve. We on the government side of the House, by pledging our support for the positive and constructive themes outlined in the Speech from the Throne, will be demonstrating our commitment to the future of our province. The opposition has a responsibility to propose concrete and specific measures to meet the challenges our province faces. We welcome their commitment to abandon personal attacks in favour of positive cooperative dialogue. This is a responsibility of each member of the House, Mr. Speaker.

With great pleasure, I will be voting in support of the Speech from the Throne.

MS. BROWN: The member who just took his seat certainly took us on a trip through fantasyland. In this province we are experiencing bankruptcies at the rate of an increase of 300 percent, and he calls that a recovery. Escalating unemployment. Job loss. When the rest of Canada is going down, these continue to escalate here, and he calls that a recovery. Whoever wrote that speech for him should have started with the words: "Once upon a time." That was a fairy tale if we ever heard one.

The reality of the situation is that we can't support this throne speech, because it really doesn't offer anything to the people of British Columbia. Not the young people, the women, the children, small business, the forestry industry, resources — no one benefits as a result of any of the statements made in this document. We would be remiss, and we would be doing this province a disservice, if we were to speak in support of it. We have to oppose it.

I find it interesting that in fact what the speech has done is zero in on the weakest links in this government's program and then talk about them in positive terms.

I want to remind you that it has been just over a year since the Ministry of Human Resources eliminated one of the most valuable and necessary services to children that this province has ever had, namely the child abuse team, and wiped it out completely. As a direct result of that, we are finding reported in the media, if nowhere else, an increase in the incidence of sexual and physical abuse of children. If I were the government, I would indicate very clearly in the throne speech an intention to reintroduce that program, recognizing how important it is to the children of this province. Not at all; instead, the speech brags about a program which no longer exists. It says that combating child abuse will continue to be a high priority for the Ministry of Human Resources. How is that going to happen, after the team of trained specialists and trained professionals — dedicated people working in that area — has been fired and the program eliminated?

We have more people thrown onto the income assistance rolls in this province today than ever before, as a direct result of the government's mismanagement of the economy. Human Resources consistently overruns its budget — has to — because there are more poor people in the province, and the poor people are getting poorer. At the same time the ministry is cutting back on services, on resources and on its personnel. It is not able under the present circumstances to do the job of properly serving the people in need. The staff are overworked; caseloads are beyond comprehension. People are not being served. Children are not being protected. Is there any indication in the throne speech that that ministry is going to reverse its policies, restore the family support workers, restore the child abuse team, restore the other services that families need, increase the supply of trained personnel to deal with these problems? None at all. Instead, we are told that the ministry is maintaining all programs despite increased workloads. That's just not true. There is a long list of programs that have been cut, that are no longer in service. Of course the workloads are increased. That's a direct result of the termination of a number of personnel in the ministry.

I find it absolutely mind-boggling that the Ministry of Human Resources, in contributing to this document, would not have taken the government to task for the level of poverty it has created in this province, resulting directly in the increased number of people needing the services of the Ministry of Human Resources. If the Minister of Human Resources cared about the people of British Columbia, whom she is supposed to be serving, her contribution to the throne speech would have been a direct attack on a government which caused to be reintroduced in this province something we have not seen since the Great Depression: food banks and soup kitchens. That's what the Minister of Human Resources should be talking about. Her contribution to the throne speech should be that her efforts would be redoubled and would not cease until her government created jobs, put people to work, and there was no longer any need for soup kitchens, food banks and overruns in the ministry itself. Instead, we are treated to the distortion of services being maintained and of child abuse being combated. It's just not happening. Because of my responsibilities as spokesperson or debate leader for community services alone, if for no other reason, I would have to reject this throne speech and not support it.

Imagine my surprise when I heard the Lieutenant-Governor talk about the high quality of health care in this province.

[ Page 5186 ]

Part of my responsibility is to be the debate leader on community and preventive health. Discharging that responsibility, I met with a number of community health teams and public health nurses in and around the lower mainland. Without exception, they talked about the way in which the health and dental care of children in the schools are deteriorating, eroded by this government wiping out necessary preventive programs. In one area they talked about an epidemic of measles, which would never have occurred if mandatory inoculation in the schools was still in effect. How can we talk about quality health care when we don't care for the health of our children? How can we talk about quality health care when we don't have dental care available to all children regardless of their economic status? If you can't pay for health care, you don't get it. If you can't pay for dental care, you don't get it. That's what the children are told. Again I have to say that I cannot support this particular speech, simply and if for no other reason than the deteriorating level of community and preventive health care which is available to the children of this province, to say nothing of the adults.

Then comes a section on equality rights. Hmmph! This is really and truly pathetic. On April 17 section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the equality section, is going to come into effect right across Canada. In other words, the province has had an additional three years to get its act together, to monitor legislation and bring it into line with the Charter. At the first ministers' conference attended by the Premier, the province of Quebec submitted a document entitled "The Quebec Government's Accomplishments Concerning the Status of Women." What that document did was outline for the benefit of the members of the conference the things that the Quebec government has done in terms of trying to bring their legislation into line with the Charter.

[12:45]

It talked about the structural changes in government. For example, they now have a minister responsible for the status of women. It talked about the fact that each government department has appointed a person to take charge of the Status of Women file and the ongoing monitoring of the legislation in each ministry. Then it outlined a plan of action, and divided that into three areas: changes in attitude; changes in institutions such as marriage and labor structures; and increase in women's participation in decision-making within each area's specific goals, and the ends which they were working towards. The third thing it did in this report was list the accomplishments.

Now the women of British Columbia would have settled for any two of the three. We would not have asked the government of B.C. to embarrass itself by preparing a document listing accomplishments, because there aren't any. As a matter of fact, if one had to list what has happened to women since this government took office, it's been a continual and unrelenting attack on services to women and an erosion of the quality of life that women experience in this province.

But certainly women would have accepted some kind of document talking about the government's intention in terms of structural changes which were to take place prior to April 17, when section 15 comes into effect. A plan of action, or even some indication that action was about to take place. No such thing has happened. When the Attorney-General is confronted, he keeps hinting that maybe if we behave ourselves, something will happen; that — who knows? — in secret, somewhere, something is going on, and on April 17, if all goes well, maybe something will come into place in line with the Charter.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the throne speech should have indicated very clearly the extent to which this government has been monitoring its legislation, and the extent to which it will be bringing in legislation into this House to be amended. It's had three years to do that, and to date we have seen no indication, other than a couple of hints from the Attorney-General, that any work at all in this area is being done.

Mr. Speaker, the final thing that the Quebec paper did was outline a conference for May of this year, with representatives from business, finance, the universities, labour and government, all of whom are going to come together to come up with a three-year plan to better the status of women in the province of Quebec. Maybe that would have been asking too much of this government, certainly of a government with the record on women's issues that this government has. Anything would have been better than the silence which blankets this particular issue. Any indication in the throne speech that would have given a hint that some work is in progress would have been welcome. Certainly an invitation to a conference of business, labour, the universities, government and members of the various societies and communities in our society to come together to draft some kind of plan over 3 or 5 or 10 or 15 years or whatever, dedicated to improving the status of women in British Columbia, would have been welcome in this speech. No such thing was shown.

Mr. Speaker, all we can hope for is that on April 17, when section 15 of the Charter comes into effect, there will be some indication that the Attorney-General has been doing some work on our behalf. Certainly at this point we have nothing to look forward to.

There are some positive things that the government could have done and could have talked about in the throne speech, which women would have welcomed in this final year of our decade. If we just took the list of services which have been terminated and reversed some of them — the B.C. Human Rights Code and Human Rights Commission, which need to take seriously the protection of women from discrimination based on gender, pregnancy or family orientation — that would have been welcome.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Funding for post-partum counselling. No matter how often we discuss that on the floor of this House, I guess we'll never be able to convince the members of the government how important and vital a service post-partum counselling contributed to the quality of life of all British Columbians, not just the women whom they served. Because most services to women don't just help women; they help all the other people whose lives are touched by those women. Certainly a number of families in this province were helped greatly by the services of the post-partum counselling program. Restore that funding; it was so little.

When we look at the subsidy for day care being eliminated and replaced by a means test based on a person's income, not taking into account all of the other kinds of demands on that income, and then we couple that with the reality of close to 35,000 single-parent families in this province headed by women — a large number of them dependent on day care so that they can work and get off income assistance.... That, Mr. Speaker, would have been a welcome addition to the throne speech. The 73,000 or more

[ Page 5187 ]

women on income assistance in this province looked to the throne speech for some indication that there was going to be some support in place for them so they would be able to get off income assistance. The day-care subsidy would have been greatly welcomed by those women.

The elimination of student grants. The number of women who depended on those grants when they work.... Because they were not protected by equal-pay-for-work-of-equal-value legislation, their incomes were so low that in order to save money to go on to skill training or other education, the grants were essential. The reinstating of those grants would have been greatly welcomed.

The immigrant women, of course — the benefit to them and to all of us of the funding for English as a second language....

I'm not quite sure whether the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) is giving me the eye because he has something constructive to say to me or whether he's just suggesting that I terminate debate.

Ms. Brown moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to recognizing the acting House Leader, this morning the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) sought to move adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35 to discuss a matter of urgent and public importance in connection with the resignation of the president of the University of British Columbia. I note that today's order paper provides for debate on the address and reply to the speech from the throne, a matter which, under standing order 25, has priority. As a parliamentary opportunity to discuss the matter is thereby provided, the motion to adjourn the House does not qualify under standing order 35.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:56 p.m.