[ Page 7327 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting Reports –– 7327

Private Members Statements

Open burning of waste materials. Mr. Nicolson –– 7327

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. MacWilliam

Surrey College Campus. Mrs. Johnston –– 7330

Mr. Rose

Security in tenancies. Mr. Blencoe –– 7332

Mr. Mowat

Mr. Reynolds

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Williams –– 7335

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 7337

Mrs. Wallace –– 7340

Mr. Parks –– 7343

FRIDAY, MARCH 14, 1986

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), I would ask the House to join me in welcoming the deputy clerk of the city of Penticton, Ian Birds, and his wife Sylvia, together with their three children.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today are a group of Young New Democrats, and among the group are members of the Young New Democrat executive for British Columbia: Mr. Jamie McEvoy, communications coordinator; James Fielder, treasurer; David Reay, vice-president; and Wendy Harrison, recording secretary. This group is here to meet with our caucus members to discuss issues, and I would like the House to welcome them all.

Mr. Mowat, Chairman of the Special Committee of Selection, presented a report, which was read as followed and received:

"Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House made on March 13, 1986, your special committee appointed on March 11, 1986, to prepare and report lists of members to comprise the select standing committees of the House for the present session, begs to report that the following is the list of members to compose the select standing committee to recommend a person to be appointed ombudsman, pursuant to section 2(2) of the Ombudsman Act, being chapter 306 of the RSBC 1979: Mr. Parks, convener, the Hon. R.G. Fraser. the Hon. J. Kempf, Messrs. Michael and Strachan, the Hon. J.A. Nielsen, the Hon. W.S. Ritchie, Mrs. Dailly, Messrs. Cocke, Lockstead and Lea.

"All of which is respectfully submitted."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair has been advised previously by the member for Coquitlam-Moody that he has a matter under standing order 35.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 35 to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. The matter may be summarized as a crisis in trust in the Bennett government which threatens the educational opportunities for children in the public school system.

Briefly put, the problem has five elements: (1) the law requires school board budgets to be filed by tomorrow; (2) the minister has no power to vary the law and grant an extension of time — only this House can do that; (3) school boards are over $50 million short of what is required to meet service levels prescribed by the government last year and contractual obligations resulting from the government policy; (4) the government has withheld essential financial information from school districts that is required for preparation of accurate school budgets, such as mill rates and the availability of the $80 million balance remaining in the excellence fund; and, finally, (5) while claiming to return budget and taxing authority to school districts, the government has retained full powers under the Education (Interim) Finance Act to issue budget directives to the school boards.

I assure the government of full cooperation of the opposition in getting the necessary changes through the House in one day if the minister wishes to bring forward amendments to the relevant section of the Education (Interim) Finance Act.

I move, therefore, that this House is of the opinion that the Bennett government has withheld essential financial information from school trustees, and that an extension of time for submission of their budgets of one month past the March 15 deadline specified by section 13 of the Education (Interim) Finance Act is essential for sound management of the public school system.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. As is the customary practice, the Chair will undertake to review the matter brought forward by the member and endeavour to bring a ruling back at the earliest opportunity.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

OPEN BURNING OF WASTE MATERIALS

MR. NICOLSON: The matter which I would like to talk about today is the very possible and imminent danger that arises from the burning of waste materials at Meadow Creek, which is on the northern part of Kootenay Lake. Open burning is taking place. The Minister of Environment gave his consent for this burning to commence last Monday, which according to the sawmill owners will take three weeks; some of the opponents of the burn estimate as much as six weeks. In terms of volume, this burn is already in excess. The permit granted is for 15.000 cubic metres. and by measuring the diameter of the base and the height of the cone, this particular burn is estimated to have a volume more than double that approximately 35,000 cubic metres.

Mr. Speaker, the burning of wastes by this particular mill has always caused some concern. but this year it causes special concern. Contained within that waste are wood preservatives used to prevent product from being contaminated with mildew in shipment to the oriental market. These particular preservatives are polychlorophenates. When they are burned at the low temperatures of an open burn, in which temperatures don't exceed 800 degrees centigrade, it is an optimum opportunity to convert these chemicals, which in themselves have very high toxicity, into chemicals known as dioxins, chemicals similar and perhaps even identical to the chemicals found in Agent Orange when it was used as a defoliant in the Vietnam war.

I have some selected pages from a study called "The National Dioxin Study, Tier Four-Combustion Sources," that cover the relevant chemical. This is from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. They talk about some of the chemicals — in particular, a chemical with the organic chemical name 2,3,7,8-TCDD. It's a couple of benzene rings, which are surrounded quite heavily, almost entirely, by chlorine, and that is what gives the very dangerous toxic effect.

Mr. Speaker, on the list of some of the toxicities of selected poisons, it ranks number four within the EPA study. It ranks well ahead in toxicity; in fact, it ranks about 100,000 times more powerful than pure plutonium. In other words, if one were to ingest dioxin and compare it to the amount of molecules of pure radioactive plutonium, it would be about

[ Page 7328 ]

100, 000 times more deadly for initial toxicity. That is something that will cause death within a very short matter — hours, days or weeks, a very short time-frame. In addition, there are carcinogenic effects that have been noted.

[10:15]

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many members in this House really know what happened to the victims of Agent Orange. These were long-term defects; these were mostly birth defects that occurred. I have seen pictures of some of those Vietnamese children. Their limbs are deformed as if they were made out of plasticine and someone had grotesquely twisted and turned them and set these pictures. We're carrying on now, then, an experiment which is not in Vietnam but is in the riding of Nelson-Creston.

The chief medical health officer, Dr. Arnott, says that we've got more serious problems, like smoking. We have a minister who has allowed this to go ahead in spite of some very informed opinion, in spite of letters from doctors and from the general physician for that area, Dr. Sweeney. So this is a year in which the burning is going to be different.

It's always been of concern to those people. It's always been of concern just when they were burning such huge volumes of wood waste. Respiratory problems have occurred that Dr. Sweeney has documented in terms of his caseload, but this year it is going to be even different because we have a new and unknown gamble taking place with the kind of product that is being produced. If the government does not take its responsibility, if the government does nothing more than rubber-stamp the approvals of the federal government in the use of dangerous chemicals, which in turn does nothing more than approve something that's been approved in the United States.... If we do not look beyond, then we are doomed to repeat the tragedies of the past. You know, we had the assurances of American and Canadian authorities when we sat Canadian soldiers out in Nevada under nuclear exposure, and I hope that we don't make the same mistakes here in 1986.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I've been asked by my colleague, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton), to make a few short remarks. Since the statements made by the member for Nelson-Creston have a health as well as an environmental bearing, perhaps it's appropriate that I respond. It's also appropriate that I do this briefly now and let the minister respond either when he returns or during his estimates, or at some other time.

I'd like to thank the member for raising the issue of dioxins, because it's an issue of emerging importance. I'm sure that the Minister of Environment will talk on it at greater length. But I wish to point out that dioxins are not produced intentionally, nor are they manufactured. They are formed as trace byproducts during the manufacture of other chemicals and during natural events such as forest fires. Indeed, it is my understanding and the understanding of the people in both the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Health that forest fires are the largest producers of dioxins in Canada. I am well aware that the Ministry of Environment is working closely with other provincial governments and with the federal government through the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers on the development of a national dioxin action plan. This plan will be ready for discussion in the near future. My own Ministry of Health is deeply interested in this issue and is working with the Ministry of Environment to develop a provincial strategy to tackle the issue of dioxins.

On the specific issue of wood-waste burning in the Kootenays, I've had the opportunity to read the report of the Minister of Environment and from the commission appointed to review the matter. I concur with the findings of that report. I note in particular that our own medical experts have concluded that no significant health hazard is associated with this particular proposal.

In conclusion, while I've only touched lightly on this issue, I expect that my colleague, the Minister of Environment, will respond more fully in the future.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, it is so typical of this government, and of that Minister of Environment, to be absent when on the order paper there are two statements, not just one, relating to environmental issues. He has a duty and a responsibility, as the minister responsible for environment in this province, to be in this House to listen and to respond, and not send this rookie Health minister to make a short statement, which he reads off. If he knows more about chemistry than the member from Nelson-Creston.... I would like to see them enter a debate on chemistry. That is just ridiculous.

You know what happened up there, Mr. Speaker? The particular mill that created this problem in the first instance started to treat with pentachlorophenol, and within ten days the Workers' Compensation Board came in and shut them down. What did they do? They took that waste wood from those ten days and mixed it into a pile of other waste, trying to hide what they had. They were just going to burn it. Shameful, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely shameful!

When the authorities moved in, they dug around and picked out some of the obvious bigger pieces that were treated and set them aside in a little pile to do something else with them — bury them somewhere, if they can find a safe place. Then they're going to burn — and are burning — in open air, at uncontrolled temperatures, a chemical that we all know has potential for terrific hazardous effects on human beings. That's a proven fact. Now how much or how little.... Federally there is nil, zilch, zero allowance of dioxins when you're burning. They're basing it on something that they say Ontario has. I very much doubt that the figure they're using is the correct Ontario figure. We've been trying to track that down.

It's shameful to do this, and to do it without allowing a public hearing. Again, it's an example of this kind of centralized, autocratic, authoritative government — typical of this government. That's the attitude of that government all the time. They make the rules; they don't allow public input; they decide what's going to happen, and let the poor people up there try to hide from that smoke. We won't know, and it will probably be very difficult to prove whether or not there are problems as a result of this. Who's going to know, when some child who is covered with this smoke has a defective child, whether that was the cause or not?

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad, in a way, that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Rogers) has responded to this question, because there are some very serious health problems. I wrote to Dr. Arnott about the incidence of birth deformities; I felt that six out of ten in a recent period was very high. I don't think Dr. Arnott has maybe studied the statistics as much as I have. When you take the fact that the

[ Page 7329 ]

chance of that kind of defect is about six out of a hundred cases, and you start looking at the probabilities of that happening in six cases out of ten, it starts to become very prohibitive.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this minister would not gag his ministry, and that they would be able to respond to me directly — unlike the letter I sent to Dr. Arnott, which was responded to but not really answered by the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask this minister if he will commit himself.... If you are going to experiment with people, then for God's sake do it right. Will you do a controlled study and measure the dioxin in the fat cells of the people in that area as opposed to a control group that might be chosen in West Vancouver or Point Grey or some other environmentally safer area?

Mr. Speaker, I would also want to point out that I am not faulting Meadow Creek Cedar. They might have acted irresponsibly, but everything they did was legal because of the lousy, inadequate, inappropriate legislation that we have in place, and it has happened in spite of the consistent warnings that have been given by this opposition about PCBs and PCPs, dioxins and other things.

I would hope that as a result of this the government would even give some financial assistance to Meadow Creek Cedar so that they can put in a proper burner such as they have at Lavington, near Vernon, which is a ceramic-lined burner. It means that these things can be burned in an environmentally safe way. The people of that area are willing to put up with that kind of risk if somebody is making a positive step to do something a little bit less primitive than just burning it on the ground, leaving it smouldering for up to six weeks.

Would you stand for this if it were in the Burrard Inlet area? No way. No way would we put up with this. The people of our area should not have to put up with it either. It's a nuisance, an eyesore and a health risk, and with the addition of these dioxin-producing chemicals it is an absolute disgrace.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few additional comments in regard to the same subject, because this is a subject I have some very serious concerns about.

As we well know, the B.C. lumber industry is an established user of chlorophenol compounds as a wood preservative. Wood treated with these fungicides is resistant to sap stain and mould discoloration, and of course that's why it is used. But unfortunately, as my colleague has pointed out, chlorophenols, being aromatic hydrocarbons, are highly toxic. That's the nature of the chemical. Because of their chemical stability, they stubbornly resist oxidation and biodegradation. As a result, their use as an industrial chemical has led to widespread dispersal throughout our environment. The presence of chlorophenols has been detected in winter snowpacks, in landfill leachates, even in sewage sediments and in the adipose or fatty tissues of higher organisms. Exposure of aquatic organisms to chlorophenols, as previously pointed out, can have immediately harmful effects. Sensitive species of fish are killed within hours of exposure to concentrations of less than 100 parts per billion. That's an incredibly dilute amount and still toxic at that concentration.

Chlorophenates, which are the alkaline derivatives of sodium salts of chlorophenols, rank as the most highly toxic industrial chemicals used. Their chemical stability and resistance to metabolic degradation results in accumulation in aquatic organisms in all organisms for that — matter — which leads to concentration of the toxin in the food chain and its dispersal in our environment.

Of particular concern....

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Yes, I do I do understand it. Do you? That's the question. And do your colleagues across the floor understand the serious nature of what I am talking about?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Keep reading. You don't know what you're talking about.

[10:30]

MR. MacWILLIAM: I do understand it.

The toxic effects of these fungicides is increased by the fact that they contain dioxin contaminants. The dioxins are so toxic, Mr. Speaker, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified them, as was also pointed out, as the most toxic manufactured substances used.

Again, research has been probing the presence of dioxin in human tissues and has found that dioxin levels in British Columbia are almost double those elsewhere in Canada. Dr. John Ryan of Health and Welfare Canada has confirmed that people in British Columbia are getting more dioxins in their system than people from far more industrialized regions of Canada.

As was pointed out earlier, dioxins are a byproduct, a contaminant of these chlorophenol fungicides. The study has found that the particular dioxin prevalent in B.C. samples, which is called octachlorodibenzo dioxin, is a common impurity in wood preservatives. Now this suggests that the wood-processing industry is a major culprit in the widespread environmental contamination of these products.

Admittedly, present research has not determined what level, if any, of these dioxin contaminants is a safe level in humans. There have been no established guidelines. The fact remains, however, that dioxins and their chlorophenol contaminants are spreading throughout our environment, and yes, Mr. Speaker, they are spreading throughout our bodies. Such evidence, I feel. raises justifiable concerns regarding the chronic effects on the thousands of people that are exposed to dioxins and chlorophenols in the workplace and on those individuals that are indirectly exposed through such processes as my colleague has pointed out, in the burning of wood that has been treated with these compounds. It also raises serious concern over the cumulative effect of the widespread dispersal of these compounds in our environment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make three suggestions to the ministry, which I will table. These suggestions are: that the Minister of Environment conduct an extensive evaluation of the environmental proliferation of chlorophenols and their dioxin derivatives: secondly — and the Minister of Health may wish to comment on this because it impacts on his ministry — that the ministry gather epidemiological evidence regarding the effects of acute and chronic exposure of chlorophenols both in the general populace and in the specific population of those individuals who are exposed to those

[ Page 7330 ]

compounds in the workplace; and, thirdly, the recommendation that the Ministry of Environment treat this subject seriously and review and enhance the present regulatory controls on the industrial use of chlorophenol compounds throughout British Columbia.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Once again, I apologize for the absence of the Minister of Environment, and I will answer just some of the statements made by the member for Okanagan North on this particular issue. I might like to point out just one thing at the beginning, that the largest producer of dioxins is Mother Nature herself in a natural forest fire. If you have any toxicological information that might indicate that that's not the case, I'd be interested in finding it out.

The use of TCP and PCP — and I've got the names of them all written down and I think I can get them out just as well as you can, but I'm not going to bother — has been in the forest industry for some time, as you know, to prevent sap stain and fungus mould in order to market our lumber overseas. It's not just for the Orient; it's for anywhere that it goes offshore. There are alternatives to using chemicals. One includes kiln drying, but it has obvious economic implications and can only be used on the higher grades of lumber economically. There is research being done into alternative chemicals, and it is intensifying as this problem continues. It's possible that viable, safer chemicals will be available in a few years.

It should be emphasized that the concerns about the safe use of these chemicals is not a recent matter. In 1981, when I was Minister of Environment, the British Columbia Chlorophenate Wood Protection Task Force was established to develop a code for the wood protection industry. The executive committee of the task force had representation from Environment Canada, the B.C. Workers' Compensation Board, the Ministry of Environment, the Council of Forest Industries and the various unions in the forest industry and other government agencies, as well as input through the general committee.

The product of their two years' work was a document entitled Chlorophenate Wood Protection Recommendations for Design and Operation, which was published in 1983, in December. The document is available from the Queen's Printer and represents recommendations for state-of-the-art wood protection facilities. Since the code was published, industry has been making great strides towards implementing the recommendations, thus leading to safer conditions for millworkers and the environment and the general public.

You have made three recommendations; I'll accept two of them — the third one was probably made in a somewhat facetious manner. Nonetheless, I will again discuss this with the Minister of Environment on his return, and he'll make a fuller statement. On those particular issues that deal specifically with my ministry, I'll have a look at them and get back to you at another time.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Just for clarification, Mr. Speaker, do I have my three minutes now or is the rest of the other ministers' time at this point?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the standing orders are that the proponent in reply shall have a maximum of three minutes. Other members may use up the time.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you. In reply, first of all, I meant that last comment in a fully serious manner. I think the minister should take it in that light and follow up on those recommendations.

Here's some additional information for the minister, if his colleague would like to take it on his behalf. Crown Forest of Kelowna has applied to waste management for a permit to use sodium tetrachlorophenate as a wood preservative in its local mill in the heart of Kelowna. The facility is located on the shore of Okanagan Lake, near a major residential area; the facility is proximate to a marina, proximate to a recreation area; it sits in the heart of the Okanagan basin recently designated by the Minister of Environment as an environmentally sensitive area. Due to the high water table and proximity to the lake, the potential for a spill or accident raises serious concerns. The Kelowna Sierra Club has opposed the issuance of a permit until full studies are done. Kelowna city council is strongly opposed to the issuance of this permit. They have expressed concern regarding inadequate safety and unnecessary exposure of workers. Local residents have petitioned against the permit. However, the local MLA and the Premier have remained curiously silent on the issue.

The people of the Okanagan valley, I think, are proud of the quality of life there, and they're not willing to tolerate industrial practices that may threaten their safety or the health of their environment. I would like to request from the Minister of Environment, because the issuance of the permit has not yet been concluded, that a permit not be issued until a full environmental impact study and a complete evaluation of the Crown Forest operation be conducted at this time.

SURREY COLLEGE CAMPUS

MRS. JOHNSTON: The subject of my statement today is the establishment of a permanent college campus in Surrey.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who has visited my constituency of Surrey and seen the existing college campus can understand the absolutely essential need for a permanent campus. What we have in Surrey at this time is certainly providing an excellent level of education, but the surroundings leave a little to be desired. The college campus presently is made up of portable buildings that were placed on a temporary basis some 15 years ago on 140th Street and, due to the temporary nature of the buildings, require replacing. I think it's important that I give you some background information on Kwantlen College in order that the members of this House understand the necessity for a priority being placed on a permanent campus.

Kwantlen College offers post-secondary education, and the district covered by Kwantlen is Richmond, Delta, Surrey, White Rock and Langley municipalities. The 1981 population in the region was 392,000. It is a region of continuing growth, with a forecast population of 722,000 people by 2001. The college has three campus locations: Richmond, Surrey on 140th Street.... And this is the campus that requires replacement. It is made up of 82,000 square feet of single-storey portable buildings on land leased from the Surrey School Board for $1 per year. The full-time equivalent is 1,178 in university transfers: this is arts and sciences and the foundations — adult basic education, etc.

We also have a campus at Surrey-Newton which is really an example of what a very good campus can represent. We

[ Page 7331 ]

have our welding, millwrighting, carpentry, masonry, graphics, business office and a technological centre located in the Surrey-Newton campus.

Kwantlen is the only college out of 15 colleges in the province that does not own its own facilities on a permanent campus. At the present time the college does own property in two areas: 25 acres in Langley, 22 acres in Surrey. This property was purchased with a view to the establishment of some permanent buildings. The college budget at the present time is approximately $13 million. The college employs approximately 400 persons. So it is certainly an asset to my constituency, and the possibility of a priority being placed on a permanent campus is very important, not only to me as the member from Surrey but to the constituents.

I think it's important, Mr. Speaker, for the members of the House to know, and particularly for the minister to be further made aware of the fact, that there is great community support for the establishment of a permanent campus. In late December I had two members of my constituency, Mr. Ron Rae and Mrs. Jeanne Eddington, meet with me and further point out the very important need that was so obvious to those of us who live in the Newton area for the establishment of a permanent campus. A discussion took place and we attempted to determine the best way of showing that there was community support. We felt it was important that the government, who would be putting up the money, would be convinced that there was community support for this expenditure, because, Mr. Speaker, we're talking in terms of $50 million to $60 million. So a petition campaign was started in early January and closed off at the end of February. I'm pleased to say that last Saturday the Minister of Post-Secondary education visited our constituency, and the committee that had been formed presented him with signatures of close to 12,000 in number. We set a goal of 10,000, but we succeeded in obtaining close to 12,000 signatures.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you've worked on any petition campaigns, but 12,000 signatures obtained over a period of two winter months in the communities of Surrey, Delta, White Rock, Langley and Richmond represents a great deal of work by a large number of volunteers in the community. So I feel that the community has shown that there is great support for the establishment of this permanent campus. There is great support for the government to undertake this very important expenditure — a very substantial expenditure. I am asking the minister to give this particular item a very high priority when he goes to the Treasury Board in the coming months.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Post-Secondary Education.

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Coquitlam-Moody on a point of order.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when this rule was set up it was designed — not that I don't want to hear the minister respond; I think he should — so that there would be a presenter and the next person would be a member, if he were available and standing up, of the opposite side. I think it would be delightful to hear from the minister, but I really think that to have you recognize two people from the same side as speakers is not what the rule intended.

[10:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is quite right because the rule says "any other member may reply." I did see the Minister of Post-Secondary Education on his feet first. Had I seen you on your feet. you would have been recognized accordingly.

HON. R. FRASER: If the member would like to go ahead, please go ahead. I'll follow.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the minister did not use the full time, the time would be available for any other member to use up when replying.

MR. ROSE: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I realize that you have an astigmatism in your left eye.

I'm also very interested in this problem because of a number of things that have come to light over the years regarding both Kwantlen College and Douglas College. The member for Surrey was speaking about the need for a permanent campus. I agree with that. I think that it's very important that we increase the opportunities for access for students to post-secondary education all over the province, not just in Surrey.

A recent copy of the Western Report outlined a tremendous reduction in both university and college funding by the government, which is bound to have its reflection on access.

Kwantlen has a peculiar and particular problem being in Surrey. Compared to the other campuses, even on the lower mainland, it is grotesquely underfunded. I was hoping that maybe over the past three years I would hear the members for Surrey getting up and making a lot of racket about that. They are certainly not without representations from various people, including their college union, and also the College Institute Educators' Association.

Let me give you some figures in the time that I have. I realize that there isn't much time available to me. Capilano, in its allocation per capita, gets $80 per capita in the community; Douglas College gets $50.34; and Vancouver Community College gets $73.03 per capita. What does Kwantlen get? This potentially beautiful campus, this vibrant area represented by two vibrant members of the Social Credit Party gets a piddling $38.19.

I think the question is whether or not we need a new building. Systematically over the years this campus has been underfunded. If you need further evidence, in terms of the student area, we can look at the 1985-86 allocation, unless it's going to be changed, and I don't think it will be. I hope it changes for the better next year. Capilano College got $11 million: Douglas College got $13 million; Kwantlen College got $12 million: and VCC got nearly $39 million, in terms of its support by the government.

Again. the average per capita allocation to the three other colleges: Capilano. $58: Douglas, $63; Kwantlen. $67; and VCC, $61. Then there's a percentage of this whole thing. Again, I think Kwantlen suffers. In the percentages to the other three colleges: Capilano, 139.2; Douglas: 79.5: Kwantlen, 57; and VCC, 143.3. So I don't think there's any argument about this. Whether or not we have a new building is at this time a moot point. There has been a systematic underfunding of that particular post-secondary institution.

Furthermore, there's also a narrowing of options and offerings by that college, because it tends to specialize, and

[ Page 7332 ]

wants to specialize, in the technical area. I've no objection to that, but what that means is that the students who do not want or who are not interested in that particular specialty have to travel often many, many miles to get the kinds of courses they want. They'll find that when they do that, if they want to, say....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, your time in reply to the private member's statement has expired.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just sort of launching in full flight.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you'll appreciate that standing orders provided you five minutes to reply to the private member's statement, and the five-minute period has expired.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm disappointed that we couldn't hear from the minister, but certainly I have had an opportunity to talk to him on more than one occasion. As I mentioned earlier, he did visit the constituency on Saturday. He met with a committee that had been working on the petition. He was also afforded an opportunity to tour the present facilities. We met with the principal, Mr. Bob Lowe, who is obviously very proud of the efficiencies they've brought about in the operation of the 140th Street campus. There's no question as to the level of excellence of education that has come out of that facility. It's obvious, though, that we do need a new campus, a new building. There's no way to hide the fact that we have buckets on the floor collecting water from leaky roofs. You watch where you walk, because the building is wearing out; there are holes and weak spots in the floors.

The community is very supportive of the new campus going ahead. When the new buildings are constructed on the 22 acres in Newton, it is the intention of the board to consolidate all of the programs from Surrey, along with some of the applied arts programs from Richmond and Newton. There's no question about it; the community support is there, the need is there, and I'm asking that it be given a very high priority. I think 15 years for a temporary building is long enough. It's time we had our permanent campus.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The opposition certainly will provide consent for the minister if he wishes to say a few words on this subject.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before the Chair recognizes.... It's a point well taken, hon. member. The Chair may make an observation with respect to rule 25 and commend its reading to the members. The purpose, of course, of section 25 is to allow a private member to make a statement, possibly to the government — or, if you wish, to the opposition — in order to elicit a reply. For members who are not government to use the time of the reply will defeat the intent of rule 25.

1 feel that at this time the orders of the day should prevail and continue on to the next member. Possibly the minister would have an opportunity at another time.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order with respect to standing order 25A and private members' statements, I would point out with respect that the wording of the order was quite deliberate, in that situations can arise whereby a subject brought forward for discussion may not have direct impact or bearing on a specific ministry. Rather, it may be of such a general nature that those who may wish to take part in that minimum debate could be any member of the House. I appreciate your statements about what has developed since this rule came in: that there has been somewhat of a process whereby a government member has the opportunity of responding to the question raised by the mover of the statement. But in certain circumstances, it could be any member of the House who may wish to take part in the discussion.

I would point out to members the wording under section 25A: the proponent, a maximum of seven minutes; any other members, a maximum of five minutes; the proponent in reply has a maximum of three minutes. So it was designed to provide the opportunity for any member to take part in that debate, although it has developed into a bit of a pattern, under normal circumstances, that the proponent speaks, and usually a government member will reply. But the rule does not explicitly demand that.

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I don't know why this isn't called the Rose rule, because when we were in the discussions about the change of the rules and the reform of this rule, opportunities to provide private members with occasions to bring up constituency matters was the design of the rule. Yes, it does state precisely what the minister said — that any other member may reply — but the idea was that if an opposition member started out a discussion on some topic within a ministry, perhaps the minister could reply. There would be an interchange, a debate, rather than the set pieces that take place in most legislatures.

I don't want to prolong this, but I think tradition should have it that if there is no member of the other side following the proponent, it should apply that any member does have the opportunity to stand up and take part in the debate. Clearly it was the intention of the committee, as my memory serves me.... The Clerk is at the table; I know he's not going to nod his head or make any other kind of motion signaling approval or disapproval of what I said, but the idea behind it was to have an interchange and a debate. Only when a member from the opposite side does not stand in his place to take part in the debate would the same side proceed as the second speaker in the debate.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, certainly past practice on this particular section has been that if the first speaker — the proponent, the maker of the statement — does not utilize the full seven minutes, then someone else can get up and speak before there is a response. That is what has happened, and that's what happened in the statement preceding this. When that time is up and the full seven minutes gone, then the minister, or whoever is going to reply, has the five minutes, and the three-minute rebuttal. I thought that's what my colleague for Coquitlam-Moody was about to do when he got up, because I don't think the member for Surrey finished her seven minutes.

That has been the practice, Mr. Speaker. We've certainly strayed from it, and we should have a clarification on this before next Friday.

SECURITY IN TENANCIES

MR. BLENCOE: This morning I want to make a statement about a very important issue: that is, security of tenure

[ Page 7333 ]

in residential tenancy. We have put before this House a private member's bill to deal with this particular issue, and that is just a stopgap measure for a long-standing problem that this government refuses to recognize, in our understanding.

The real problem facing the Bennett government is the city of the poor they have created in the downtown east side of Vancouver, and the impossibly insecure conditions people there are forced to live under. Insecure housing conditions condemn these people to an existence they will never break out of. How can you find employment if you have no secure shelter? The answer is, you don't. How do you recover from even the simplest illness when you live in poor housing? The answer is, you don't. How do you survive a move to new housing away from the support of your friends and familiar landmarks and the services that are somewhat affordable in the downtown east side? The answer is, you don't.

Mr. Speaker, the Bennett government is jeopardizing lives at a time when this province could be celebrating a historical milestone and profiting from an exposition of cultural and technological excellence. How can we celebrate at the expense of those whose lives are being affected by lack of action by this government?

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite might not realize this, but it is almost entirely government money that has been maintaining the hotels in the downtown east side at the cost of millions to the taxpayer. Yet the government is not concerned to see that money well spent.

[11:00]

Let me illustrate the scope of this government waste. Some 16,600 people live in the downtown east side, 45 percent in lodging houses. It is a stable population: 57 percent of lodging-house tenants have lived in the downtown east side for more than five years. Over 50 percent of the people living in that area are over 55 years old and 19 percent are over 69. Some 80 percent of lodging-house tenants are on government income maintenance and another 10 percent are on workers' compensation and UIC payments. Fifty percent of lodging house tenants pay more than 40 percent of their income on rent. Forty-five percent of the lodgings are substandard. An average of $200 — that's the maximum GAI shelter for singles per month in rent — means the government is paying over $16 million per year in rent to house this small group of people in substandard accommodation.

Now why is it government waste, Mr. Speaker? Because for all of this money that passes through the hands of the forgotten poor of this city directly into the pockets of downtown east side hotel-keepers, the government could mount a direct housing program that matches the total amount they spend on social housing in the entire province.

To make things worse for those tenants, the Bennett government has decided not to offer the same dismal prospects for security of tenure that are begrudgingly offered normal tenants. These people in the downtown east side are long-term residents, the same as any other tenant, yet a hotel-keeper can evict them without notice. They are long-term tenants, they are their homes, and they match the description of long-term tenants. At the same time, these hotels have been collecting tax reductions because they are classified as partially residential hotels.

Mr. Speaker, the solution is simple. There is a solution to the problem. Change the definition of tenant in the Residential Tenancy Act. That's all it would take. Add one sentence to an act which presently excludes people who have the right to security. We must offer security to people that will otherwise be hurt by evictions and exploitation if they are forced to took for alternative housing in a market that is already getting tight because of Expo.

Furthermore, we must take this opportunity to change the conditions for people living without secure shelter in an area of this province besides the downtown east side. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to remember that the whole world will be watching Vancouver during the next six months. We will be welcoming visitors to see how we treat the poorest residents of our city of Vancouver, and they will judge our progress by the degree of civility we display, not just to them but to each other and to fellow British Columbians.

In putting forward these suggestions, Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are guided by the following principles that may seem alien to the Bennett government. First, access to affordable housing is a right. Security of tenure for both renters and homeowners must be guaranteed, and the stock of special needs housing must be maintained and improved. These actions would be guided by the general principle of ensuring security of tenure through legislation and stabilizing the housing market at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, in our estimation, and on the part of the New Democratic Party, we feel we can offer no less. We feel this is an issue of justice and equality and fairness. It's an issue of maintaining the homes of people who have lived in that area for many years. British Columbians are requesting action, and they're requesting the legislation that I have suggested today.

MR. MOWAT: I must reply, Mr. Speaker. I've sat here for three and a half years, and I think that's probably one of the worst speeches I've ever heard. I'm telling you, all I hear from that member is bashing of the disadvantaged, bashing of the disabled. I think this government is a very compassionate government. We have within British Columbia one of the finest housing programs for the disabled and the disadvantaged. If you look at what B.C. Housing Management has done, at the number of housing units that we have that will take care of the disadvantaged and the disabled, it's truly remarkable.

I'm really ashamed to think that that member gets his statistics from Jim Green, an American, a member of COPE and the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association. He never has the time: he's never been down to have a look at it. I want to say that I'm really shocked at that member, that he's doing that kind of thing. I've got to say that all I've heard from him is a pack of lies this morning, and he should get off his butt...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MOWAT: ...and do something, and come over and do it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. MOWAT: I cannot listen. I cannot stand it anymore, I tell you. It's about time that member....

[ Page 7334 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, I think, used a statement with respect to a word which is unparliamentary in this chamber. I'd ask the member to withdraw the term "lies." Would the second member for Little Mountain withdraw. Would the second member for Little Mountain withdraw the allegation of lies.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, while the Chair considers this a moment. Would you please remain silent.

To the second member for Little Mountain, the Chair would find the statement made unacceptable in this chamber, and accordingly would ask the member, as a courtesy to this House, to withdraw the statement, in failure of which the Chair would have no alternative but to ask the member to leave the chamber for the balance of the day.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I have no option. I cannot accept that member continuing to bash the disabled and ride on the backs of the poor, when our government is doing a job....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair has asked the member to withdraw the term "lies" in the statement. Will the member withdraw as a courtesy to this chamber.

MR. MOWAT: I will not withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair would request that the member vacate his seat for the balance of the day.

The Chair recognizes the member for New Westminster on a point of order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the member's statement he only took about a minute and a half or two. Meanwhile, the green light has gone on, eliminating the opportunity for the opposition, or any other member, to speak. So I would ask that the clock be turned back on that particular debate, because it was mostly taken up in a discussion over rules.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's point is well taken. Will the House bear with me for a moment.

The second member for Little Mountain had spoken for approximately one and a half minutes. So there would be three and a half minutes left of the five minutes provided in the Standing Orders for reply.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since this is our first private members' statements day since the House began its business, a few moments back we were discussing the implications of standing order 25A, and the members for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) and Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) suggested that the tradition which is beginning to evolve in the House is that the opportunity is provided for opposite sides of the House to respond to the proponent's statements. In that the second member for Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) was midstream in his statement, perhaps it would be in keeping with the earlier arguments that the balance of that period of time be provided to someone from the opposite side, unless there is no one standing for that purpose.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, further to that point of order of the Minister of Human Resources, generally speaking our precedent in this House is that debate flows back and forth across the floor, and when there is time during a member's reply....The government side had their reply, and I'm up on behalf of the opposition to reply to him or to address the issue. That's quid pro quo in this House and always has been. I think the Minister of Human Resources has suddenly been blessed with a lapse of memory.

MR. REYNOLDS: On the same point or order, Mr. Speaker, the member for New Westminster states that he's getting up to reply to the member of the government's statement, but the member from his side who made the original statement has three minutes at the end of this debate for that reply. The five minutes was meant for a member of the opposite side to reply to what the member who had the original statement said.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, not if the government side, or the opposition side for that matter, let the time go or at least don't use up the time. If they don't use up the time then it should go back and forth. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I will yield the floor to the member from wherever he comes from and let it go. But I would think that maybe we should look at the rules. All we're doing now is wasting time of the House. I think we should look at the rules and think in terms of quid pro quo in this matter.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order has previously been made. The Chair was aware of the point of order of looking at the rules.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I may not take the whole three and a half minutes, so the member for New Westminster who said the House was wasting time was the one who got up and started the whole wasting of the time.

But I really wanted to get up and congratulate the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain for the statements that he made this morning in opposing this statement made by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). The second member for Victoria, it would seem, when he wants to stand in this House and speak about Vancouver, is listening....We watch the newscasts at night and see Mr. Jim Green, who is trying to be the one-man Expo-destroyer in the city of Vancouver — a man who threatens to put pickets up saying, "Yankee Go Home," more interested in creating a political image for himself so he can run for COPE in the next civic election and hope that he can follow in the steps of Libby Davies and the Eriksens, who used the same methods to get their names popular with people in the city of Vancouver.

The second member for Victoria talks about this government jeopardizing lives. Mr. Speaker, I think that statement is irresponsible and should not come from a member in this House.

MRS. WALLACE: Tell it as it is.

MR. REYNOLDS: The member for Cowichan-Malahat said: "Tell it as it is." This government always tells it as it is,

[ Page 7335 ]

and that's why it wins more elections than the NDP wins in this province.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: She says they don't trust us. Mr. Speaker, the people of this province trust this Social Credit government. That's why we keep on getting re-elected; that's why we'll be re-elected after the next election and the one after that, no matter who the leader of the NDP is and no matter who their members are. If these members are so sincere, why aren't they all running? The ones that are doing the talking aren't even running in the next election. They're quitters.

[11:15]

But, Mr. Speaker, the second member for Victoria in his statement doesn't talk about the shelter crisis line that was formed by business people and volunteers in the east end of Vancouver who aren't of the same political persuasion as Mr. Green and the members of COPE and don't want to be political but want to solve the problems of people. Mr. Speaker, they have the shelter crisis line going. There are volunteers working on it. They are placing people in other accommodation. The free enterprisers in society like to help, too, but they don't want to spend all their time on CTV and CBC and newspaper interviews trying to get publicity to hurt their province and really hurt the people.

Once again, I want to say that the NDP is trying to ride to power on the backs of the poor and the unfortunate. I've never seen the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain get so mad. There's a man, with his disability, performing the highest job he can in our province. Elected by the people; spending seven days of every week working with people and assisting people. They say: "Tell us about his other jobs." Yes, he has other jobs; he works very hard for the people of British Columbia, a lot harder than the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke).

MR. BLENCOE: Well, it would appear we've hit a nerve this morning. All this side of the House is asking, and all the people of British Columbia are asking, is for some compassion and understanding. What I asked this morning, and what has been asked many times by others, is for some change to the Residential Tenancy Act that will protect these people in their homes and give them the security they desire.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) has brought the issue to this House. He has lived with the issue; he has seen the issue. People of this province understand what is happening. The people of this province are excited about Expo, yes, but it should not be at the expense of these homes and these people, who are really just asking for some simple justice. That's the only case we're trying to make today, and that others have made, particularly the member for Vancouver Centre, who has made it over and over again.

As the critic responsible for residential tenancy and housing, I've asked this government — we've all asked this government — to consider this situation. The statistics used are from the city of Vancouver. They are known statistics: they're there for everybody to use, to see. We again ask this government to consider the situation, consider these homes, and take the appropriate action in the interests of all British Columbians. That's the issue.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker. could I have leave to make an introduction, please?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd like to recognize a Victoria area student who is in the gallery today, a young girl with a profound interest in the parliamentary system. I ask the House to make welcome Heather Martin.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to see you in your chair.

This morning I want to talk about how this government mismanages public lands, how they reward their friends, and how we lose jobs and employment in the province as a result. I want to show that the reason we have these unemployment levels in B.C., levels that are really scandalous and put us in the basement, like Newfoundland, is partly because this government allows the mismanagement of our public forests on a monumental scale. There has been a history of incredibly bad resource management in British Columbia during the past decade of this administration. The public knows that; the public sees that all too often. But there are also great costs to the economy, and it results in more unemployment than would otherwise be the case.

The case I want to use today to make this point is Doman Industries, the company that Mr. Herb Doman is involved in. Mr. Doman, of course, is a longtime friend of the Social Credit Party, and one who has always had access to the inner circles of this government. To give him his due, a decade or so ago he had one of the most efficient, smaller-scale operations on this coast. In those days — the early 1970s — he didn't even have any public timber at all. He operated one of the most efficient sawmills on the coast in those days. He was a scrambler. He bought on the market, and he was efficient and profitable. That was back when he had no public timber.

But it's all changed now. It's all changed since Mr. Doman got a foothold on a big chunk of the public domain. That happened back in 1977, Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Doman got control of the Kimsquit valley in the central coast, just north of Bella Coola. Timber in that valley, incidentally, could have fueled and saved the town of Ocean Falls, but the government of the day, this administration, did not see fit to see that that community was maintained on the central coast.

I would like to tell this House that I have been over the Kimsquit valley; I've been in that region. I have rarely seen the likes of it before. It was the ultimate pristine wilderness in the rain forest on the coast of British Columbia. There was virgin timber, there was the wonderful coast rain forest, there was clear water and lovely streams, and when I was there the salmon were running and below us were hundreds and hundreds of eagles over the salmon run. It was the kind of scene that a British Columbian, once having seen it, would never forget. But what a far different scene the Kimsquit valley is today, and that gets us back to Herb Doman.

Mr. Doman was granted those lands in 1977. It's called TSHL A09197. In most ways it is a standard agreement with the Doman company. It set the size of trees to be utilized so

[ Page 7336 ]

that there is not too much waste, it required a wood-processing plant so that the wood would create jobs here in British Columbia, and so on. The wood sizes that were supposed to be utilized were right up to seven and one-tenth inches at breast height — and four-inch tops. So the intent was that the bulk of the trees, the smaller trees in that valley, were to be utilized for jobs here in British Columbia. That was the intent of the agreement in 1977. There are some possible exemptions, but that was the basic requirement of the agreement.

What else was Mr. Doman required to do in exchange for this magnificent wilderness? He was to build a pulp mill, too, in exchange. Section 8(82) of the agreement says: "A pulp mill capable of producing at least 300 tons of pulp per day is to commence operations on or before December 31, 1981." Those were the trade-offs. The basic trade-offs then were to utilize the timber down to the smallest scale, to process it in British Columbia and to build a pulp mill. Those were the trade-off. Let's see what happened.

First, Mr. Doman said: "Well, I need an interim supply, as well, before I get on to this ambitious project that will create jobs in British Columbia." And he got that. He was granted more public domain on the basis of these proposals. He was granted more public domain on Vancouver Island in the Nootka district. He got licence A10113 on November 2, 1977. But that licence was not to be a long-term licence; it was to be a licence that would terminate at the end of five years. It was the start-up timber for Mr. Doman, and it too required the building of a pulp mill by December 31, 1981, just like the other agreement.

So some might argue that the government was a little generous to the Doman company, but those were the trade-offs, and they were understood. But there they were: good utilization, jobs in B.C. and a new pulp mill. Well, where do we stand now with this close friend of the government? Not in very good stead, I'm afraid. The pristine wilderness valley of the Kimsquit: much of it is gutted and is a moonscape. Utilization standards using the tops and bottoms of the trees down to the small sizes — seven-inch bottoms, four-inch tops — is not being adhered to as per the contract. Processing in British Columbia: that's not being adhered to as per the contract. A pulp mill in British Columbia: that's not being adhered to. In terms of the major commitments in the trade-offs with respect to this valley, they haven't been performed.

How do I know that? Well, it has been reported by the government's own staff in a memo dated April 30, 1985, which makes it all abundantly clear. It's a memo from Mr. W. Vohradsky, who is the operations superintendent of the mid-coast district. His memo is to Mr. Scarrow, the timber manager for the Vancouver region. What does he say in that memo? He says they're manufacturing export logs right there in the Kimsquit valley. The purpose of this trade-off was to create jobs in British Columbia. The same staff person says that they're doing that, and they don't have an export permit. They don't have an export permit, but they're gutting the valley for export logs. And he says they haven't applied for one. So we're not getting the utilization. Again the superintendent makes that clear in his memo of April. He says he found a significant change in the bucking practices. Numerous long butts of various lengths were cut from logs which normally would not have been long-butted. That is, a big chunk of the tree trunk was not being utilized, in terms of what they were up to in the Kimsquit.

He says further: "In addition, numerous pieces of various lengths are being generated as a result of bucking logs some distance from the shattered ends." So they're not using the top of the tree either. They're not using the bottom of the tree, and they're not using the top of the tree. He draws a diagram in his memo to show how bad it is; how much, in fact, isn't being used from the bottom or the top.

He thought it strange that the trees would be cut up this way, because if the tops and bottoms were to be utilized, then there would be inefficiency and increased yarding costs because of the significantly higher number of pieces the practice was generating. But if the material was not going to be used, and just to be trashed, then clearly there was no problem. Three of Mr. Doman's staff who were there said that they did not give a clear confirmation that these woods would indeed be utilized. So much for that part of the Doman contract.

[11:30]

But Doman's staff there in the valley did confirm that export logs were being manufactured on the setting, concurrent with logging operations, confirmed by Mr. Hawthorn, Mr. Hall and Mr. Kowark. Yet they didn't have an export licence, and they hadn't applied for one.

Isn't this all enough to reconsider this contract, in terms of the deal that was made? But Mr. Doman is a friend of government. He has access to the corridors of power here in Victoria. There was non-performance in cutting and utilization. We were sending the real jobs abroad, and many of the jobs were lost forever in terms of the utilization standards that were being applied.

But the superintendent went further. He took pictures of it all. He provided lots of pictures of the waste and debris: the long butts and the ends. Countless British Columbians see this in other parts of the province as well in the Charlottes and other parts of this coast. It shows one cedar bucked at 40 feet. Many other clear, high-quality logs were long-butted because of the drive for export, because of the drive for cash flow to deal with his banker's problems because he was too involved in other projects. That's what this log export game has been about on the coast of British Columbia: to pay off bank loans, overlending, overleveraging by Mr. Doman and others on this coast. It's meant the loss of thousands and thousands of jobs, this export of logs and this incredible waste in the forests in the Charlottes and on the coast.

The Forest Service man concludes: "I've received a lot of feedback from numerous Bella Coola Valley residents about the variance from conventional bucking practices. I believe we're faced with another media event if we don't deal with this problem properly at this time." He asks in closing that the regional manager, his boss upstairs, advise him regarding the acceptability of these practices within the context of "sympathetic administration." "Sympathetic administration," for those of you who don't remember, is the euphemism that the former Minister of Forests used to cover non-performance in the forests in terms of these contracts. He asks the boss: "Is all of this mess okay, boss? Does it include this much?"

Think of it. Think of the jobs we might have had in British Columbia if in all of these valleys we were getting these people to live up to contract. Think of the new jobs. We'd all be better off in British Columbia if Herb Doman had not been a friend of government — Herb Doman and others like him. And the pulp mill that was to have been completed in 1981 — well, you can check Duke Point in Nanaimo. It sure isn't there. You can check with the unemployed in Nanaimo. They're sure not working in any new pulp mill of Herb Doman's. That pulp mill should have been here by now. That was the deal. It would have alleviated unemployment in this

[ Page 7337 ]

part of the coast. Instead, those logs have created jobs abroad, and the waste has eliminated countless downstream jobs here in British Columbia as well.

What about the mill? It was supposed to have been built by 1981. The contract was changed. There was a five-year extension. They changed the date to December 31, 1986, a five-year extension after this kind of performance by your buddy. Nothing has commenced. Clearly there's not going to be performance. Too many of our companies in this province are in debt up to their eyeballs because they've been involved in new ventures, and that company is no exception.

One of their new ventures is a company that some of you are more familiar with than others. That new company is called the Western Pulp Partnership. Remember that one? That was the conflict-of- interest rock that sank the former Minister of Forests. He had $20,000 in that company, and the Minister of Energy of the day had $100,000 in that company at that time. Is it really any wonder, in a sense, that the note hasn't been called with respect to Mr. Doman?

There's an incestuous relationship here between government, members of the cabinet, and companies like Mr. Doman's. It allows blatant infractions of contract with minimal or no penalties. That relationship costs every citizen of British Columbia and costs them dearly. It costs them in environmental destruction, monumental waste, abuse of the public lands, and the loss of countless jobs.

The five-year no-renewal cutting permit — what about that one? The one in Nootka that was a five-year non-renewal cutting permit — well, Herb's friends turned that one into permanent cutting rights over there. Mind you, that's still subject to building that mill that we've never seen. Despite a senior staff letter going to Mr. Apsey, the deputy minister of the day, who now heads the forest lobby, the Council of Forest Industries....That letter noted that that cutting right should not be considered a permanent right. It was supposed to have a five-year limit, and it outlined the process that could be used to deal with that. But the deputy and the minister chose to do nothing. The deputy and the minister chose to let it become a permanent cutting right in the Nootka.

I can't blame people from an adjacent company, the Tahsis Co., who said: "Good Lord, this licence should be suspended rather than expanded." Who said that? That was Mr. Rasmussen, professional forester, chief forester for the Tahsis Co. He said it should be cancelled, not extended and expanded. And they increased the chart area for Doman, as well, into a bigger turf, bigger territory, yet it was near other people, like Tahsis, and would more reasonably be allocated in other ways.

What about the MLA for the area? Was he on the job? What about the MLA for the central coast? Back on October 11, 1984, when similar problems were occurring and had occurred previously, the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) was there. He came back and reported that what was going on there was wrong, and he said so. He's now being sued by Mr. Doman. That's a practice among this cabinet and cronies of theirs — to sue those that make statements in the public interest. That's the practice over there, even though the Premier hasn't quite been able to talk his lawyer into pulling a case together with respect to the Leader of the Opposition. Even though he yarded him over to Robson Square to spend his time on that kind of nonsense, he still hasn't pulled that one together to try to muzzle the opposition and the elected representatives on this side of the House.

What are the terrible things Mr. Lockstead said, the member for Mackenzie? He said things like: "The abuse is extreme. They're highgrading." You bet the abuse is extreme. You bet they've been highgrading, and they did so after Mr. Lockstead saw the event. That's clear from the memo. Remember that the memo was in the spring of 1985. Mr. Lockstead was talking in the fall of 1984. So the kinds of concerns and practices Mr. Lockstead blew the whistle on were continuing subsequently under that former Minister of Forests in this administration.

Highgrading, lack of full utilization, devastation in that valley — that's what we traded the Kimsquit for. We didn't get the pulp mill. Instead they exported the logs. We now get a new Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), long overdue, with a record in Education that leaves something to be desired. The new minister's got a big job on his hands, Mr. Speaker, and I understand he's already had serious arguments with his boss, so that's encouraging. He's had serious arguments with his boss about this question of log exports. He doesn't want to sign that stuff anymore, but the boss says: "Sign it." That's what's happening over there right now. I don't blame him for not wanting to sign those log export permits any more — the bundles that go through cabinet week after week after week. That's exporting jobs out of British Columbia when we need them here and now. To the new minister I want to say: "Look at the sections of those agreements with respect to non-performance. They are abundantly clear." If there was ever non-performance on the part of people in this industry, there was non-performance by Mr. Doman and Doman Industries. I say to the new minister: "Take on your boss. Do the job for the people that you were elected to do." End these arrangements with Socred cronies, and only then will we really be beginning to tackle the job creation problem in British Columbia. Only then will we begin to employ the people of this province in the manner that they should expect from any administration.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to recognizing the minister, the Chair would like to bring in information required on the point under standing order that was raised this morning. This morning the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) sought to move adjournment of the House under standing order 35. He handed in a written statement which I have perused. The statement is concerned with educational funding and recommends amendments to legislation. The sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice at page 373 indicates that such a motion may not have priority over the other business of the House if it involves legislation. Additionally, such a motion is not in order when an ordinary parliamentary opportunity is available for discussion of the subject matter. Today's orders indicate that such an opportunity will arise with priority after members' statements in the form of the throne speech debate. For these reasons I cannot entertain the motion.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I've enjoyed the speeches of the opposition members during this throne debate, perhaps more so than in many previous sessions. I say so because I’ve been reading the papers and I thought maybe the government was in a little bit of difficulty, but judging from what we've heard so far, if we can only get the members of the opposition out on the hustings making speeches and winning votes for us, we'll be just fine.

[ Page 7338 ]

I did particularly enjoy the speech of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) yesterday, in which he took credit for all that the NDP was doing for Expo. He said that the NDP was making a success of Expo through its positive criticism. He said that the NDP was going to do this in other fields as well. You've got to listen very carefully to the speeches of the members opposite to understand what their real thinking is, and occasionally you get these revelations, because here you see that what the New Democratic Party was saying to the government and to the people of British Columbia is: "What you're doing is correct. Don't pay any attention to what we say, because it's just our way of saying, 'You should be in power, and we can make you better.'"

[11:45]

Let me give you some illustrations of the positive criticism about Expo that the NDP has put forward to make it better. I want to quote from the former Leader of the Opposition, Dave Barrett: "B.C. Place is absurd. Vancouver needs and wants low-cost housing, a park and other community amenities on False Creek. Instead the Socreds will foist on it a flag-draped pavilion for sightseers in an ornate stadium for professional sports promoters to play with. That's absolutely absurd. It's not wanted, not needed and not required." That's the NDP's way of helping out, so you interpret that criticism as our making Expo a better fair.

Now may I go on to the present Leader of the Opposition and the way his positive criticism is helping to build Expo?

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

HON. MR. McGEER: The member for Alberni, the one that probably put you to sleep yesterday.

Here's what he had to say: that we are borrowing millions for exposition buildings that will be of no value at all to the people of the province. There is positive, constructive criticism. The member who made that speech offering so much to us had this to say; this was his positive contribution to Expo.

Transpo '86. "These ministers who spend so much time on jet planes to Europe and China and France and all these other places junketeering, go off to Paris and bid for Transpo '86, with not the faintest idea of what it's going to cost. Then when they have the land for it in B.C. Place, the Premier says: 'I'm going to sell off that land and make a quick, rich cash profit for the people of B.C."'

Well, it just so happens that the ministers who went to Europe did know what they were doing. That's why we've got Expo 86. The Premier did know what he was doing, because after the fair is over, that largest urban redevelopment program in all of North America is going to be a showplace — not just for the world's fair now but for the next 20 years, as a city within a city is built because of the vision that was held by this government while the members opposite had these things to say.

What I say is, please go around British Columbia. Make more of these speeches and win votes for the government, which might otherwise be in some difficulty.

I want to go for a moment to the prize candidate for the NDP in the next election, because he follows the pattern exactly of the member for Vancouver East.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Oh, Mike Harcourt, the mayor of Vancouver. Here's what he said. Mr. Patrick Reid was here, many members will recall, for the Speech from the Throne, and even the Lieutenant-Governor broke a tradition of 750 years to ad lib that the fifty-fourth country had come to Expo. Well, here's what the mayor of Vancouver.... Again, we will take all his criticisms in the same light as the member for Vancouver East.

"Dear Mr. Reid and fellow committee members of the Bureau of International Exhibitions:

"Please stop plans for Transpo 86 on the north side of False Creek and downtown Vancouver. Most Vancouver citizens do not want Transpo 86 to proceed on this site. Instead, five out of ten aldermen, 26 out of 57 members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia" — were any of you one of those 27 that the mayor of Vancouver said were against Expo? — " significant numbers of concerned Vancouverites and members of the media" — members of the media, Mr. Speaker; those impartial reporters — "feel that housing, public amenities and transportation should receive greater priority."

Well, I tell you, we should be paying attention to the priorities of the media and their criticism, because maybe they're saying the same thing that the NDP says: the criticism is really that we're doing everything right. By saying it's wrong, all they're doing is making us do a better job.

"A letter dated June 5 is on its way to you with backup material. Do not make a decision until you have read that material and investigated further."

Well, what did that letter say? All of the very same things. It also said this — and I'm not sure this was accurate:

"You should also be aware that a significant number of the rural Social Credit MLAs are unhappy with the spending of millions of dollars on Expo."

Isn't that disgraceful! The mayor of Vancouver — say it to him — misrepresenting the Socred MLAs.

Fortunately, the international exposition people never took seriously the New Democratic Party, because they shouldn't. They never took seriously the mayor of Vancouver, who was against an exposition on the hundredth birthday of that city. Never took them seriously, and that's why we're going to have this great exposition. Even the media who were against it are going to be there. BCTV is a corporate participant at Expo. They're paying the fees so that they'll be able to give lush parties for all of their guests — not at government expense; no, at their advertisers' expense. CBC is the host broadcaster. CKNW will have a permanent facility, and I understand that Marjorie Nichols will be the Expo nanny. Well, I passed this on only to congratulate the New Democratic Party and the media for being against the government and saying all of the things that the people know are wrong. We just want the media to work harder and the NDP to work harder to bring us in the necessary votes, if and when there is an exercise to determine who is right and who is wrong about the future of the province.

May I take a moment just to report on some of the activities of one minister during the past few months. As you know, Mr. Speaker, one of my responsibilities is as the Minister of Communications. I was recently at a meeting of communications ministers for what I describe as the SALT II talks in Canada: the Silly Authority Limitation Talks. We had one meeting on this subject four and a half years ago, and we had a reprise of it just last month in Montreal.

[ Page 7339 ]

I'd like to say that the British Columbia policy, which can be summed up in four words, "open skies, free competition," has been accepted nationally, but I have to in all truth and honesty report to the House that this has not yet been accepted. But the Campbell River Television Association, I think, gave the reason why our policy of abolishing the CRTC should be followed through.

They quoted a decision from U.S. federal district judge Sarah Evans Barker, to this effect: "To deny free speech, to engineer social change in the name of accomplishing a greater good for one sector of our society, erodes the freedom of all. Censorship threatens tyranny and injustices for those subjected to the rule of such laws."

Now that's exactly what is taking place in Canada today with the attempts to limit what you and I can watch on television. This is precisely what is behind the Salmon Arm case where the CRTC took to court the cable operator in that area. What they really wanted to take them to court for was showing American satellite signals. But they got into a little difficulty with that kind of a court case because the people that they issue the licence to, the ones that wore the white hat instead of the black hat in the CRYC's eyes, happened to be doing the same thing, for the reason that the competing operator who had a licence from the British Columbia Utilities Commission was doing as well, namely, giving the people of Salmon Arm what they wanted.

When they finally went to court, Mr. Speaker, the charge was not showing American satellite signals. They charged them with a far more heinous crime, What they were doing in Salmon Arm was distributing in an unauthorized fashion the CBC. Yes, sir, they were found guilty of distributing to the people in Salmon Arm by cable the publicly subsidized Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which of course costs — and I am going to come back to this in a moment or two — about $800 million of your tax money each year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sell it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, maybe that's a point we should seriously consider.

Now this great public corporation, which while not permitting itself to be distributed by satellite, spends more money distributing its signal by other means — your tax money or mine — than the BBC and the French national network spend combined for distributing their signal throughout their whole country. That's where our tax money goes, rather than being put up on satellite, and of course it can't go up on satellite because then people might be able to watch it, and that's against the zealots of the CRTC and their policy.

While one can always champion the right of free speech and the right of anybody to listen to that free speech, there are times when the right of free speech is abused. This happens, of course, when individuals have their reputation destroyed by irresponsible newspaper or television reporting. We had a case of that involving the CBC and a deputy minister of this government. That case involved in its time the largest settlement of a libel case in Canadian history. But what you don't know is that the citizen whose reputation was falsely destroyed had to use his personal savings to take the CBC to court, whereas the CBC used your tax money and mine to defend its right to libel that particular individual.

[12:00]

Now I want to discuss another case involving the CBC, but as background I'd like to start by defending, in a way, a member of the opposition opposite: the member for Vancouver Centre, who is extremely hard to defend on a Friday, because it's not one of his days for the Legislature. In any event, this particular speech was not given on a Friday. It was when the member for Vancouver Centre said that the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce was in trouble. Do members recollect that? He said that the bank with loans of $1.5 billion to Dome Petroleum was in trouble. It was a terrible, irresponsible thing for that member to do; and the next day in the House, Mr. Speaker, he admitted that and apologized.

After he gave that speech in the House — and I was driving home — analysts came on the air and said that what was so dangerous about this wasn't that he was wrong but that he was right. Mr. Quinn, a bank official, said that Lauk's statement had undermined a lot of confidence. He said: "I read it at seven this morning while drinking my morning coffee, and I almost choked.'. However, the market analyst had this to say...They were unanimous in their condemnation for Lauk. And he later admitted that his charges were unfounded. They pointed to the nervousness infecting bank investors before his bombshell hit. "The jitteriness is real and it's justified," said the analyst. Nonetheless, even though it was justified — and bank stocks slipped all of 50 cents, or about 5 percent of the value at the time — the member afterwards apologized. There was a long and critical story about this irresponsibility by Der Hoi-Yin, a business reporter for the Vancouver Sun, who recognized how dangerous it was, even when the criticism was justified.

Of course, what the member didn't know, and what I'm sure he has since found out, is that even though Dome couldn't possibly repay its S 1.5 billion in debt, all the other banks would get together and protect it by rescheduling that repayment. Now I should say to members of the House: never get into trouble with the bank, because they're not going to reschedule a payment for you. Although they will reschedule a payment for Argentina, for Venezuela, for Mexico, or for Dome Petroleum, individuals don't get that kind of treatment.

Now I want to come — after that lesson, which represents in a sense calling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre — to what subsequently happened. Now we come later, some months, to another story by the same reporter, Der Hoi-Yin, in the Vancouver Sun. The headline is: "Teachers' Investments Not Insured."

"The Teachers' Investment and Housing Cooperative, with assets of $321 million and 45,000 members, is the largest cooperative in B.C., but their deposits or investments, as they are called, are not insured."

Remember the $321 million and 45,000 individual members.

"From a liquidity point of view the co-op rates very high, with $90 million in cash and cash equivalents, and it has only reported one annual loss in the past twenty years, a loss of $722,000 in 1982."

There were two columns. Now I want to take you to November 5, 1985, a few months later. "Co-op Insolvent. The Teachers' Investment and Housing Cooperative was placed in receivership" — now get this, Mr. Speaker — "and $268 million in deposits, including $128 million in retirement savings plans, was frozen." Here we had taken the largest co-op in B.C., with 45,000 teachers and their savings, and by one scream of "Fire!" in a crowded theatre $53

[ Page 7340 ]

million was withdrawn, the Teachers' Investment and Housing Cooperative was placed in receivership, and those who didn't run out of the crowded theatre had their life savings frozen. With the experience that the member for Vancouver Centre had, where there was justification, we move to the largest and most secure cooperative in British Columbia and in effect destroy it and take away the savings of 45,000 teachers. I consider that to be irresponsibility in the matter of free speech.

Now we come, Mr. Speaker, to the following year. And here we have another story. "The Bank of British Columbia, which almost folded in 1984, has been shopping for government assistance because of its problem-plagued loan portfolio." It's the same reporter, this time screaming "Fire!" about the Bank of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's before the courts.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, this part isn't before courts.

But I want to continue to tell you what kind of trouble the Bank of British Columbia was in. Remember it was its "problem-plagued loan portfolio," which was the story of that CBC Der Hoi-Yin report. Chartered banks publish in the Canada Gazette the deposits, and it showed during this period that the Bank of B.C. dropped by $181 million between August of 1985 and December of 1985. The deposits were $2.7 billion. However, retail deposits had increased. The deposits that had dropped in this period, which supposedly put the Bank of B.C. In jeopardy, were because chartered bank deposits dropped to $249.8 million from $452.5 million. Who was taking their money out? The chartered banks. Provincial deposits dropped to $500,000 from $69.2 million. So the chartered banks and governments were the ones who were taking their deposits out of the Bank of B.C., but the bank only had a reduction in its total deposits of $249.8 million as against assets of $2.8 billion. So the point about it is that Mr. Kaiser obviously went and asked the provincial governments to restore some of the deposits that they had taken out. This again was an instance of screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theatre — the second time by that same reporter.

What happened after that? Because this is the true shame of what took place. The person who was put forward as an authority on this, a bank analyst named Palmer, asked to have the tapes he had given of an interview to the CBC made available because he believed that his words had been taken out of context and a false impression created to the Canadian people and to the depositors.

Now do you know what this public corporation that demands free speech and open government...? What did that public corporation do? It went to the courts of the land to try to prevent that interview being made available to the man who claimed he was taken out of context. I am ashamed and embarrassed to say, Mr. Speaker, that having gone to court, they won their right not to disclose. They won their right on appeal.

What an embarrassment for the media. What a double embarrassment for a publicly supported media. Here is what the lawyer hired at our taxpayers' expense had to say: "The bank had not sought the tape for purposes of litigation, but to conduct a publicity campaign in the media." That's what the CBC was afraid of. They were afraid of a publicity campaign in the media. Now why would a bank want to conduct a publicity campaign in the media? Maybe only to protect its depositors and its shareholders.

Well, we had that terrible, disgraceful thing reported by Der Hoi-Yin that the member for Vancouver Centre was responsible for, causing a dip of 50 cents in the shares of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. It dropped a total of 5 percent in its share value. Now what happened to the Bank of British Columbia? In a matter of 11 minutes after that story, shares in the Bank of British Columbia went down a full 20 percent.

Now our great public protector in the media in British Columbia, the Vancouver Sun, then put a front-page story out: "Firm Puts Bank of B.C. on Credit Watch." Why would they put it on credit watch? Because the CBC shouted "Fire!" in a crowded theatre; that's why they put it on credit watch. What happened then? The bank stock dropped another It percent.

So what do we have from the media, from the Vancouver Sun, that poured gasoline on the fire? Now we have another story by their business reporter two days later, after the additional damage had been done by the Vancouver Sun, talking about the paper losses of Bank of B.C. chairman Edgar Kaiser. That's the story, as though the purpose of the Vancouver Sun had been somehow to deal a personal loss to the chairman of the Bank of B.C.: no thought at all about public responsibility, no thought at all about media responsibility, no thought at all about confidence in British Columbia, no thought at all about the integrity of the bank, no thought at all about the safety of the shareholders, no thought at all about the system in British Columbia.

My proposal, Madam Speaker, is simply this. I say that the CBC should be sold. I think the $800 million a year deficit that that public corporation runs up in lawyers' fees, in high executive salaries that they won't release to the public, is a national disgrace. They should be forced to do exactly the same thing that CTV does, which gets no subsidy at all. We should take that $800 million the public would save every year from getting this millstone of the CBC off the public's back and put it into deposits in the Bank of British Columbia, thereby saving the taxpayers' money and building stability and confidence in western Canada. I say disband the CBC because it is a national disgrace.

[12:15]

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: I think the House has settled down. It's always interesting to listen to the doctor from Point Grey. Sometimes I think he should be prescribing for himself rather than for the province of British Columbia.

You know, that's the first thing I remember when I came into this House, Madam Speaker: "Stick it in your ear, McGeer" all over this province when he was responsible for ICBC. Then we went on and we had him setting a dish up on the lawns of the Legislature, trying to profess himself as such a great freedom fighter. A few years later he stands up and says that he is going to refuse to license cable companies who carry erotic pay television programs. Well, I have nothing against him refusing to license it, but what inconsistency! He goes from having the dish on the lawn to saying he was going to refuse to license them.

This is the man also, Madam Speaker, that would have us right out of Canada. There was an article written by Bruce Hutchison not too long ago which quotes McGeer: "British

[ Page 7341 ]

Columbia has suffered only loss since it joined Confederation in 1871. Ottawa had better realize that if any of the provinces want to secede, British Columbia heads the list." That man and Rene Levesque from Quebec are hand-in-glove. They want to get out of Confederation. An interesting kind of background, you know, jumping from one political party to the other — an opportunist. And there he is.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech. That was an interesting document too, and that goes even farther back than the member for Point Grey went today. I don't think he got back in his remarks as far as 1977, but actually some of the things that are being presented as new information in this throne speech were presented in the throne speech in 1977. That was the call for conflict-of-interest legislation that was promised in the throne speech of 1977. And here we are, nine years down the road, with a demonstration that has gone on in the last few months by members of this cabinet that indicates that there is certainly a requirement for something, though you can't legislate morality. But it indicates to me that this is again just replayed.... We'll believe it when we see it.

The throne speech was not reported in any of the media to any great extent. It's understandable, because there was nothing new in it. It just is a repeat of press releases and announcements that had been made by members of the government, or by other bodies. Ferry rates holding their own, for example — we had that announcement some months ago. No increase in ICBC — ICBC had announced that some months ago. Those sorts of things have no place in a throne speech. What the throne speech should be about is telling us what the government is proposing to do in this next year to bring some stability to the economy of British Columbia. There is nothing in here that does that. The reason is that this so-called plan is non-existent. The other reason is that they're basing the throne speech — as far as I'm concerned — on a false premise when they talk about the great renewal that has taken place, and the economic growth.

I want to talk a little bit about what has happened in Cowichan-Malahat relative to economic growth. On Vancouver Island today we have 37,000 people unemployed. That's 16.2 percent of the workforce. A year ago there were 38,000 — 1,000 more unemployed a year ago, but the percentage was exactly the same: 16.2 percent. This indicates that people have been forced to leave the island because there is no work. They're leaving. Our population is going down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MRS. WALLACE: That is true. I'm talking about Vancouver Island, where it is going down because there are no jobs here. There's a net loss in the province as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MRS. WALLACE: There's no sense trying to prove things to that member, because he doesn't listen. He's not prepared to accept facts that point in any direction other than what he thinks.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MRS. WALLACE: All you need to do is look at Stats Canada. I'll send it to you. Stats Canada will tell you. That's where these figures come from. In fact, what they tell us, if you look at Stats Canada, is that since the beginning of the recession there are 42,000 fewer people working in British Columbia today than there were at the beginning of the recession.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair hears the voice of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) but cannot see him sitting in his seat.

MRS. WALLACE: In the figures of those people who are working in this province we know that there is no question — certainly in Cowichan-Malahat it's the case — that many of those jobs are part-time jobs. Many of those jobs are very low-paid jobs. I can tell you that it has made a tremendous difference to the whole social outlook and social structure of the constituency to have the kind of unemployment we've had there, the difficulties that we're still facing. Every few weeks the food bank calls in to the local radio station and says: "Look, we're out of food. We have nothing to give out in hampers." The good people of Cowichan rush in, they clean out their deep-freezes or take a few dollars and turn it in, just to keep people from going hungry. That is not renewal. The kind of situation this throne speech talks about is not the situation in Cowichan-Malahat.

Education. The problems we're facing in education are partly the result of the situation in the economy. Just a few weeks ago, the principal of the Cowichan Senior Secondary School appeared before the school board and made a statement that is almost heart-rending. He said that since September the school has topped 1,350 students. "Problems in the community have increased the tensions in the classroom. Today's youth suffer from more problems. With broken homes and other social problems, we must deal effectively with the students' personal problems so that the student is in a frame of mind capable of participating in the instructional process."

The principal asked the trustees to realign the administrative team at the school and increase the number of counsellors serving the students. There are only two and a half counsellors for over 1,350 students. One of those counsellors said that the staff aren't able to address the serious student concerns. Individual meetings with students each fall and spring have been replaced by a series of hasty visits, often leaving some students unseen. She reported the suicide of a student two weeks before. The counsellors had never seen this student because of lack of time. "He died an unknown boy," she said. "What if we could have talked to him?"

The school is suffering from horrendous truancy, and counsellors have no effective way of informing parents of their children's attendance record. A random check showed that 380 of the school's 1,225 students — at that particular point — had missed one class or more. "There's a sense of hopelessness. Why bother? There's a threat of nuclear war. It is natural that they should turn to drugs and escape. They're readily available. I could fill a book with different situations that would bring tears to your eyes." The school board agreed that they would consult with Fulton when making staff assignments for next year.

[ Page 7342 ]

Then we get into the next problem. The school board is faced with the situation where there aren't enough funds. You can talk about $110 million more to education. What does that amount to when you've taken away more than $300 million? And the class sizes aren't down that much.

We have a newly elected school board in Cowichan. The newly elected chairman of that school board, certainly no political friend of mine, actually describes himself as being something akin to Attila the Hun. That's the man who is now in charge of our school board. He was elected in due course, but this is what he's now saying. He didn't say that in the election, mind you. But he says that we'll be able to maintain last year's service level within this year's fiscal framework if inflation and CSP are not included. We know what that minister is saying: that they will be included. Otherwise, the shortfall of an indeterminate amount will raise taxes by approximately — he says — $35 per average home. Others are saying $50.

It was interesting. He was on a radio phone-in show this morning, and every call said: "Look, no increase in taxes. We cannot afford it." So what's that going to mean? It means those children have to continue with even fewer services. What will happen? Already since September we've had head teachers cut, library and counselling time curtailed, busing fees doubled. Classroom sizes have increased again; learning assistance and counselling support services have decreased. And the budget that's there is inadequate to meet that.

This is a letter from the district home and school association, from the president to the chairman of the school board, with copies to the minister and the Premier. They are urging that this Excellence in Education funding be made available to provide the kind of services needed in that area just to bring that standard of education up to a point where there will be sufficient time to allow teachers and counsellors to deal with those students. But I understand that that's not the intent of this government. That's what they're asking for.

The same is true of the other school district in my riding. Lake Cowichan School District says there will be a budget shortfall, in the small school district of Lake Cowichan, of $2 million — with no salary increases or inflation. They're going to apply to the Excellence in Education fund to cover the shortfall. What's the point in having a computer if the child that's trying to work that computer is so emotionally disturbed and upset and has no time for counselling? What's the point in buying a computer if those children are not attending school? What's the point in buying a computer if those students do not have the kind of teaching and other facilities available to them to create a climate that allows them to learn? It's just not happening.

I want to talk a little bit about forestry. Of course forestry is — or was, and still is — the only industry in Cowichan. Sure, we have some tourism and, you know, we're trying to develop other things, but it's the mainstay and it's been very hard hit there.

This is the "Labour Market Review" that's put out by the federal government each month, and this is for the month of December. That's the latest one I have. It says: "Most woodworkers are out all month. A few return in the late month."

There are three federal government grants to go to local forestry concerns, which are all part of the five-year forest development agreement, but there is still no funding for the forestry survival program. Those people who are still working, apart from the pulp mill in the area and the Chemainus sawmill, are working short work-years because there just isn't the work.

Yet we have these kinds of programs that the federal government is bringing in — and the province has become involved again — but they are short-term, low-paid jobs. They are not the kinds of jobs that allow you to buy shoes for your kids or do the kinds of things that you would like to do in your home to make it comfortable and even healthy. You know, you're not able to buy the kind of diet, the vitamins, those kinds of things. You can't do it on $4 an hour for a few months a year. It's just not possible. That's the situation we're in, and that doesn't sound to me like renewal of the economy. That's where we're at. We need programs; we need some different direction from government that will stimulate the economy and get things going again. It's not happening, and there is nothing in the throne speech to indicate that it will happen.

We in our party have been spending a lot of time meeting with people involved in the forest industry around this province just to try to gather a better understanding of what's happening. Sure, we know some of the things that are happening, and my colleague for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) talked about some of those things this morning, and that's very close to Cowichan-Malahat. Even though what was happening was in a different area, certainly the home base of that particular company is in Cowichan.

MR. REID: Your best corporate citizen, too. Why don't you mention that in your speech?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, he has a good mill down there in Cowichan Bay, and he hires some people, sure.

[12:30]

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, that's all true, but it doesn't change one little bit what the member for Vancouver East said about the kind of misuse that is going on in our forest industry with the blessings of that... Not that minister. Maybe he'll change, but let's hope he doesn't do to forestry what he did to education.

What we need is a government that has the conviction and the long-term plan to set up a forest policy that will make the best use of our forest resource. That's the kind of thing we're getting as we go around the province talking to these professionals. What they're telling us is that what we need is an integrated resource management plan where we can get the best use out of our forests. You know what has been happening — and what the professionals have been trying to tell that cabinet — is that you don't get the best use out of your resource base by trying to maximize one or the other of those resources; that in some areas you can maximize one — be it forestry — but in others you will maximize another resource, which could be wildlife and recreation. We have to have a balance, and there will be areas in between where the multiple-use concept will work.

But what we need is an integrated plan that will take all those considerations under review and come up with a plan that will do that. That must be undertaken with the full recognition that there have to be some changes in the way those forest licences are issued and policed, and how that harvesting is carried out, also, relative to the other aspects of resource use.

[ Page 7343 ]

We had one very interesting presentation, and already I have had letters coming in saying: "Well, look, if it had been clearcut, that particular man would have made more than he did as it was." This particular operator owns in fee simple 150 acres of land. He has owned them for 50 years, and he's operated as a tree-farm, selectively logged. The first year he did a fairly heavy cut throughout that whole area and selectively logged it. He got enough to pay for the land, to build the roads and to give him some profit in return.

Since then he has logged selectively year after year using those roads. He doesn't have any major maintenance on them because they're in use each year so they don't grow up to brush if they're left for 50 years and you have to rebuild them. He's used those roads each year. He has gone in and he has selectively cut a sufficient amount of timber to provide him with one-third of his income from that 150 acres, which isn't a very large parcel of forest land.

That has been absolutely continuous and will continue in perpetuity. Now 50 years later he is still cutting exactly the same amount of fibre off that 150 acres as he did 49 years ago. As I say, he took a heavy cut the first year. And what he has is a park-like setting. It happens to be located in a very heavily populated area all around him and it is a park-like setting in the middle of that residential area. I know the place very well; it's very close to where I used to live.

That is just one example of the kind of thing that could be done by providing Crown land for operators who would undertake that, and it would do so much toward preventing the kind of confrontation that this government seems to have deliberately built up, getting one faction geared against the other. And they're so desperate for jobs that if they can keep 10 or 15 jobs in any area.... It doesn't matter what you're doing to any of the environmental or other concerns or what you're doing to the public interest in that area, you keep those 10 or 15 jobs because they're so desperate for jobs. They don't know how to create jobs; they have no understanding of the kind of things that could be done to ensure that we have an adequate supply of jobs for the people who want so much to work.

I've said in this House before that one of the most difficult parts of my job is when someone — a man who is 45 or 50 years of age — comes in to me and says: "What am I going to do? I've got my family to support, my kids are in school. I've tried to get a job. I can't get a job. I'm out of Unemployment Insurance and I don't know what to do." I tell him he has to go to Human Resources and that that's what it's there for, and he breaks down in tears. That is a very unhappy man, and that's a very unstable situation in the fibre of our whole society, and it's creating the kind of situation we're having where there is more and more alcohol abuse, more and more wife abuse and more and more child abuse. The whole moral fibre of our society is being brought to the breaking point.

That leads me into the next thing that I would like to talk about, and that is the situation in Cowichan regarding the people who are reliant on Human Resources — and there are far too many of them. They're not there because they want to be there. They're there because there are no jobs and there is no UIC. They're trying to live on that little miserable pittance that's put out by Human Resources. The study that was done on the lower mainland I think applies equally to Vancouver Island, where it has been found that a family of two adults and two children should be getting $1,432 just to have enough to cat and wear and a warm, comfortable home, and what they're getting is $888. That's shameful. That's disgraceful in a province like this.

There are other things — the services that have been cut back. One that I want to talk about is child abuse. We have had a frightening increase in child-abuse cases in Cowichan. In the number of cases that have been reported from 1984 to now, there has been an increase of 108 percent. In cases that have actually gone to court and there has been a conviction, we have an increase of 21 percent. We used to have, under the Ministry of Human Resources, some counsellors for children. The money has been so cut back now that through attrition they are no longer there. They are keeping the books or something now. The only help we have is one volunteer counsellor. We didn ' t even have a video camera. Now apparently they have one in Nanaimo and they have one in Langford at the RCMP, but we couldn't get one in Cowichan until some good people in various local organizations contributed. Why do we need a video camera? Do you know that a child that has been sexually abused sometimes has to repeat that story up to nine times" And that's a traumatic experience for that child. We are now getting to the position where the courts are accepting that video evidence. We now have a camera, thanks to the good citizens of Cowichan — not thanks to this government or to this Attorney-General. But we have it. But those cases are continuing to increase and will continue to increase because of the economic stress that is put on families.

I notice my green light is on, and there is just one thing that I want to say in conclusion. It doesn't relate really.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, and I hope you will agree with me in what I am about to say, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's willing to listen.

MRS. WALLACE: He's willing to listen, and that's more than some of the people in that caucus or in that government are.

Mr. Speaker, as everybody knows, I have decided that I am not going to run again. I want to say that I am certainly going to be continuing my role in this Legislature and in my constituency up until whenever the election is called. But when the old calendar tells you that you're getting to that threescore and ten, it's time to think about stepping aside for some of those young people. Some of them — well, they're gone now, I guess — were sitting in the gallery. It is a young people's world, changing times, and it's time to.... I think that some people sort of get in a rut; they get stuck in this power trip of the importance of being the representative. They don't have the good grace to step aside and let those young people come in. That's why I say you may not agree with me on this, but I think there comes a time when you do step aside and allow those young people an opportunity. That's what's happening in this caucus, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell you, if I have one regret it's the regret that I will not be here to serve under the premiership of the now Leader of the Opposition.

MR. PARKS: After those comments I feel compelled to wish the member the best wishes for her future endeavours. [Applause.] All that outpouring of warmth is very moving, hon. member.

[ Page 7344 ]

MRS. WALLACE: I might be going out of the Legislature, but I'm not going out of politics.

[12:45]

MR. PARKS: There's a mixed blessing there, I take it.

Mr. Speaker, since the members of the opposition have seen fit to miss a number of the salient points of the throne speech, as they pertain to the innovative programs of job creation and economic stimulus, that I seem to have been able to find in the throne speech, and since the hour is late in the day, I would like to reserve my full time complement to go into those in greater detail. So rather than commence for a few moments this afternoon, I hereby move that the debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:46 p.m.