[ Page 73 ]
Routine Proceedings
Oral Questions
Hospice for aids victims. Mrs. Boone –– 73
Kootenays coal-fired plant. Mr. Clark –– 74
Fort Langley tourism. Mr. Peterson –– 74
Canadian Pacific Air Lines. Mr. Miller –– 74
Conflict of interest guidelines. Mr. Clark –– 74
User fees. Mr. Loenen __ 75
Social housing. Mr. Cashore –– 75
Free trade. Mr. Rose –– 75
Throne speech debate
Mr. Chalmers –– 75
Ms. Hagen –– 76
Mr. Loenen –– 79
Mr. Cashore –– 81
Mr. De Jong –– 85
Mr. Smallwood –– 87
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers.
HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to make special welcome today for a visitor from Winnipeg, Karen Nelson. She's here to partake of some of the tourism activities of Whistler, etc., and we'd like to make her welcome. Accompanying her is one of the finest ladies I've had the opportunity to work with over the years and a very hard campaigner for the cause of Social Credit in the province of British Columbia. I'd like the House to make special welcome to Lynn Allan.
HON. MR. MICHAEL: I would like the House to make welcome a constituent of mine from the beautiful city of Revelstoke, Mr. Lorne Camozzi.
MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, it's nice to be back.
Yesterday a member on the other side asked the House to wish the Canadian rugby team going to the World Cup in New Zealand and Australia good wishes. However, that member failed to mention that of the 20 members from British Columbia, eight are from the Victoria area. Not only that, the captain of the team and the coach of the team are from Victoria. We wish them well from this side.
MR. LOENEN: I would like to draw the attention of the House to some very special guests from Richmond. First of all, Mr. Sid Treur and his wife, Jan. Sid was my co-campaign manager. Both of them worked very hard, and I'm just delighted to have them here. There is also our daughter, Marianne, who is a student at Camosun College. Last but not least, the person who is my most ardent supporter not only during the election but for the last 24 years, my wife Jayne.
MS. A. HAGEN: I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming visitors from the Royal City: my spouse and dear friend, John; a member of city council and a working colleague, alderman Wes Janzen; and two visitors from neighbouring constituencies but people with whom I have worked in my field of work with seniors: Merry Fowler, who is the coordinator of an innovative program using peer seniors in support services, and Sandra Fedorak, who is an adult educator in the field of gerontology. Would you join me in welcoming them.
MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I ask the members of the House to join me in welcoming two very special people. The first is Dawn Black of Coquitlam. She ran my successful election campaign and she's now my constituency assistant, and she represents and symbolizes for us here today those people who work so hard on all of our election campaigns and do such an excellent job of making it possible for us to be here and represent our communities. So we welcome Dawn Black.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the House to join me in welcoming Don Anderson, a recent graduate in political science, who is here today to gain some practical experience. We welcome Don Anderson.
MR. SPEAKER: I might mention to hon. members that when they're introducing their guests, would they kindly fill in the little cards for Hansard, with the names properly spelled. I know they do a great job and you all appreciate the tough job they have, and if you give those little cards to them it will make their job a lot easier.
MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I rise on I guess what amounts to a question of personal privilege. It's of concern to this side of the House how difficult it is sometimes to plan for question period. The reason it's so difficult to plan for question period is that we don't often know which members of the cabinet will be present and which won't. I wonder if, in this era of cooperation, consultation and open government, somehow we could be given some advice on that subject. I know there are legitimate reasons for the government — ministers, especially — to be away on important business for British Columbia. There's no quarrel about that, and we don't want to do the holier-than-thou, because if I point to your front bench that looks like a harmonica with every second person missing, then you can point to ours. There are reasons for people to be absent from this House and we understand it fully, but I wonder if there wouldn't be a gesture of good faith in somehow providing the opposition with a kind of list that would allow us to prepare better questions for the press.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, as the member indicated, it's really not a point of privilege, but we do accept the advice and we will encourage our respective Whips to discuss such matters, and I thank you.
Oral Questions
HOSPICE FOR AIDS VICTIMS
MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. There is still no hospice in Vancouver for terminally ill patients of AIDS. AIDS Vancouver has been frustrated once before when they had a site picked out and were not allowed to use this location. You have now missed another deadline — a deadline that is making people face desperate situations in their lives. Does the minister intend to take immediate action on this matter?
[10:15]
HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, in regard to AIDS and the assistance that we give in various areas, I must tell the House that this government has probably done more for the AIDS victims, perhaps because there are more per capita in Vancouver and in British Columbia, than the other parts of Canada, so we cannot, to begin with, say that we're not attempting the very best we can in this regard. However, as far as the hospice situation is concerned, I personally have never made a promise for any date at any time, but I understand there have been some dates bandied around before I got into the ministry and it's perhaps correct that March I was one of those dates. We have been looking at the situation for a hospice for AIDS for some time, and one question that arose again and again is should we have a hospice for AIDS only or should it be a hospice for dying people. We do not have a hospice strictly for cancer patients, we do not have a hospice strictly for other diseases, so we felt that perhaps we were looking at this whole area of whether it should be for one particular group or whether it should be a facility where sick
[ Page 74 ]
people who wish to enter that particular hospice could do so. It's the same as we have with hospitals, acute care; we do not say that when they come into the hospital dying — there are people with all kinds of illnesses — as long as there is not a danger of infection. I must say, it's still under consideration. We have looked at various properties. Perhaps some announcement in that regard will be made in the near future.
MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is waiting and while the ministry is considering all the various situations as to the reasons why they should not be forming a hospice, people are dying in acute-care situations, which is costly for this province. Would you please give us assurances that your ministry will be taking immediate action to make sure that a hospice is ready and able to take care of the people out there who are right this minute dying from AIDS.
HON. MR. DUECK: This, of course, is future policy, and we'll be looking at that as we go along and make our plans. However, I must tell the hon. member that there are approximately 100 AIDS patients who have died to date ' compared to thousands and thousands of people who have died of other diseases, and not all of them have had the opportunity to spend their last days in hospice situations either. So it's not a situation where we're zeroing in on AIDS and saying that everyone is getting it but AIDS patients aren't. We are doing all we can and we will continue to do so.
KOOTENAYS COAL-FIRED PLANT
MR. CLARK: I have a question to the Minister of Energy. The minister had a meeting scheduled today with the former Minister of Labour regarding a coal-fired plant in the Kootenays. Will the minister advise the House why that meeting was cancelled?
HON. MR. DAVIS: As all of us in this House know' conflict of interest involving people in political office often involves perception to a greater extent than substance or reality. The former minister, Mr. Segarty, is, I understand, working on a contract for Fording Coal Ltd. Fording Coal is coming in at 10 o'clock this morning. To protect Mr. Segarty, as much as myself and the government, I thought it wise to ask Mr. Segarty not to attend that meeting.
Incidentally, Fording Coal isn't interested in a power plant in British Columbia; it's interested in one in Alberta.
MR. CLARK: It's not Mr. Segarty that's in a conflict; it's the minister. The minister has met with Mr. Segarty several times over the last few months. Could he please advise the House why those meetings weren't cancelled?
HON. MR. DAVIS: I have run into Terry Segarty once outside this House and yesterday afternoon he dropped in for a few minutes. We talked about matters other than coal. I think we should all be prepared to talk to former colleagues on a variety of matters as long as they don't involve direct conflict of interest.
MR. CLARK: Mr. Segarty wasn't hired for his coalmining expertise. Could the minister please advise the House what the penalty is for violating these guidelines?
HON. MR. DAVIS: The only effective penalty I can imagine is a penalty that is imposed on current ministers. I don't see how it can reach back to former ministers.
FORI'LANGLEY TOURISM
MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture a question. The tourist potential of Fort Langley must be recognized and acknowledged. Could the minister tell this House what action, if any, he has taken to promote a cooperative attitude with the federal and municipal governments and the local community in marketing this great tourist potential?
HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, some discussions are going on with the Member of Parliament from Langley, Mr. Bob Wenman, representing the constituency up there in relation to some heavy, strong marketing of the tourist potential for Fort Langley. My ministry will be giving that strong emphasis as it relates to our ministry in support of that great tourist attraction of Fort Langley.
CANADIAN PACIFIC AIR LINES
MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. As a result of the PWA takeover of Canadian Pacific Air Lines, has the minister taken action with his federal counterpart to ensure that there will be no loss of jobs and that service will be maintained at the existing levels in remote communities in this province?
HON. MR. MICHAEL: I thank the member for the question, and the answer is no.
MR. MILLER: Is the minister aware of a recent report by the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that indicates that Sandspit, Prince Rupert, Terrace, Smithers, Prince George, Dawson Creek and Fort St. John are now all being served by a monopoly, and some of those communities have experienced service cutbacks?
HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the private sector and the small entrepreneurs will fill any void in the marketplace in that respect.
MR. MILLER: Has the minister planned to approach the Canadian Transport Commission with regard to changing the demarcation boundary between north and south of this province from its current position of 55 degrees latitude to a more southerly latitude of perhaps 54 degrees?
HON. MR. MICHAEL: I would have to take that question as notice, and I will bring a response back to the member at a later date.
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask the Minister of Energy a quick question, because I'm not sure he understood my previous one. Has the minister been advised that there is no penalty for breaking the guidelines.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, that deals with cabinet business and not with the Minister of Energy.
[ Page 75 ]
USER FEES
MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Mr. Minister, we know that user fees have the effect of keeping utilization down. You are now in the process of discontinuing the user fees on April 1. Why do you propose to discontinue those fees as of that date?
HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the federal Health Act reads that for every dollar we collect for hospital and emergency fees, a dollar is deducted by the federal government. We have approximately $85 million in federal coffers, and April I is the deadline where we must in fact discontinue with the user fee or lose that money. Not only will would we lose that $85 million, but they will continue to deduct dollar for dollar after that date. So actually our options are practically nil.
SOCIAL HOUSING
MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. I'm sure he has read the Cosh report, which was commissioned by the previous Housing minister to draw public attention away from the embarrassment of Expo evictions. Recognizing the crisis implicit in the Cosh report, which was a finding that 50,000 out of 250,000 households are in need of shelter and received no assistance, what programs does the minister have underway to deal with this serious crisis?
HON. MR. RICHMOND: In response to the member's question, first of all the Cosh report did not point out any "crisis" in the province of British Columbia — quite the opposite. In fact, it complimented the government on the actions that it has taken regarding social housing. The only criticism was in the area of co-op housing, which this government opted out of last August. We do provide for those less fortunate in the way of housing. In fact, this year alone we have announced the construction of 1, 886 social housing units in this province.
MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, that is very inadequate. In view of the clamp-down on illegal suites by the new Vancouver council and other Socred farm teams, is the minister prepared to announce the immediate construction of 20,000 units to make up the shortfall in low-cost housing that these wholesale evictions will create?
HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, let me clear up a couple of misconceptions here. We have never ever been responsible for the actions of the city council of Vancouver, nor do we ever want to be, especially under the former mayor. In fact, we used to use him as a weather vane to determine whether we should go ahead with large projects. If he was against them we went for it, and we were right every time.
While I'm on my feet, I feel it only fair to respond to the opposition House Leader that, in reference to looking like a harmonica.... I appreciate your musical background, sit, but I'd much rather look like a harmonica than a graveyard with some tombstones kicked over.
MR. SPEAKER: Order!
MR. ROSE: I don't know why we would allow the minister, regardless of his trumpet-playing, to horn in on the.... He's supposed to be building houses, not playing his trumpet over there.
FREE TRADE
MR. ROSE: I have a question for the amiable Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday he told the House that he was prepared to bull ahead with free trade, over the objections of commodity groups such as supply management groups in eggs and dairy. Is the minister aware that he puts at jeopardy 47 percent of the egg producers — many in ridings represented by Social Credit — and up to 2, 800 people employed in dairying? And is he prepared to be responsible for putting those people out of work?
[10:30]
HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, the question of whether I would be responsible is entirely up to all of us to judge, on the basis of how the procedure is working in Ottawa relative to the free-trade discussions. The supply marketing systems in this country are using their national bodies to go direct to the federal government. That's how the process is being adhered to.
Orders of the Day
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)
MR. CHALMERS: As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, yesterday just before moving adjournment of debate for the afternoon I was talking a little bit about my great riding of Okanagan South. I'd like to continue doing that today.
I was saying that our riding enjoys a mixed economy, which for the most part has been a stable one, as we are well known for our fruit and grape growing, as well as processing of fruit and the making of wine. This, of course, has created many jobs for many people, for a number of years.
Because the central Okanagan is as close to heaven on earth as you will find in Canada, it has always been an extremely popular place to retire. We in Okanagan South welcome the seniors in our communities. They are excellent citizens, and they provide many opportunities for our service industries. They will help our business sector and housing industry to grow and to prosper. Many new facilities are now being created to provide superb and affordable accommodation for our seniors to retire and enjoy the rest of their lives in pleasant surroundings.
Our increased number of retired persons does, however, place a much higher demand on our health delivery system — much higher than the average throughout the province, I would suggest. We have been able to attract some of Canada's finest specialists in the fields of medicine, all providing the best available health care to our citizens. We have, however, been striving to cope with overcrowded facilities in Kelowna's general hospital. We have been doing all we can to press our case with the Health ministry. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) was kind enough to meet with representatives of our hospital board, as well as our senior hospital, medical and administrative staff, to hear firsthand our present needs and our plans for the future. I look forward
[ Page 76 ]
to working together with the minister to meet the needs of our constituency.
Forestry is also very important to our economy. I am pleased that the throne speech reaffirmed sound reforestation as a government priority, and that a program will be set up to make our province a world leader in forestry. We in the Okanagan have a number of very successful lumber manufacturing plants and a plywood manufacturing plant that help fill domestic and export markets, and in doing so they too provide many jobs for our residents.
We have much to offer in Okanagan South, Mr. Speaker, and I know that time will not permit me to tell you all the great things that are happening right now as I speak. I would, however, be remiss if I did not tell you a little bit about our ever-growing manufacturing sector, because the opportunity for manufacturing various products in our area is limited only by the imagination. A number of years ago we were able to, with the help of the previous Social Credit government and the federal government of the day, establish a heavy-truck manufacturing plant in the city of Kelowna. It's known now as Western Star Trucks, and it presently employs over 455 people and builds nine trucks per day. They have plans for increased production in March, April and May, which will employ about 20 additional people for each truck that's added to their daily output.
I single out this facility, Mr. Speaker, because the location of this plant in our area a number of years ago was very significant, because it created a great opportunity for support industries and services — everything from machine fabricating, fibreglass, and chrome and upholstery shops to design services. This helped to develop an already growing infrastructure that was poised to serve other existing, as well as new, manufacturing plants.
Before entering provincial politics I had the pleasure of serving five terms as chairman of the economic development commission for the Central Okanagan regional district. In our attempts to draw new industry to our area, Mr. Speaker, we did all that we could to have manufacturers visit and see what we had to offer. They were always amazed at the extent of our service infrastructure, which meets and often exceeds that of much larger centres. So as MLA for Okanagan South I'm doing all I can to attract new, clean, non-polluting industry to our area. Our manufacturing and business community can be very competitive with the rest of the country because of its ability to attract and hold a skilled workforce, because people who move to the Okanagan never want to leave.
One of the most significant problems that we face, however, is our proximity to markets. Transportation costs are high for manufacturers who must import the raw materials and ship the finished product. All other sectors of our economy are also affected by the manner and the cost of transportation, and it's for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I as MLA am most concerned about the continued improvement of our highway system in and through our valley. It is imperative that the Coquihalla Highway phase 3 connecting Merritt to the Okanagan Valley be completed as early as possible.
It's also important that the four-laning of Highway 97 from north to south throughout our valley proceed as planned. So it is my intention to work with the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael) to see an early completion of these and other road projects that touch' my riding.
I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to telling you and the other members of the assembly much more about my riding and its fine people in future speeches, but the time has come to close. In doing so, I would like to say again how much I'm looking forward to the challenges that lie ahead in serving the people of British — Columbia, especially the constituents of Okanagan South. I would also like to add my thanks to all of the people in the constituency of Okanagan South who assisted me during the last election.
MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to make my first comments in this House. I bring from our first capital city, New Westminster, greetings to the second capital city.
I am most pleased that the constituents of New Westminster chose to maintain the 35-year-old tradition of CCF and New Democrat representation for our city. In 1952 Rae Eddie successfully sought the seat and defeated Premier Boss Johnson to begin a 17-year term as representative for the Royal City. In 1969, upon Rae's retirement, he was succeeded by Dennis Cocke, who also served 17 years, both in government and in opposition. That's the tradition. His many improvements to the health scene stand today as a testament to his innovativeness and his courage. Better services for people of this province were Dennis Cocke's mandate.
Last Saturday, friends from around the province gathered to toast and roast Dennis; to look back with wit and goodwill in recognition of his stewardship. We could do no better in this House than to emulate the integrity and the dedication of this man.
Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you and Mr. Deputy Speaker on your election to your new offices. If you would permit me, sir, I might like to comment that we will do well to bear with you and you with us as we learn our new jobs.
It may be interesting to note that in the last century there were members of my family who served in the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island. One of them was a Speaker in that House for many years. Others were elected as representatives to the assembly, and one of the members of my family served as a senator in the federal House. I wondered if I should acknowledge that as a New Democrat, but the lineage is long. I'm the first woman to be elected to provincial office, and the first socialist. I'm pleased to note that my relatives in Prince Edward Island think that they are going to come on board as well.
I'd like now to speak of the throne speech. I've decided, as many of my honoured colleagues in the House have done, to talk about it in the context of my own constituency, because I think the constituency provides an excellent example and setting for the themes that I want to address this morning.
First let me address the issue of health and health support services, including what Minister Dueck in his response to the Speech from the Throne yesterday called the "informal health support system." Before looking specifically at some of these issues, I'd like to draw just a brief picture of some of the characteristics of the city, not in great detail, but because our city, as well as having a long history, is in fact in many ways giving us some predictions and indications of the future. For example, in our city we already have a population of older people that many communities will not reach until the next century. Some 20 percent — one in five — of the people who live in our city are 65 years and older. That percentage is predicted to rise to as high as 30 percent.
I'm sure many of you know that health care services for older people use a very considerable portion of the health budget; overall about 11 percent of the people who live in
[ Page 77 ]
B.C. are older people. They use something in the order of 30 percent of our provincial health budget. Yet in the throne speech we are silent on those issues, on the issues of health and particularly on the issues of support services for seniors.
I want to talk about some of the initiatives that we have taken in New Westminster to deal with the needs of older people, and I want to do it in the context of setting a pattern or a prospect for partnership between the provincial government and communities across the province. As a community, we have taken initiatives in a number of areas, initiatives that come out of the imagination, out of the care and out of the professional and community development perspectives of our citizens.
One of the proposals that is presently before the Ministry of Health is one that has been developed by senior administrators in our hospitals, long-term care program and public health unit, with some cooperation from community groups. It is called "continuum of care," and it is a program that is designed to deal with some of the incredible backlog that we in our community and other communities are experiencing as people with chronic-care health problems have to be cared for in very expensive acute-care beds. That particular program, with a very modest budget, calls for assessment services, good discharge planning, flexibility and coordination with home support, home nursing and community support services. It is essential that the government look to the kind of innovativeness that comes from local communities to deal with the quality of service, the cost of service and the most effective delivery of service, and I would commend the work of that group in our city to government as a model of the kinds of things that can happen with cooperation, with flexibility and with shared mandates.
I would like to spend a few moments talking about what I think the Minister of Health has most effectively described, the informal health support system. It is the sector from which I come in my most recent field of work, and it is an integral part of health care. The minister in his comments seemed to be dwelling on the kind of thing that all of us do, the kind of things that are good-neighbour actions, the kinds of things that we do in our own street and in perhaps our churches and organizations. But there is another kind of informal health support system that we need to look at and work in partnership with. I think the ministry has already welcomed that in its support in New Westminster of an innovative and very effective program, the three-year demonstration project called Keep Well. I commend the ministry for their initiative in working with the community in the pilot project that is coming to its end at the end with this fiscal year. I would note too that the model for that program is one that I think is unique, and it has worked. It is a model of co management. The organization for which I worked, the Seniors Bureau, the long-term care program and the ministry manage that project together, and together we hope to have it continue to be available not only in our own community but elsewhere.
[10:45]
There are many other examples of that kind of co-management. Social Services and Housing next week will be holding an extensive workshop for its seniors counsellors, people who are paid a modest honorarium, who are given training in a major workshop at least once a year and then in continuing workshops in their region. We have examples of this kind of working together that is so essential if we are to tap the hundreds of volunteers who give of time, energy, imagination and commitment to seniors and to many other people within our community. To date, the government has said it wants to be off the back of those people all too often. We are losing federal transfer dollars; we are losing the skills of people because government is reluctant to share in some of those partnerships. I want to emphasize the importance of them in managing our health costs and in enhancing the quality of life.
I could not speak for New Westminster without briefly speaking of our hospitals, although I don't want to dwell in detail on their needs and some issues there today. But I want to raise another point that has to do with partnerships, and it has to do with representation of communities on hospital boards. The Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster is 125 years old this year, and it is a community hospital founded by the community and supported by its members. A year and a half or two years ago, the then minister abolished the existing board with its structure that had community representation and set up a board jointly with the Eagle Ridge Hospital called the Fraser-Burrard Hospital Society. There is not one representative living in New Westminster on that board, and it is a matter that offends the people of our city and is a matter that I hope the minister will address.
I'd like to move now on to the theme of deinstitutionalization. In our community that word is not one that people use. But really, what they talk about is the closing down of Woodlands and the phasing out of Riverview: Woodlands, a home for mentally handicapped people; and Riverview, a major psychiatric hospital. The community supports those initiatives to have people in the community in as far as they are able to live with health and dignity and quality of care. But, colleagues, I am sure that you can understand, too, the concern of our community that those kinds of guidelines are met before the institutionalization takes place.
We are a city where people choose to live because we are close to transportation, we have good recreation services, they can access support services, and I want to stress the importance — and it was stressed to us in Kamloops when we visited there last week — of the thorough and careful planning for deinstitutionalization and for the necessary support services. It's all too easy for these people to get out into the community and to be lost there without the support that they need in their homes, in achievement centres, in programs to ensure adequate nutrition and help with life management.
We are experiencing in our community critical problems around housing and around those support services. It is an issue that is going to affect every community as deinstitutionalization takes place, and we as a province must have a commitment to those people most in need of care that those services are available to them. I would note, to perhaps bring to a point an issue in our riding, the kinds of decisions that are sometimes taken centrally that militate against those services. Our mental health centre in the city is in its heartland. It is visited by many people regularly, it is close to other services. It appears that that centre may be moved back to a hospital setting, the kind of move that would be a retrograde step and one that I hope the ministry, if it is in fact at any point of decision, will reconsider; if not, that it will simply die on the order paper as an idea that was ill-founded.
Let me move now to the area of education, to commend the government on the establishment of the commission on education. As a former trustee, I work closely still with teacher colleagues, administrators and parents in my community, and I think one of the most important things that I
[ Page 78 ]
have heard them speak of in my recent contacts is their sense of the importance of us carving a direction for education for the future. I have some cautionary signals in my mind as I read the throne speech, however.
One is of the depth of the commission in terms of the time that is available to it, and one is an interest to be sure that it has adequate resources to ensure that that job is done well. I know my colleague for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) has spoken of other commissions that have, in fact, provided us with some models of benchmark royal commissions in the life of education in our province.
Douglas College, a community college in our region, serves a number of constituencies: those of my colleagues from Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) and Coquitlam Moody (Mr. Rose) and a number of colleagues in the House from the three constituencies of Burnaby. It is a vibrant and progressive institution, one that has been a leader in the province in fulfilling its mandate of making available to students of all walks of life, of all economic and intellectual abilities, an education commensurate with their ability to achieve. It uses the term "threshold" of ability to indicate who ma- ` attend courses, so there is no merit involved but simply the ability of the student to be able to succeed in his or her chosen course. It has particularly worked with women and with youth with special needs with great success, and it is, in fact, the only college in the province, as I understand, that has maintained a women's centre in spite of the diffi culties in funding at this time.
It is a productive institution; it has risen to many challenges with reduced resources. But it faces difficulties that I think give us some idea of the challenge facing us in producing excellence in education. It is talking about raising student fees 10 to 20 percent next year. It is looking at a deficit of half a million dollars in its projected budget for the next fiscal year. It is for the first time looking at the potential for having to cut some of its programs.
[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]
I've talked to students in that institution as well, and met with the senate of the student society, a group which gives me great hope and a feeling of positive progress for our young people, who are living in difficult times and facing difficult futures. I bring to you from them the message they brought to me: yes, they need to have training; yes, they will at some time need to have vocational sorts of expertise. But the thing they see as their most important and significant goal, and the thing that is reflected too by business and industry, who are with them in this area, is that they need a good, liberal, general education in the arts and sciences in order to live and work in a changing economy.
They are demonstrating that they know what it is like to live in a democratic society; they are demonstrating that they know how to, in fact, work within the structure; they are demonstrating by their commitment to their courses that they have goals and that they will work hard. We need to provide them not with just specialist, vocational, technical education but the kind of education which will prepare them for the future. I want to express in the deepest way, and with great concern, my opposition to what I hear in the throne speech: that financial assistance for students will be based on merit and will not perhaps reflect need. I hope that is not, in fact, what will be delivered out of the work of the Student Financial Assistance Review Committee, which received many briefs to support need, not merit, as the basis for giving people an opportunity.
We could do no better, colleagues, than to heed the words of the president of the University of Victoria, Mr. Perch, who commented that one of the most useful studies we might do is to look at the cost-effectiveness of providing education to every veteran who wished to access it and had the stamina and interest to go ahead. He would himself, he said, have been a chicken fanner, not a president of a university, if he had not had that opportunity.
In our community, as in many others, there is a very active working group dealing with what is variously called community development and economic development. I doubt that it is a unique group, but it is a group that represents the fabric of our community. The college has been a major catalyst, because it recognizes that education and economic development go together; and that, I'm pleased to note, the throne speech suggests as well. It represents the chamber of commerce, the labour council, volunteer groups, the nonprofit sector, the city council, the school board and many interested citizens. They have done a great deal of very useful work in preparing plans for revitalization of our changing community. We have, in fact, as many communities have, changed from being a manufacturing community, largely in the lumber sector, to seeing a very significant downturn in that area.
Technological change, market forces, have had their effect. We are seeing changes in those institutions because of the institutionalization. The nature of the jobs that will replace them is still something that we are all grappling with. One of the decisions made a number of years ago would, in fact, have had a significant effect on revitalization of New Westminster as a major regional town centre as envisaged by the studies of the Greater Vancouver Regional District in the mid-seventies. At that time there was a plan that ICBC should be located in New Westminster. A change in government, and perhaps some partisan perspective, caused that decision to be altered, and ICBC is presently located in North Vancouver.
[11:00]
I was interested to note recently that grants in lieu of taxes for that particular Crown corporation total over $1 million to the city of North Vancouver, and that doesn't begin to take into account the multiplier effect of the number of jobs created directly and indirectly. It would be appropriate — again, in that spirit of partnership and working toward community development — if government would consider its role in the economic development of my city. I have made proposals and will continue to work with government on utilizing the central location of our city, suggesting and proposing that it be the locus for regional-provincial offices, both for the convenience of the public and for consolidation of some of those services. I would note that my predecessor, Mr. Cocke, and Mr. McClelland, the then minister of economic development, have had, I think, some preliminary discussions in this regard.
I would like to touch on just one other point, Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, and that is a theme we talked about a good deal during the election and one that we hold as a principle that is very important to us in our management and interpretation and working in government affairs. It is the principle of fairness and equity. We all know that our communities are having difficulties these days, and we all know that we will be advocates for our individual communities. It is my perspective that that advocacy should not be a matter of getting
[ Page 79 ]
something for my constituency rather than having it go to another constituency, but rather that we should look at policies, legislation and programs that deliver the services of government with fairness and equity.
There are a number of areas, I think, where we see deficiency in that regard — many, in fact, but I would like to mention just two or three at this point. One is in the area of taxation. We hear a lot these days about fair taxation. It is one of the most important principles that we should espouse. Yet if you look at the kind of taxation policies that affect property and property owners, I think we are seeing an escalation of the unfairness of our taxation policies, particularly as they pertain to school taxes.
Taxation on property is not a taxation of wealth. It is very often a regressive tax, and nowhere is that more evident than in my city where many people are attempting to maintain their homes independently with fixed incomes. They are early retired forest workers — redundant, as we say — people who want to live and continue to be productive in their community. They are seniors who do not have large pensions, and they are poor people. The average income in my community is the second lowest in the lower mainland. The taxation burden from school taxes is increasing, and we have a commitment from government that that is the way we will be attaining quality control in education — to put more on the backs of local taxpayers rather than sharing it equitably across the province. There are some principles here we need to re-address.
There is an issue in my riding that I want to bring to particular attention, and I'm glad the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) is here today. It is the matter of public health costs and an anomalous situation in the sharing of costs here. It points out things that may occur in different parts of the province that need to be addressed. The health unit in New Westminster, part of a larger health unit that includes School District 43 — Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody — has a very inequitous funding program. The cost of the public health system to the residents of Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody is 25 cents per capita; $16 is the cost to citizens in my city. That is inequity and we need to negotiate a change for fairness and equity.
I come from a community base and I will frequently speak from a community base. I do it not from a parochial perspective. I think government must work in partnership with communities, with the ideas and energy of people in the public sector, in the private sector, in the voluntary sector and in the non-profit sector. We need not only a fresh start, whatever that might be. We need a progressive outlook. We need a government that understands that cooperation means hearing and responding to people who are talking to us from the regions and our communities. We need a government that is open to the initiatives of its primary resource: its people. We need to encourage a variety of partnerships, alliances and working relationships to achieve the betterment of life for people in this province.
I understand that the Minister of Finance and some other senior ministers invited their bureaucrats to hear a gentleman named Paul Ekins recently on the new economics including the cost-benefits and cost-analysis of programs. Nowhere, I think, will we find better cost-benefits than in some of the programs of which I have been speaking — much greater than some of the megaprojects on which we have hung our hopes for some kind of economic revival and future. The action is in our communities, and we need to work with our communities to achieve the goals that we on both sides of the House, I'm sure, share.
Mr. Speaker, it's not my right to speak in terms of amendments, but I would like to commend perhaps one other commission to the numerous commissions proposed in the throne speech, if I might just have one half-sentence. It would be a commission to study partnerships in community development as one of our means of achieving some new vision for our province.
MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave of the House to introduce a very special guest from Richmond.
Leave granted.
MR. LOENEN: We're honoured to have with us the executive assistant of the Premier, Craig Nichols, who works out of our constituency office in Richmond. I hope the House will welcome him.
Mr. Speaker and hon. members, it is indeed a distinct honour for me to rise and address this most distinguished House. Congratulations, Mr. Speaker, to you and to the Deputy Speaker, on your respective appointments.
As I take my place among my colleagues, I do so with some anxiety but also with a great deal of anticipation — some anxiety because of the awesome responsibility that faces not only me but all of us. What we do here affects every British Columbian for good or for ill. The anticipation I feel is for two reasons. Firstly, I'm privileged to serve under a Premier whose vision is clear, whose energy is boundless and whose leadership is dynamic. Secondly, my colleagues on the government side have a dedication, a commitment and professional expertise that is outstanding. It is great to be part of this team.
I have the unique pleasure of representing the people of Richmond together with the Premier of the province. I have benefited greatly from this close association and wish to express to the Premier my gratitude and appreciation for his leadership and excellent cooperation. The voters of Richmond gave the Premier and me a greater plurality than in any other riding in British Columbia. I am immensely grateful for this show of trust, and solemnly promise never to betray that trust. The interests of the citizens of Richmond will be represented with vigour and determination.
Mr. Speaker, I want to especially thank the hundreds of Richmond citizens who worked so hard in our campaign. Their unqualified trust in us was a constant source of encouragement to the Premier and me. I owe a debt of gratitude to my own campaign managers, Mr. Sid Treur and Alderman Tilly Marxreiter. Also, Mr. Speaker, I wish to acknowledge Mr. Jim Nielsen. For ten years he served his constituency in our province. His honesty and forthrightness are remembered by all.
In 19831 was first elected to the municipal council of Richmond. This municipal experience has made me sensitive to the impact government decisions have on the lives of the citizens and taxpayers of our neighbourhoods, our communities, our province. Mr. Speaker, my life was shaped by — and I continue to hold — simple, traditional values: the importance of the individual, the family, the virtue of hard work, private initiative, honesty, frugality, respect for law, a sense of civic duty and social responsibility. The list is not
[ Page 80 ]
sophisticated, but these virtues represent the glue and backbone of any civilized society; we ignore them at our own peril.
The most influential and formative force in my life, Mr. Speaker, is the Christian religion. I say this so you may know what makes me tick, what values inform my decisions, what perspective directs my thinking, and what hope drives my idealism. Sometimes we think that in a multicultural, pluralistic society it is in bad taste to mention Christianity; it might offend people of different faiths. During the last election Art Kube tried to pin that one on me. Well, that is nonsense, Mr. Speaker, because Christianity embodies principles of universal application. Why should we be apologetic about those values and traditions of western civilization that are the most enduring? The greatest achievements and the noblest features of western civilization owe their origin to the Christian faith, such as respect for life and for the individual person; the rule of law, without which civilization cannot be; freedom of conscience and speech; tolerance of differences; emancipation and freedom; compassion and help for the weak, the sick, the less fortunate. The Christian faith has the potential to give direction for a better world for all. It curbs greed. It does not focus so much on rights as on duties and obligations.
I point to this at some length, Mr. Speaker, because I believe these are the values which made our province into the great province it is. We should not discard them unless we have something better.
As a result of this, I deeply believe that the role of government should be a limited role. In most instances government is not equipped to decide what is best; it is the ordinary people, who in the context of their families, their workplaces, their businesses, their farms, their schools, their neighbourhoods, their community associations, their clubs, their charitable organizations and their churches, can best decide what is needed. It is to them that we should look. And it is those organizations that we should strengthen and affirm. Applying this in particular to the economy means that we seek to harness and encourage the sense of responsibility and personal pride in a job well done that comes from private ownership.
My parents left western Europe after the Second World War to escape the creeping socialism, which suffocates private initiative. We must never allow that to happen here. We must always strive to maintain an economic system which rewards initiative and effort. Personal initiative tempered by a sense of responsibility is the backbone of any successful economic system. That is the genius of free enterprise. That too is the spirit that pervades the Speech from the Throne.
[11:15]
Now a word about social services. We must maintain a strong social conscience. The test of any society is the extent to which the strong and powerful will voluntarily share with the weak and powerless. This is the mark of true civilization. People are our finest and most precious resource. However, social safety nets must never become lazy hammocks for those unwilling to assume responsibility. We need a balanced approach that will always aim to restore responsibility to the individual. To limit the control of government in our life and to restore individual responsibility, the recipients of government-supplied social services should have a choice between suppliers. Too often the suppliers of social services have the characteristics of a monopoly. As a result, the recipients are reduced to clients instead of consumers. They are stripped of their humanity because they no longer have any say over what happens to them or their spouses or their children. We desperately need to limit the power of government, especially in the provision of social services. I am not arguing for less social services, only that we create genuine choice for the recipients and hence increase their sense of personal responsibility. I believe this deeply.
I also believe deeply in one further item, and that is freedom, There is nothing more precious than freedom. Our country is relatively free, but freedom is very fragile. Unless we consciously limit government, we will not always be free. Mr. Speaker, my presence here today, as that of others, is vivid testimony to the relative freedom and openness that characterizes our society. I was not born here in this country. I was not born in Canada, and yet it is possible within one lifetime to attain the office I now hold. I am deeply grateful to be a Canadian, and I think that that kind of openness and freedom is most precious. Twenty thousand Canadian lives were lost in liberating western Europe — which includes the country of my birth. We can best honour their memory by preserving the freedom for which they fought.
We should also remember that true freedom is not the right to do as one pleases, but is to be pleased to do what is right. Furthermore, I am delighted the Premier has set such a positive tone acknowledging the valuable input from all members of the House including the members opposite. For my part I will seek to support measures not merely because they are right-wing, but because they are the right thing.
I am supportive of the Premier's initiative to strengthen the support for independent schools. This is one way in which we can help people take charge of their own affairs. From a purely financial point of view we should remember that for every dollar spent on independent schools the taxpayers of this province save $2.
Finally, I fully support the Premier's initiative to bring down the number of abortions, which in our province is greater than in any other province in Canada. True, the Criminal Code is under federal jurisdiction, but it is administered provincially. The province does have a responsibility. To claim that a mother does have the right to an abortion is simply wrong. No person, not even a mother, has the right to cause harm or injury to another. I have the right to swing my fist, but not in such a way as to punch someone in the nose. My right stops where your nose begins. Similarly, the mother's right stops where that of the unborn begins. This House should support a Premier who has the courage and fortitude to stand up for what is right and just.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of this House to what is, by population, the largest riding in British Columbia, namely Richmond. Richmond continues to be one of the fastest-growing municipalities in the lower mainland. Its population of 108,000 represents an increasingly greater ethnic and cultural diversity. Our community welcomes this, and we are learning to celebrate our differences. Richmond is no longer a bedroom community or suburb. It provides slightly more jobs than the number of Richmond residents in the workforce. Our shopping facilities are among the best, but the real pride of Richmond is the outstanding sports and recreation facilities.
In addition, we are justifiably proud of the Gateway Theatre, the Richmond public library and the recently completed Minoru Place Seniors Centre. After three years of intensive study and public consultation, the municipal council of Richmond last fall adopted its official community plan.
[ Page 81 ]
It sets out a pattern of balanced growth for the next 20 years. This official community plan identifies certain problem areas. For instance, the agricultural industry needs strengthening to remove uncertainty for our farms. To lessen speculation with farmland and minimize conflict among the urban rural boundaries, the official community plan recommends adjustments to the agricultural land reserve.
This aims to establish boundaries to our agricultural land reserve which make sense and which can be defended for the next 20 years. Agriculture remains a very significant contributor to our economy in Richmond. After the necessary adjustments to the agricultural land reserve are made, over 46 percent of the Richmond land area remains in the reserve. It is significant to note that the lowest classification of farmland is the most important economically.
The cranberry crops grown on peat bog are far more viable than anything grown on classification 1, heavy clay. The question about the preservation of farmland attracts a great deal of emotion but very little clear thinking. In this instance, also, the best people to ask are the farmers. I believe that Richmond's official community plan is not only a responsible plan but also reflects the views of all the residents and most especially the farmers.
Next — education. This is by far the most important concern of the people of Richmond. We enjoy a very excellent board, administration and teaching staff. They have stopped looking back, and positively and cooperatively work together for a better future. Their effective communication with each other, the parents and the taxpayers is worthy of emulation and is highly commendable. Yet a nagging perception remains that education is not a high priority. This perception is unfortunate and mistaken.
Total education spending for 1986-87 increased 8.6 percent, in addition to the $110 million for the fund for excellence, $1.1 million of which went to Richmond. Many good things are happening in School District 38, and full credit must go to the local people who make the system work. I support fully the Richmond initiative to provide early retirement provisions for teachers without penalty to their pensions. This should be phased in over a five-year period. I also support a proposed school administrators' assessment centre.
Currently the Richmond campus of Kwantlen College is requesting provincial government funding to construct permanent facilities. For 16 years, this community college has been housed in a leased converted warehouse. Eight thousand students from the areas served by Kwantlen College attend Vancouver colleges. Richmond, with its large population base, needs and deserves an expanded and enlarged community college with a permanent campus. The municipal council of Richmond is helping Kwantlen find and acquire property in a suitable location.
Needless to say, I am delighted that the Speech from the Throne gives education the prominence and attention it deserves. People are our most precious resource. To regain higher levels of Canadian productivity, we need to look to education and the facilities to bring that education right into our neighbourhoods. This investment in our future will pay dividends for years to come.
Keeping students within the confines of our own municipality also eases the constant and very costly transportation problems. Richmond is rapidly being carved up by major transportation routes. Most of these are for the benefit of commuters from neighbouring communities. The Richmond council has requested the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to initiate an in-depth study of future transportation needs for the entire lower mainland. Mr. Speaker, this is a most reasonable request, in that even today the crossings of the North Arm are reaching their maximum capacity, and there is no direct link between the international airport located in Richmond and the Trans-Canada Highway. Moreover, any consideration of a Vancouver Island ferry terminal on Iona or Sea Island will almost certainly require an additional North Arm crossing. Finally, Dinsmore Bridge is the most pressing and immediate transportation challenge.
Full marks and recognition should go to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael) for responding quickly and effectively when the residents along Westminster Highway experienced severe problems after the opening of the Alex Fraser Bridge. It shows that government can respond to people's needs.
Earlier, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned Richmond's pride in its programs and facilities for sports, recreation and athletics. Currently a major sports complex is in its early planning stages. This is by far Richmond's most ambitious project. It will provide a sports training centre for local and British Columbia athletes, a sports competition centre for hosting local, regional, provincial, national and international events, and a commercial centre for hosting consumer shows, trade shows, conferences, concerts, sports events, and other such revenue-producing events. We are seeking provincial support and encouragement for this initiative, because this will benefit all of British Columbia. Should either or both of Richmond's bids for the 1993 Canada Summer Games and the 1994 Commonwealth Games be successful, this sports complex will be come a reality. Such a major facility will generate substantial benefits for our tourism industry.
Mr. Speaker, I'm much encouraged by the dynamics and vibrancy of a community such as Richmond. It is a joy for me to be part of it.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not point to one last concern. Here I agree with the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen). There are grave inequities in the levels of provincial funding for community health services among the greater Vancouver area municipalities. As a result, Richmond's contribution is over $13 per capita, while Surrey's is less than 50 cents per capita. This unfairness needs attention.
[11:30]
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I look forward to representing the interests of my constituents and to helping this very capable and promising government build a future for all British Columbians — a future of equality of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.
MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a longtime friend of mine, Mr. Gery Echlin, who is with us today and here to give me moral support, which he has done spiritually throughout the years. Gery was a mentor of mine some 30 years ago, and he has retired from his position as a rehab consultant with the Workers' Compensation Board. We welcome him today.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to represent the people of Maillardville-Coquitlam in this assembly. I
[ Page 82 ]
begin this new adventure in the time-honoured tradition of parliamentary democracy, remembering a letter to the editor written by a constituent of Icelandic descent. Noting that media coverage of the recent Reykjavik summit failed to draw attention to the rich traditions of our tiny neighbour to the northeast, he reminded us that, while Anglo-Saxons brag that England is the mother of parliaments, Iceland is the grandmother of parliaments.
Mr. Speaker, if this B.C. Legislature is a grandchild of parliaments, it is still nevertheless steeped in tradition. I have taken quite some time to find my way around the tunnels; I have suffered the embarrassment of members of our research staff finding me there looking very lost, and they have rescued me. And I get the eerie feeling in these haunted halls and on the grounds that the likes of Robson, DeCosmos and Partullo, Winch, W.A.C. Bennett, Strachan, Passarell and Hall are having a good laugh at our expense.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you, as one of the Deputy Speakers, on your election, and I congratulate Mr. Speaker, and may all of you be granted good peripheral vision, enabling you to see this MLA when he stands in his small comer to seek the floor.
Two outstanding New Democrats have represented my constituency before me. Dave Barrett and Norm Levi have set high standards as members of this Legislature.
AN HON. MEMBER: Both sat in that corner.
MR. CASHORE: I am told they both sat in this comer. I wanted to repeat that so it would be in Hansard.
As Premier and as Minister of Human Resources they set high standards, they served this province well, and I honour them for their sense of social justice, their commitment to honesty and fairness, and their record of upholding equality and integrity.
Maillardville-Coquitlam is a difficult constituency to hold. It has never returned an incumbent. I intend to hold that seat when we form government. I intend to change history some 40 months from now. And, Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity, I wish to acknowledge Mr. John Parks, a hard-working MLA who served in the previous assembly. I appreciate and respect the contribution of all who dare to participate in public life, and that appreciation is extended to family members, many of whom are of tender years.
The district of Coquitlam was incorporated in 1891. Reeve R.B. Kelly conducted the first council meeting August 22 of that year, a year that required $295.23 for operating expenses. It was two years prior to that that the Ross McLaren sawmill started up at Fraser Mills. The French community of Maillardville started in 1909 when Fraser River Mills, short of workers, sent recruiters to Quebec, and that year a special train brought out I 10 French-Canadians to work in the mill. Forty-two families arrived in June 1910. They built a church and established a school under the direction of Father Maillard.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to represent the second largest francophone community west of the Ottawa Valley. While I do not speak French, and I say that with some embarrassment, I cherish the unique heritage of that community. This fine community is a microcosm in British Columbia, representing Canada's founding nations. Cultural diversity must be treasured if the unique nature of our nation is to be sustained. Where the fragile fabric of a minority is vulnerable to the vagaries of economics, it behooves us to work together to preserve that precious remnant.
The French immersion program in our district goes from kindergarten to grade 12, and 2,086 students are enrolled in that program, the highest per capita and I believe the first in B.C. The inadequate provincial funding formula is putting pressure on this vital program and endangering the future of the francophone community. I plan, through consultation, to encourage the government to assist the Coquitlam public library to build up its French-language collection. Adequate reading resources will assist the community to continue to nurture and develop a dynamic and vibrant presence in this province. Such a precious part of our society is worth preserving.
Further efforts are underway to redevelop the Maillardville business district and to preserve the heritage of the French community. I will be joining the municipal council and the heritage committee in discussing ways the government can participate creatively.
Mr. Speaker, my constituency is a suburb. The people who live there for the most part live with the reality that most of the workforce must commute to Vancouver and elsewhere to make a living. This makes it a demanding challenge to build a community, something that surely all of us are about. I commend those who work hard at it. Their efforts give heart and soul to the lives of all of us. But, Mr. Speaker, too many of our people are dealing with unfair pressure.
Consider workers: congested traffic on the way to work, congested traffic on the way home. Try to use the bus and discover that the system is worse now than it was prior to Expo. A chamber of commerce survey shows that 50 percent of the lower mainland jobs are in Vancouver; 5 percent are in the area represented by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) and myself. The previous Social Credit government has created an unnecessary problem for our people. The present government has the moral responsibility to work with area municipal councils to resolve it.
Long before the world's fair, the mayors of Port Moody, Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam called on the minister responsible for transit to sit down and discuss commuter rail along the North Shore. Using existing rail lines, the plan was a natural win-win opportunity. All the mayors were willing to discuss it. The Members of Parliament for the area were willing to sit down and discuss it. A former Minister of Municipal Affairs even got involved. I am told he purchased several million dollars' worth of rolling stock that ended up being mothballed. Who knows what has become of it? But that's ancient history. That minister is now the first minister of this province. Time went by, Mr. Speaker, and even the representatives of the CPR were willing to talk. But in the last government the minister responsible for transit refused to join in meaningful discussions. He said it would cost too much but failed to produce proof of that allegation, and the project never received a fair hearing.
I'm glad to hear about a new start, but will that new start include making right the wrongs of previous Social Credit governments?
Mr. Speaker, commuter rail would have taken pressure off the highway system. It would have formed a component in the orderly development of rapid transit based on a comprehensive transit plan involving consultation with the people of my constituency. And that didn't happen. The people of my constituency regret that and resent it. I submit that the
[ Page 83 ]
government must act now to take the pressure off our commuters. They are tired of having to travel in a direction 90 degrees off their destination. They are tired of being pressured to travel toward SkyTrain when wanting to head downtown. It is imperative that bus service between Coquitlam and Vancouver be improved now.
[11:45]
On the subject of SkyTrain, recently the Coquitlam council had a report presented to them by a member of council staff. I quote from his report: 'An interesting paper presented by" — and at this point it names the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) — " that individual in 1985 provides an argument that these non-rolling stock capital costs are a highway equivalent." He compares it to a 12-lane intermunicipal throughway. Up until now the provincial government has only been willing to treat this throughway as a secondary highway. But the objective of municipalities should be to have it considered a full arterial highway and — get this, Mr. Speaker — 100 percent funded by the provincial government. Mr. Speaker, it is good to know that at least one member of cabinet is on record as expecting the government to recognize its responsibility in this matter. Municipal council is on record as favouring this approach, and it behooves this government to assure the people of Coquitlam that their transit system and situation is given high priority.
Mr. Speaker, the Eagle Ridge Hospital is in the constituency of Coquitlam-Moody, but members of one-half of my riding eagerly await the bringing into service of the portion of that facility that is designated for emergency services.
Members of my constituency living in mobile home parks need legislation that is designed to recognize their particular circumstance. Some of these people find themselves having to pay land taxes on top of the cost of pad rental. This is a severe hardship on many persons on fixed income. Cliches about getting government off the backs of business are inappropriate and punitive, if people who have the reasonable right to protection are denied that right.
I am pleased that the Premier has seen fit to include social services and housing in the same portfolio. And I am pleased that when I asked for a meeting with the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond), a meeting was arranged. We met, and we have what I consider to be a strong basis for lively debate.
Mr. Speaker, in acknowledging the Minister of Social Services and Housing, at this point I would also like to acknowledge Rosemary Brown, whose critic role was in the area of human resources when she graced this assembly. I would like at this point to acknowledge her role in bringing the House cooperatively to the present point, as forecast in the throne speech, where we will be seeing some adoption legislation reform. Rosemary Brown introduced a private members' bill on this subject; and I am very pleased to see that it is being followed up by the minister. Judging by the wording within the throne speech, it sounds as though it's moving towards a passive registry; and I find that very interesting. The majority of the feedback that I have had would indicate something somewhat more active, but we eagerly await the legislation.
Also, Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to refer to the prediction in the throne speech that welfare will be increased in some areas — areas, no doubt, that are important. But, Mr. Speaker, to be in poverty is to be in poverty; to be in need is to be in need. Rates that have been virtually frozen since 1982, during which time the cost of living has increased by more than 20 percent, underlines the fact that all those who are on income assistance require a reasonable and decent consideration at this time. I would ask the minister to seriously consider all those who are on income assistance at this time in the province of British Columbia.
Just one further point on that. When you consider the discrimination that exists in terms of the welfare rates for persons under the age of 25, I would remind this House that several years past that battle was fought on the ICBC insurance issue, and in the wisdom of the House it was recognized that such discrimination should not exist. So I submit that there is an inconsistency and an error that is not in keeping with the spirit of that former legislation.
I recognize that the hon. Minister of Social Services and Housing has inherited a colossal mess, with 222,000 British Columbians officially unemployed and another 218,000 on income assistance. You can add to that at least another 150,000 of those human beings who are no longer on UIC lists, supported by friends and relatives who are working at starvation wages. The minister has a difficult task, and it is a task that is tragic in its dimensions when you consider that the previous government took its cue from the Fraser Institute in deciding how to deal with its understanding of the recession.
It is tragic that, due to this approach, the crisis deepened unnecessarily. And it was so unnecessary, realizing that at this time 84,000 children depend on GAIN, 69,000 of our youth are out of work, and 70,000 of our people line up at B.C. food banks each month. It shames us to think that food banks continue to be a growth industry in this province.
I submit that it is not welfare that is expensive, it is poverty that is expensive in this province at this time. It is expensive in human cost, and it is expensive in economic cost. A penny-wise, pound-foolish approach is something that future generations will have to live with and deal with as additional members of our society are added into the welfare syndrome and find it difficult to break out of that pattern.
I hold in my hand a copy of a report submitted by the Ontario Medical Association on January 9 of this year. In addressing the issue of the effect of poverty on families it states that poverty is fatal in many cases — that there is a two and a half times greater likelihood that children will die from infectious diseases and accidents in homes that are in poverty than in homes in other parts of our society. That situation is costly.
Those of us who talk about raising welfare rates and things like that are often accused of being bleeding hearts. I don't mind that. Perhaps a bleeding heart is a do-gooder who lacks an economic analysis; I don't know. But I think that's fair. We need an economic analysis that is appropriate for these times in which we live, and what frightens a lot of people about the throne speech is its lack of an economic vision, a vision that differs in any substantial way from the measures that have deepened the negative economic impacts of the past six years.
Richard Allan of the B.C. Central Credit Union is quoted in a Vancouver Sun article as stating that the economy needs an infusion of capital. Well, let's look at that for a moment. If we need an infusion, then we need to look at how capital is lost from our economy. If we are worried about a need for a transfusion of financial blood, Mr. Speaker, we should start by finding the hemorrhage and stemming the flow.
[ Page 84 ]
Now contrary to what some economists may tell you and I would like to say that leaving the economy to economists is about as dangerous as leaving religion to clergymen — the drain in the economy is not those who are on the margins of society. Capital does not flow out of our society through them; it circulates through them. Those people who occupy the widening low-income margins of our society are not the problem; they want to be part of the solution. They spend what little they receive right here in British Columbia. They don't drain the lifeblood of our economy into Swiss bank accounts or into third-world neo-slavery or into Caribbean hideaways. Mr. Speaker, they spend it here. Do not despise them. They pay sales taxes at the same rate as millionaires. The money they spend creates jobs.
Mr. Speaker, justice is a principle that surely all of us must adhere to regardless of our political persuasion, and if that principle of justice which has been referred to by many members of this House on both sides from a faith perspective, if that principle of justice is to be followed through, surely that principle has to apply to the marketplace. Where your treasure is will your heart be also.
Mr. Speaker, if the government wants an infusion, let it examine that which is draining the economic lifeblood from this province. New Democrats are calling for fairness. We are not asking for anything more than the restoration of justice and integrity. Mr. Speaker, the gap between rich and poor is widening. It is frightening.
In 1980, the top I percent of our population owned 18.8 percent of the total wealth in Canada. The top 20 percent owned 73.3 percent, and yes it is going up; 73.3 percent of the national wealth owned by the top 20 percent of the people of Canada. Do you know how much the bottom 40 percent owned? The bottom 40 percent in 1980 owned 0.8 percent, and it is going down. That is shameful, Mr. Speaker.
I needn't repeat the statements of my colleagues in their articulate dissertations concerning the serious moral dimensions of this gross and indecent unfairness. I ask those who witness to their faith in this House to ask where that fits in with the good news. The vacuous trickle-down theory has been wrapped up and presented to those who could least afford the pain of it by every administration since 1975. You know there is a bitter joke you hear in the downtown east side. It is: "Have you been trickled on yet?"
Mr. Speaker, what happens when corporations are given write-offs? They use it to write down debt. Does that stimulate the economy? They use it to automate. I am not opposed to technology, but let's recognize that the capital used to automate is not trickling very far, and they use it to invest in third world countries.
This government hasn't tried anything that is new, and I don't see anything in the throne speech that will result in the kind of job creation that will stimulate the economy. The throne speech talks about getting government off the backs of business, and that is not new. Yet let us recognize that small business — and small business is trotted out and included in that phrase whenever we hear it in its various manifestations — small businesses suffered immensely throughout the past several years. In fact, small business, having been used in the rhetoric, is the victim of far too many bankruptcies, and the government really needs to look at that seriously in recognition that 80 percent of job creation comes from that sector.
Job creation is most important, and I have a suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Minister of Social Services and Housing is listening in his office. I appreciate that he was able to be here for part of my words this morning. I am appalled that the throne speech in this United Nations International Year of Shelter for the Homeless failed to refer to housing in this province of British Columbia which depends on housing in order to market its number one product.
You're probably aware that some 10,000 Canadians were found to be sleeping outside in a national snapshot survey conducted several weeks ago. I recognize that we don't have the numbers of people sleeping in the streets here that there are in many Third World countries. But one of the things we have to realize, Mr. Speaker, is that as tragic as it is that 10,000 were found to be sleeping out in this country, the further urgent problem is that so many of our fellow citizens, having lost their jobs and used up UIC and now being on income assistance and experiencing the stress in view of a bleak future, in view of hopes unfulfilled, are now wondering just how close they are to falling off the edge and in fact being homeless themselves or seeing that happening to their children.
[12:00]
Too many of these people live in substandard housing. I referred in question period this morning to the Cosh commission. I don't think that it is a matter that should be joked about. It was born of embarrassment; that is how that commission report came to exist. Yet when it was available to the people of this province, it was not released. It was released only a few weeks ago. It found that the allegations that had been made were not true allegations — that they were smokescreen allegations. Yet the members of that commission — and I commend them for this — did have the moral courage to point out to the people of British Columbia that there are 250,000 households in need in this province, and 50,000 of those are not in receipt of any kind of assistance.
Mr. Speaker, there's a housing crisis, and I call on the government to get on with it. Get on with allocating a number of units over the next three years that will address this crisis. Get on with the job creation that is inherent and implicit in that. Get on with the opportunity in this international year to demonstrate to the world that the combination of housing need, job need and forest product marketing could have a large role in getting our economy going again and could be a light to other nations.
Mr. Speaker, it is not income assistance that is costing us our hope for the future, it is the fact that poverty is expensive and that we need imaginative ideas to address this problem within our society. Let's have family support workers restored for our people, and save costs in the long run — costs down the road — in institutional care.
Let us recognize, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the deinstitutionalizing that has been going on, that we have been promised by the government that this would be done in a caring and fair way, and yet I would point out that the people of the downtown east side are aware that ever-increasing numbers of people are showing up in their community. Statistically it can be demonstrated that people are being dumped out into the community without having adequate shelter to care for them.
I wish to sum up with these words. They're important words to me, and I hope to get them through. As a minister, I have grieved with families as they faced the reality of death, I have rejoiced with mothers and fathers celebrating the Miracle of new life, I have stood beside young offenders in court, I have listened to the anguish of victims, I have waited with those who are waiting for surgery, I have advocated on behalf
[ Page 85 ]
of patients in the mental health system, I have worked with the jobless to plan self-help programs, I have collaborated with senior government in erecting housing for the homeless, and I have stood before the powerful and argued the case for the disadvantaged. Like food-bank workers, I have asked why such inequities should exist in our province.
Every member of this House has a personal experience of service that enables us to rise up and accomplish that which needs to happen and to happen now in this province. Our collective experience in the service of humanity has prepared all of us for this task. Let's get on with it.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. You may be assured my peripheral vision is excellent. The debate continues.
MR. DE JONG: I would like to ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
MR. DE JONG: I'm very privileged this morning to have a lady in our gallery here today who has been my good and loyal and faithful wife for the past 33 years. She stood by my side in private business and in political careers. She's had the honour of being the First Lady in the district of Matsqui for 11 years. I ask the members of this House to extend a cordial welcome to my dear wife Ann.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members, it's indeed a great pleasure and honour for me to participate in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. I count it a great honour for me, and also for my five children, to have been chosen to represent the people of the Central Fraser Valley constituency. I couldn't have done it without them. I'm sure that my colleague, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), first member for Central Fraser Valley, and all of the members of this House feel equally proud of being able to represent their constituents in this Legislature. It is especially gratifying for those of us who are here for the first time.
I would like to extend my congratulations to the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) for taking on the responsibilities of Speaker of this House. I would also like to congratulate the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) on his appointment as Deputy Speaker.
I wish to thank my campaign workers, whose hard work made my election easier, and for their continued support since October 22.
I'm sure most of you know where the constituency of Central Fraser Valley is located; but for those who do not, it is the finest constituency of all of what I consider to be a super British Columbia. The Central Fraser Valley riding is a place of action. Its growth over the last few years, according to statistics, has exceeded that of almost every other community in British Columbia. This is demonstrated by the fact that the population growth of Abbotsford and Matsqui has consistently increased at a rate above the provincial average. Abbotsford's population increased 2.3 percent in 1985 over 1984, and Matsqui's increased 2.6 percent in 1985, compared to the provincial average increase of I percent. The number of dwelling starts in Abbotsford was three times the provincial average, and in Matsqui it was seven times the provincial average.
People are choosing to live in the Central Fraser Valley because we offer a secure and quality way of life. People are not only choosing to live in Central Fraser Valley, but they are also investing and opening up new businesses there. For example, the increase in the number of business incorporations in Matsqui was more than seven times the B.C. average in 1985. I feel encouraged that under this government's leadership these trends will continue.
The Central Fraser Valley riding has been, and is continuing to be, a fast-growing riding in terms of residential and commercial expansion. This is due to a number of factors, including the attractiveness of its close proximity to the job opportunities in Vancouver. Living in the Fraser Valley enables one to enjoy a country style of living while being near enough to a large, metropolitan area to partake of all its benefits as well. However, I must state that had it not been for sewerage and water assistance grants which were provided through Bill 88 and Bill 110, passed by this government in the mid-seventies, it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to provide those essential services to the growing communities of Abbotsford and Matsqui. My sincere thanks to Hugh Curtis, our province's then Minister of Municipal Affairs, for the foresight he had to provide the infrastructure to accommodate such growth.
The Central Fraser Valley riding has been the home for the past 25 years of the biggest and best air show in North America, a show enjoyed by people from all over this continent, as well as from overseas. Plans are now underway for an aviation trade show to be held every other year in conjunction with the Abbotsford Air Show. The beauty of this major event, Mr. Speaker, is that its backbone is a group of volunteers from our community, together with people from the lower mainland carrying on this major undertaking from year to year. As a member representing the Central Fraser Valley riding, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the past government of this province for the recognition and support provided to the Abbotsford Air Show Society. It is this kind of support from government that makes people continue to participate and at the same time provide for new incentives and enthusiasm, which undoubtedly will lead to eventually attracting an aviation type of industry to our province.
[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]
The same applies to the highway grants which were provided through the Minister of Municipal Affairs from this government on a dollar-matching basis. It is this kind of revenue-sharing with local governments that has helped, and will continue to help, build a strong economy for this province. Good roads and bridges are essential to the wellbeing of any commodity or product manufactured in B.C., especially those of short shelf life. At the same time, even though we are a fast growth community, in British Columbia we still enjoy health and education facilities second to none. I am encouraged by the fact that this will continue based on our government's commitment, which was so clearly stated in the throne speech, to improve our education system. Post-secondary funding will be increased to ensure that colleges, institutes and universities will play an active role in the development of our economy. I would like to personally commend the teachers and administrators in our public school system for their dedication and commitment in providing the best possible education for our young people.
Being a strong supporter of the independent school system, I am happy that this government not only acknowledges the availability of independent schools as a democratic right
[ Page 86 ]
but that it is prepared to provide further relief financially to those parents who have chosen independent education for their children.
I believe that as a provincial government we should examine growth patterns along with local councils and school boards to better determine future needs. In fact, it may even save dollars for both levels of government. I trust that the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health will give special attention to communities such as ours which have a high growth pattern.
Mr. Speaker, another matter which has been of concern to me — and I'm sure to others in this assembly — is the present system of policing costs to individual municipalities. While I fully realize the difficulty we face in making changes, it is equally difficult to accept paying the full cost of these services for communities with a large agricultural base coupled with strong, confined urban growth. I trust that this government will continue to develop a fair and equitable plan with the Union of B.C. Municipalities for those municipalities having their own police force.
[12:15]
Mr. Speaker, Central Fraser Valley is known, I'm sure, to all of us as one of the finest agricultural areas in this great province. It is known for the sweetest strawberries, the biggest raspberries, the tastiest blueberries and the finest dairy products produced anywhere in the world, including the famous medal-winning Armstrong cheese manufactured in Abbotsford from milk produced on some of the finest dairy farms in the lower mainland.
Mr. Speaker, the agricultural industry in British Columbia is something that I am sure we are all equally proud of and that certainly deserves all our support. It is an industry which perhaps does not draw headlines in terms of major expansions, with hundreds or more people being employed each year. However, let us not underestimate the number of people employed in the agricultural business in British Columbia. Speaking with some people the other day in the nursery business, I was told that the demands are far beyond expectation, and that in some cases the number of employees had to be doubled from a year ago. .
I was encouraged by the reference in the Speech from the Throne to the government support for agriculture, aquaculture and our food and beverage industries. I agree that we should work hard to capitalize on domestic and foreign market opportunities. I am pleased that we will work with the private sector to turn more of our raw agricultural resources into marketable, finished and packaged products. The marketing success of our famous raspberry juice is just one example of how we can turn a seasonal highly perishable product into one that is enjoyed year round. Like other valueadded products, this is helping to create jobs and reduce imports. The small fruit industry is expanding with the diversity of products which are in strong demand here and elsewhere. For example, our raspberry juice is also in high demand on the Japanese market.
The dairy industry, while it is guided by a management supply system provincially under a national umbrella, is healthy, but is currently and has for some time been strangled by the national system of supply management. I am very pleased by the efforts of our Premier and of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) to obtain a fair share for the dairy industry in British Columbia. I understand that the Market Share Advisory Committee federally is now considering taking up this matter for further study and review. Why should this industry, while supplying the fresh milk market in British Columbia, continue to be curtailed to supplying only 35 percent of the industrial requirements for the people of this province? If we were allowed to provide for all of the milk products consumed in British Columbia, an additional 500 dairy farms could be accommodated, employing a minimum of 1,000 people, plus those needed in the processing plants. In addition, there would be the economic spinoff affecting a wide range of suppliers required to serve the dairy industry. This would provide an immediate opportunity for the large number of young farmers wishing to start production. Besides the economic benefits this province would stand to gain, there would also be the opportunity for every British Columbian to enjoy the finest manufactured dairy products in Canada. As the Premier has stated on several occasions, all we ask for is a fair share. I am sure it can be obtained if we, as representatives, are willing to stand up and fight for it. Let us all put our shoulders to the wheel to make it happen.
Mr. Speaker, while the B.C. Milk Board and other marketing agencies have been under attack on occasion, I want to assure everyone in this assembly that while it may not be totally perfect, it is the only system that has provided stability in the industry, and had it not been in place during the recent recession, this government would have had to deal with similar problems in the agriculture industry as they have in other provinces. So in light of free-trade discussions with the federal government, let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. But first of all, let us work on the system that is fair and equitable for British Columbia.
I am the second-oldest child in a family of ten. My parents emigrated to this great country and to this beautiful province of British Columbia in June, 1947. Their main reason for coming to British Columbia was because of the opportunities provided. The opportunities are still here.
It is a matter of taking on the challenge. With the comments provided in the throne speech, I have every bit of faith that we as government will succeed in providing opportunity for everyone. There is a real sense of optimism. Faith and trust can be restored among all British Columbians in business as well as in labour and commerce. I am very pleased to see the Premier recall one of the major promises of this government, and that is an open and accessible government to the people of this province. In fact, Madam Speaker, it has already started, and I am sure there is much more to follow. As a past municipal politician, I am pleased to see the dialogue started through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Union of B.C. Municipalities to first of all eliminate duplication, cut red tape and, where possible, to pass on certain responsibilities to local governments; and if in fact costs are involved to local governments by this trade, that this government is prepared to recognize such.
I am very encouraged by our government's commitment to restore more decision-making and functions of government to the community level. I agree that local autonomy is long overdue. I would like to commend the Premier for his recent conference on decentralization, in which local and regional levels of government were consulted on the direction they would like to see the government take. Cooperation and consultation at the municipal level have long been in evidence in Central Fraser Valley. For instance, Abbotsford and Matsqui, who used to have a separate fire department each, have started a joint fire department since 1976, which has been of
[ Page 87 ]
great benefit to both communities. In addition, through a joint effort the two communities, together with the district of Mission, enjoy one of the finest, most modem environmental control systems in the province to take care of the sanitary sewers.
The Matsqui-Abbotsford Recreation Commission, a three-way commission which includes representatives of the school district, is another example of the cooperation that takes place between these two communities. With that three level input, Madam Speaker, some 1,500 hours of school facilities are used annually for recreational purposes.
Finally, there is the joint water system that has been developed, maintained and operated by Matsqui and Mission in the constituency of Dewdney since 1980 under the auspices of the regional district. This type of endeavour, Madam Speaker, is typical when cooperation is emphasized.
I am pleased to see that this government is prepared to introduce more support programs to meet the needs of victims of crime; that this government is prepared to provide funding to reduce the high abortion rate in British Columbia; that a task force is to be named to work with the private sector for job opportunities for the disabled.
Madam Speaker, I am in full support of privatization of Crown corporations or government services wherever possible. At the same time, I am fully supportive of providing sufficient training for those in government services to serve the people we represent. Both of these aspects, I'm sure, will help British Columbia to reduce its deficit.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to note that it is this government's goal to plant more trees for harvest, which means we will be ensured of a continued supply. It also provides greater justification to harvest the trees when ready, provided all possible measures are taken into account to protect the environment.
Generally I am very pleased with the program that the Premier has laid out for us in the Speech from the Throne. I am enthusiastic about the program, realizing that to get it done will mean a lot of dedication and hard work on the part of all of us. I am happy to be part of the team to make it happen for the good of all British Columbians. It is this type of approach, if we collectively work at it, that will give the confidence to invest in this great province's natural resources. This will then also enable this government to provide for the social needs and the less fortunate and the disabled.
Madam Speaker, I would like to pay special tribute to all the members who have served in this Legislature previously. The sacrifices they have made for the people of this province, by contributing their time and effort, often beyond the call of duty, is to be commended, and in most cases we all know they worked when they could have been enjoying time with their family and friends. With respect to those who served in the previous government, I take pride in being able to be part of those who will continue to build on the foundations laid, foundations of democracy and competitive free enterprise, integrity and ingenuity of the individual. Though we collectively may have common goals, it takes individuals to initiate the goals and direction.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
My final comments are that I see my role as member of this Legislature for Central Fraser Valley as one of great honour and responsibility. I am privileged to represent people of high integrity, hard-working, a people respecting high spiritual and moral values. I trust that God may provide me with strength and commitment to fulfil my task as a member of this assembly, and I trust that we may all be provided with the wisdom of Solomon, the patience of Job and the love of God, as we collectively work for the well-being of this province and the good of the people of British Columbia.
[12:30]
MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to address this House. I feel especially privileged to represent the people of Surrey-Guildford-Whalley. I am proud to be a member of the New Democrats, the government's loyal opposition.
I believe that the NDP has taken up the challenge of a new society, a better way of doing things, a cooperative, just society, not a society based on glitz and glamour, not a reality based on privilege and the entrenchment of the status quo but a reality based on hard work, integrity and a fair share for all.
You see, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I believe that this government is shirking its responsibilities to the majority of people of B.C. The throne speech put before us did nothing to address the problems in my riding and indeed in the province as a whole. All of the positive thinking in the world will not make one ounce of difference in people's daily lives. The way to make a difference, I believe, is to deal with substance, to do your homework and to truly work collectively as a team. I make that commitment to this House.
Mr. Speaker, I believe my responsibility to my community is in one way an historical one. I am the first representative for the new north Surrey riding. For the first time the most densely populated area of Surrey-Guildford-Whalley has representation. For the first time the people of north Surrey have their own voice in this House. I am pleased to take this opportunity to introduce their concerns and hope that I can lay out for you a little of their reality. I believe that in looking for a new vision, a fresh start, you must start by understanding the reality of the daily lives of the people in our province.
The 1986 estimated population for north Surrey was 78,000. It is a young community — a community made up of young families. It is a community that has undergone phenomenal growth. The projected growth between 1981 and 1986 was 3 percent. The reality, Mr. Speaker, was 22.4 percent. This growth has put extreme strains on services that were already under attack by the failed, cruel strategy of the restraint put forward by the previous Social Credit government.
Surrey-Guildford-Whalley is a community of working people. Many of my neighbours moved to Surrey because of its potential, because of the opportunities of being part of building a new community, a community to raise a family, a place that provided an opportunity for many to purchase their first homes.
Surrey now has one-third of the GVRD's population under the age of 19. According to the last Canada statistics, the average family income was $26,000 as compared to the GVRD average of $28,400. Large numbers of people living in our community work outside of Surrey. They are major contributors to the wealth in the lower mainland, and by sheer numbers to the wealth in our province. However, I do not believe my neighbours are getting a fair share.
Let me be more specific. I believe that the government's so-called free enterprise has failed. It has failed to deliver the
[ Page 88 ]
promise made to the people of my mother's generation. Our seniors have inadequate housing, shaky income security, and many of the rights that they have fought for like medical services are threatened.
At this time our hospital, the Surrey Memorial Hospital, with one of the busiest emergency wards with approximately 62,000 visits in the 1986-87 fiscal year, will deliver approximately 2,400 babies, the fourth largest in B.C. This hospital has — and this is shameful, I believe — 1, 985 persons on a waiting-list for surgery. I believe that is unacceptable.
This government has shown its expertise in positive thinking, in glitz, in glamour, and of course it continues to be committed to the so-called free enterprise. I say that so-called free enterprise has failed my generation as well.
Surrey has the fourth-highest unemployment in the region, with Matsqui, Mission and Maple Ridge leading the way. North Surrey has a significantly higher proportion of unemployment than the rest of Surrey. North Surrey has the lowest income level, the lowest adult education level and the highest unemployment rates in Surrey.
Poverty is a real issue in my riding. Over 60 percent of the employment in Surrey is in commerce; one in five is in clerical. According to the 1980 statistics, the average male income in my riding was $18,331; the average female income was $7,897. The increased number of female-headed households face a dismal future with income figures like these. According to these numbers, women in North Surrey are making considerably less than half of their male counterparts. Their responsibilities, however, are no less substantial. It costs a woman the same amount to rent an apartment, the same amount to feed herself and her children. A woman on welfare with one four-year-old child lives at 50 percent below the poverty line. One in five in my constituency are poor.
In Surrey-Guildford-Whalley our Social Services and Housing is struggling with an incredible workload. There were 6,209 recipients of income assistance in December. Social Services' hard-working individuals need more government support. The 6,209 people collecting income assistance need real opportunities, real options to poverty. In the same period of time in Surrey, 16,5 10 people were collecting unemployment insurance. That is an incredible record.
I have been very impressed by the strength and resourcefulness, the commitment, that many of these people bring to raising their families and to their ability to take on yet additional work in an attempt to escape poverty. Many of our adult population are in search of education and training. Unfortunately, again, the system is failing them. There are only 152 seats offered in Surrey schools to bring people up to the grade 10 literacy or to the Canada employment standards. There are only 55 full-time and 50 part-time seats in Kwantlen College for adult upgrading. Forty percent of all entrance applicants to Kwantlen College for trade or for office courses are turned away because they fail grade 10 or better literacy levels. Of 12,000 college students in Surrey, 8,000 have to leave our community. That is a dismal record. If this government is truly committed to the province's economic recovery — a sustainable recovery, not glitz and glamour — then it must commit itself to addressing this injustice.
There is yet another dimension to my community, to my generation, and that is the contribution made by our new Canadians. The two largest groups in North Surrey are the Punjabi and the Hindi-speaking peoples and recent immigrants from Germany. Sadly, our community is robbed of their fullest participation — robbed because of previous cutbacks and the lack of government's insight into their full potential. Despite the lack of government committment to English-as-a-second-language courses, wonderful examples of human persistence exist. We have an adult literacy centre called Invergarry in North Surrey. One of the programs offered in that centre is helping to develop a workers' co-op. A group of women made up of representatives from many different countries throughout the world has come together to build on the expertise that they have brought to our country. These women are seamstresses by trade. They are learning English to become better able to understand business terms and the ways of the clothing business in Canada. It's a wonderful example of community development, and a wonderful example of human persistence. I believe in the potential of the people of my riding.
However, insufficient educational support is not the only problem they face. Surrey is a very large community, making a good public transit system a priority. Again the system is failing due to an insistence of a government removed from the reality of need. We have an expensive system and a continued centralization of bus services that are not serving either our local community needs or our regional employment transportation needs. Public transit could play a supportive role in community economic development as well as build a more cohesive community, a real must in breaking down social isolation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the saddest if not the most criminal of the system's failures. As it has been pointed out time and time again, the throne speech made no mention of young people. The Surrey School District has the second highest enrolment in the province. Since the 1981-82 cutbacks in education, our school enrolment has increased by 4, 300. We have at the same time lost 22 teachers. Imagine, if you will, a school district with 4, 300 students — in B.C. there are 45 districts with fewer registration; 45 out of 75 in total — with no teachers. That is exactly what is happening in my municipality, the municipality of Surrey.
[12:45]
The amount spent per child in Surrey is the second to last of the 75 school districts: $460 per child less than the average in the province. The children of the people who have built this province are not getting their fair share. The many families in my community that have worked for 20 years to provide food, shelter and an education for their children are now in a situation where their now young adults are still unable to find employment, employment that would provide a future for their next generations. These families have had promises made to them by this mythical system, and these promises too have been broken.
I call on this government to stop abandoning the people of this province, to stop looking elsewhere for mythical solutions, stop throwing its hands in the air shouting: "Free market will look after our problems." I say that it is just this action that has caused these problems. Start acting as advocates for people in B.C., start recognizing their strengths and support our community initiatives.
There are many good people working very hard to provide services in our community. Surrey Memorial Hospital staff and administration must be commended, for it is hard to imagine how they are able to keep serving. Our teachers, it would seem against all odds, are able to support and help ready our future generations.
[ Page 89 ]
I hope this government will remember that these young people that they have abandoned will be the group that makes the decision on their senior years and on their grandchildren's future. Our local government throughout this province have been offering suggestions about employment and services needed. I call on this government to support the FCM infrastructure report and to bring back 75 percent dollars to sewer and water. We have a growing municipality, and it would seem that this provincial government's contribution to real growth, to real development has again failed.
I have talked about hard work and about the myths perpetuated by previous governments. I have also talked about the failures of the so-called free enterprise system. I say so-called because I believe nothing is free. There are costs and benefits to everything. It is clear to those of us living in Surrey who pays. When you look at communities like West Vancouver, unfortunately it is blatantly obvious who benefits. The working people of this province are the majority, and that is who we are elected to represent.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Surrey-Guildford-Whalley have other concerns. They are concerned about community health and safety, clean air, clean water. They are committed to the planet we live on — the planet that ultimately sustains life.
North Surrey is a beautiful community. It stretches up the southern banks of the Fraser River and has some of the most beautiful rolling farmland in our municipality. It is perhaps ironic that Surrey, the home of many working British Columbians, should be the site of the only — to my knowledge — radioactive ore tailings in the lower mainland. A portion of these tailings sits down by the CN Thornton yard adjacent to the Fraser River. They are now entombed behind a brick wall surrounded by barbed-wire fence, monitored 24 hours a day by what would appear to be detectors put there by AECL.
The existence of the then eroding barrels was originally brought to the public's attention during the 1979 Bates inquiry on uranium mining. Three levels of government have since been involved for many years trying to dispose of this health hazard. None has been successful. Nothing has changed since the Bates inquiry; nothing has changed since Mr. Bennett, then Premier, said that the fears that the people of B.C. felt were too real to ignore. With uranium we are dealing with radioactive waste that has yet to be controlled in a manner which is satisfactory to a large segment of the public.
Mr. Speaker, I want to read into the record a brief that was delivered to me yesterday. I think this brief is significant; I think this is an opportunity for the people of B.C. to have their say — a say that has been denied to them by a government that has agreed to lift a moratorium without any consideration. This brief was presented to the Salmon Ann health board. It was presented by a Dr. Gulliford of Salmon Ann, and it is a very sad story. It was presented in 1979-81, in the period of the Bates inquiry, as I said:
"The purpose of this short brief is to outline the experience of a small peaceful town in British Columbia that awakened one morning to find that 12,000 acres of uranium had been staked in their watershed area. In 1979 large machines and drilling crews traversed the Turtle Valley and told farmers they were just going to do some drilling in the hills above their farms. No one questioned the purpose at the time.
"At the same time another group, Union Oil from Calgary, began drilling in the Fly Hills above our town in the watershed. A rancher who runs 1,500 head of cattle there in the summer and the fall with other ranchers happened to tell someone that the drilling was taking place. He wondered why, when the snow fell, it melted so rapidly where the pits were while the rest of the snow was deep and was maintained intact.
"There were various rumours and a group of citizens went to the gold commissioner's office in Kamloops only to find that the whole of the Fly Hills was staked, and we later found out that a permit to drill was already granted. Trenches and drilling holes were already approved.
"As the Bates commission was to find later, some of the trenches crossed the creeks, and drill holes were adjacent to creeks. When concerned people phoned the companies, their calls were not returned. Indeed at one point when the caller asked for a certain man who was in charge of the Salmon Arm drilling, she was told that no one worked there by that name and that they had never heard of Salmon Arm.
"Later they were told not to worry as they could take out only ten pounds of uranium from any drilling site. They didn't tell us that it might mean bulldozing tonnes of earth and rock to get ten pounds, or that it would uncover a potential mass of uranium byproducts — the most dangerous being products of disintegration of uranium. They are safe if air and water does not reach them, but once exposed, extremely dangerous.
"About the same time the small town of Beaverdell was experiencing the same fate. They were already drilling in closer proximity to the dwellings there. It was supposed to be bringing prosperity to the area; it did not. The people knew nothing about the products being mined until later. Fortunately there are not many people living in that area. As concern mounted, the Shuswap Nuclear Study Group was formed, and we began to really learn what it was all about.
"In 1979 we began to have leukemia in children in Salmon Arm. The victims are listed below.
There were seven children that were found to have leukemia. Of the seven, only three are living today.
"When the fourth case arrived at the cancer clinic, remarks were made that Salmon Arm was becoming the leukemia capital of B.C., yet no one followed it up."
The cancer clinic.... They tried to get a list. They did not have the central registry which is now being initiated. Mainly the feeling was that they were keeping quiet about it all. I asked Dr. Bob Woolland to speak to our medical meeting locally, and even the doctors were not convinced there was a problem. At the meeting, one of the people in Chase.... There was no doubt about their feelings. It was the same in the meetings in Salmon Ann and in Glendale. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but I think the point is really well made. These people at that time were abandoned. They did not have the information they needed. They clearly were not protected by the provincial government or by any other agency that was entrusted with protecting their health. This is pretty scary information, and I call on this government to place that uranium mining moratorium back on, and I call for a permanent ban on uranium mining in this province.
[ Page 90 ]
This is only one example of the many major decisions that have been made by this government that pertain to the environment, to the resources in our province. The people of B.C. have been denied their right to have a say in how their province will be governed. I call on the Ministry of Environment and Parks to review all of the decisions that have been made, to lift the cloud of suspicion that has covered the decisions that have been made since the last election, to do it publicly, to take this opportunity to show that this government — that the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) — is representing the majority of people of this province, and to return the rights of the people of this province to having some say in how their province will be governed and how their resources will be allocated and, indeed, how their heritage, their parks, will be managed.
I'd like to thank the House for the opportunity to speak. I will continue to bring to the House's attention the realities of the daily lives that the people of this province have to face. I am committed to working with the people of our province to look for alternatives, because, as I say, I believe the system has failed this province miserably, and I believe that we have to look for other alternatives, that we must look collectively, that we must recognize the strength of the people of our province and involve them in the decisions that govern their lives.
Hon. Mr. Davis moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Before moving the adjournment motion, I wish to advise the House that by agreement with my hon. friend from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), the House will sit Monday, a full day Tuesday and Wednesday afternoon for conclusion of the Address in Reply. In order to prepare for our guests on Thursday afternoon we will not sit Thursday morning. Friday, of course, will include members' statements and I'm sure a rousing and thoughtful reply from the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). With that said, my best wishes to those members opposite who are attending the national convention this weekend. Bon chance and bon voyage. I move the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:59 p.m.