[ Page 155 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Premier's circle. Mr. Sihota –– 155

Mr. Williams

Mr. Rose

Presenting Petitions

Mr. Gabelmann –– 157

North-south transportation boundary. Hon. Mr. Michael replies to an oral question –– 157

Ministerial Statement

Log scaling at Shoal Island. Hon. B.R. Smith –– 158

Mr. Williams

Tabling Documents –– 160

Throne speech debate

Mr. Blencoe –– 160

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 163

Mr. Gabelmann –– 166

Mr. Jansen –– 169

Mr. Barnes –– 172

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 175

Division –– 178

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are a number of representatives of the B.C. and Yukon Community Newspapers Association. They are here in Victoria for their annual convention, and cabinet had the pleasure of sharing lunch with them today. A free press at the grassroots level is an important part of our democracy, and their member newspapers fill a very important role in our province.

Might I ask all members to join me in bidding a warm welcome to these, the people who are the voice — and oftentimes the spirit — of their communities.

MR. ROSE: Sitting today in the members' gallery is the spouse of a great Canadian, a former leader of the New Democratic Party and for 17 years the innovative Premier of Saskatchewan. He was my political hero and an outstanding Canadian, one who, as a politician, proved that you could be humorous without being shallow. I'd like the House to welcome Mrs. Inna Douglas.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In our gallery today, Mr. Speaker, are two distinguished visitors: Mr. Alfonso Herrera-Salcedo, Consul General of Mexico at Vancouver, and Mrs. Herrera Salcedo. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

As well, in the members' gallery today, taking time off from school during the spring break, is the very important teacher in my family, my daughter Barbara, and I would ask the House to bid her welcome.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I invite the members to join me in welcoming Agnes Cunliffe, my wife's mother, who is visiting us today from sunny Tsawwassen.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon is a very special young man in my life, my grandson. I would ask the House to please welcome Johnathon van Dyk, who is visiting us from 100 Mile House in the Cariboo.

MR. JACOBSEN: Visiting from Dewdney today are Edwin and Carol Peters. Mrs. Peters is a member of the Mission municipal council. I'd like the House to welcome them, please.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Mary and Ron Bacon from Prince George. Ron Bacon is the principal of a senior secondary school in Prince George.

MR. MESSMER: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce the Garraway family from Summerland who are with us today. Jim Garraway is a constable in Canada's finest, the RCMP. His wife, Marlene, is a school teacher, and they have with them today their two children, Derek and Karmyn. Would the members please welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to ask the members of the House to join me in welcoming Mrs. Mabel Short and her daughter Vanessa. They are from the constituency of Vancouver-Little Mountain. Vanessa was one of the very first people to buy a ticket on our lower mainland SkyTrain, which is just over a year old. I would like to ask all members of the House to welcome Vanessa and Mrs. Short.

MR. JANSEN: I'd like to ask the House to make welcome special guests from the beautiful community of Chilliwack. First of all, my friend, companion and wife Wilma, and two of my children, Theresa and Darren, are here today; and Alesa Bella, who is a reporter from radio station CHWK. Please make them welcome.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have two very important representatives from my riding. They are representatives of the Vernon Homebuilders Association: Mr. Fred Whitbread and Mr. Brian Usher. They are very influential in the housing and construction industry in my community. Please make them welcome.

MR. DE JONG: It's my pleasure to introduce a number of people from the Central Fraser Valley riding today, all very strong supporters of good Social Credit government. First of all, Mr. Peary, who is the principal of the Abbotsford Junior Secondary School, and also a newly elected alderman for the fastest-growing municipality of Matsqui. Mr. and Mrs. Shewan, who operate one of the finest flower shops in the valley, my wife Ann and our youngest son Cameron are with us in the members' gallery today. I would like to ask this House to give them a cordial welcome.

MR. CHALMERS: In the gallery today we have four visitors from the sunny Okanagan, who took a break from that constant sunshine to come down to Victoria for a few days. I'd like you to first welcome the president of the Canadian Home Builders Association, Kelowna chapter, Mr. John Zuk, and his lovely wife Valerie. Also we have in the gallery Joanne Henderson and Marg Wigelsworth. Marg is from Penticton. They are down to enjoy the golf courses in Victoria. Please make them welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a day for homebuilders, I guess. From Prince George, would the House please welcome Mr. Warren Jennings.

MR. CRANDALL: Mr. Speaker, it's not a common occurrence that the member for Columbia River will have the opportunity to introduce guests, because of our distance, but today I would like the House to recognize and welcome my wife Norma and four of our five daughters; also my MLA assistant, Davene Dunn, her husband Davin and two children. Also in the gallery today is Mr. Alf Lennox, who is the director of religious liberty for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in B.C., of which I'm a member. I'd appreciate it if the House would welcome them.

Oral Questions

PREMIER'S CIRCLE

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question for the Premier of the province. The Premier promised open government during the

[ Page 156 ]

election campaign. Now he is proposing to charge $1,000 for people to meet with him. That, in my view, is certainly no different than the Bennett government prior to this one. Does the Premier not see anything wrong with this process? Is he willing to tell his party to reconsider the Premier's Circle plan?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's unfortunate, but the member obviously forces me to do a bad commercial in that I have to say I don't think it's that great a bargain considering I'm as open and available as I am and do travel the province and meet with people everywhere. But I'm hopeful it will work and raise a lot of money for the party, and I promise that if it does, as I expect it will, I will advise the opposition and they can do something similar. I'm not sure whether they could ask the same sort of price, but at least it would be worth a try, and I would be happy to advise them.

MR. SIHOTA: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. That was a bad commercial, first of all. Secondly, let me say that the answer was incredibly frivolous.

I want to ask the Premier this: has he reviewed the provisions of the Criminal Code and in particular provisions with respect to influence-peddling, and has he sought the advice of the Attorney-General in this matter?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm sure that the questions and the answers here are judged by the people generally. But let me reiterate that every political party in this province should take every opportunity to raise moneys in order to keep the public properly informed as to its activities; and I would recommend that to any and every political party.

[2:15]

I suppose one of the clear differences here is that I, as a British Columbian having lived here for many years, and not perhaps being one who couldn't be totally informed on most things — I believe I have the information — have no idea as to exactly how the opposition party raises its money. But I have no qualms about making public for all British Columbians how we as a party raise our funds. That's openness; that's availability; that's truthfulness; that's honesty; and that's what you're going to see from this government.

MR. SIHOTA: It may be interesting, but we will pursue the matter of full disclosure of election expenses at a later time.

The Premier is right: he has no idea. He has no idea as to what the Criminal Code says — that's what I say.

Mr. Speaker, the point is this. Mr. Roche La Salle, at the federal level, resigned in similar circumstances. How is it that the Premier can say that this situation is any different from Mr. La Salle's situation? Please explain.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Let me say again, Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the fact that we're spending so much time in front of so many people when there is so much to be done on this particular question bodes well for government. Obviously, if that's the most important question to be asked at a time when we should be addressing any number of issues that might better be addressed here, I'm pleased with that. Again, let me say that I take great pride in the fact that we're open, above board, honest, it's out there; and I can assure all members of the House that it will always be that way with this government.

MR. WILLIAMS: I see in today's Victoria newspaper that the Premier said, on reflection — the first time he reflected about this question — that maybe he, or they, shouldn't have called it the Premier's group or circle; that maybe it should have been the Bill Vander Zalm club or something like that. Maybe the Premier could explain to the House why he said that on reflection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could give any number of reasons, but the one that came to mind immediately was that if it had been called the Bill Vander Zalm club, it might have caused a good many people submitting their funds to contribute not only from British Columbia but hopefully from other areas too. It may be that as it stands there could be some confusion in Alberta or other places where they wish to contribute likewise. So I'll take that suggestion as something that might be considered in future.

MR. WILLIAMS: Clearly it appeared that on reflection there was this basic question about the Premier and the title of Premier in this province being used in this manner, in terms of huckstering for a political party.

Is the Premier prepared to reconsider this kind of huckstering? We've seen a range of huckstering around this office already, but at this level we have not seen the likes before, other than Mr. Bennett. Is the Premier not prepared to reconsider this kind of huckstering for access to his office?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, as long as we want to pursue this particular question, I will be happy to oblige. Again, let me say that I think a lot of people would be happy to be involved and to contribute. I think what I am doing as the leader of the party is giving recognition and certainly showing appreciation for the contributions made. I know that obviously there must be many an event which is sponsored by those who are supportive of the opposition, where members of the opposition regularly attend, and I commend them for that. There is nothing wrong with this.

Let me assure all members, if I need to — and I don't believe I need to, but I will in any event — that the Premier's office and this Premier Bill Vander Zalm is probably the most available person anywhere in British Columbia, and that isn't restricted to those who happen to be supportive of the political party that I am with.

I meet — more and more all the time — with people that were or are or may have been of the NDP persuasion, and they too are coming to Bill Vander Zalm, because not only is he available and responsive but he attends to their problems without fear or favour. So if there are members from Vancouver East, regardless of the political affiliation or what party they support in an election — or members from Esquimalt or anywhere — I can assure you that those people can come to me. I will certainly make every opportunity available to listen to them, to meet with them and to hear the complaints, regardless of what it's with. If I can somehow address it through the good offices and the services of those who serve on this side of the House, please let me assure you that I will be open, available and cooperative in every way possible.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. Despite the Premier's flowery language on all of this, and in light of the fact that the Attorney-General is the chief law enforcement officer of this province, and in

[ Page 157 ]

light of the fact that people don't pay a thousand dollars for nothing, and in light of section 110 of the Criminal Code, has the Attorney-General provided the Premier with any advice with respect to violations of section 110 of the Criminal Code with respect to the program dealing with membership in the Premier's Circle?

HON. B. R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Esquimalt trivializes the Criminal Code and question period by imputing criminal activity, possible or perceived, on the basis of somebody raising money in a political party. Can he say, and can the members of his party opposite say, that they have not raised money on the basis of accessibility to the Leader of the Opposition, whoever that person may be at any given time? It is fund-raising purely and simply. To come in here and wave the Criminal Code around trivializes the Criminal Code and trivializes question period.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the Attorney-General can then advise the House what it was that caused the investigation with respect to the previous Minister of Forests and Lands (Mr. Kempf) around a similar question.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I have no intention of saying more on that matter than has already been said. Presently, an investigation is being undergone by the comptroller-general which was ordered by the Premier — and was ordered promptly, too, before there was any allegation by people opposite. To prejudge that, or to try to discuss other complaints that were made at that time, is to prejudge or try to suggest that that member is guilty of something he is not even being looked at for.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Attorney-General misses the point, Mr. Speaker. The question was with respect to the fishing trips by the RCMP around the question of influence peddling, which is not something the Attorney-General dealt with.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I thought the member was talking about the third matter involving the office. The other matters which I spoke of within the last couple of days, the circumstances that I related then I will certainly relate to the House: that is, that in April 1983 allegations were made against the member for Omineca. Those allegations were investigated by the RCMP and reported on in July 1983; no action was indicated against any person.

On February 10, 1987, an allegation was made as well, and that allegation was immediately investigated by the commercial crime section of the RCMP. It related to a company by the name of Tidewater. That matter was investigated by the commercial crime squad on February 13, 1987 — three days later — having investigated around the clock and having interviewed the major witnesses. The report that was given to me by the Deputy Attorney-General was that no criminal action of any kind was indicated against any person. So in those circumstances it would have been wrong to reveal the investigation, it would have been wrong to have done anything to suggest that because an allegation is made against a person they should step down or that any other action should be taken. Now those were the allegations that were made against the member, and those are the matters that were done. The present matter being investigated by the comptroller general came to the attention of the Deputy Attorney-General on March 3, 1987, and action was taken on that within a matter of days again.

MR. ROSE: Just one brief supplementary, and I think to get back to the point — get rid of all the details . When the Premier compares using the name of the opposition leader to raise money, isn't the distinction here that the Premier is the first minister of the province? He's not the head of some opposition party. He's got contracts to let, he's got bridges to build, he's got jobs for the boys. Will he please reconsider?

MR. WILLIAMS: Crown corporations to sell.

MR. ROSE: And Crown corporations to sell, and all the rest of it. And would he agree that the appearance of this from a high officer — the highest officer in our province — is all wrong?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, no, it's not wrong.

Presenting Petitions

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition. It's a petition with 6,342 names, concerning Strathcona Park. Briefly, the petition requests that the decision on park boundary changes be postponed and the moratorium on industrial development within Strathcona Park be reinstated until after public hearings are held, as promised by several Ministers of Parks.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I wish leave to give an oral response to a question put to me by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) during the question period on the March 12 sitting of the Legislature. I ask leave now, after question period, owing to the length of the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave is required.

NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION BOUNDARIES

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The question, Mr. Speaker, was: "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?"

[2:30]

The response is that the federal government, in its "Freedom to Move" policy paper and subsequently in Bill C-18 amending the National Transportation Act, has proposed to deregulate the airline industry in southern Canada but maintain a vestige of regulation in northern Canada. This deregulatory policy would be implemented through use of the fitness test entry criteria in southern Canada, while new air carriers in northern Canada would have to show proof of public convenience and necessity to gain entry. Those carriers wishing to operate between the southern deregulated zone and the northern regulated zone would also be subject to the PC and N test.

In western Canada the demarcation line for these zones has been set at the 55th parallel of north latitude, which passes just north of Prince Rupert and Prince George and just south of Dawson Creek. This leaves British Columbia split at

[ Page 158 ]

about its middle, with half of the province regulated and half deregulated. The purpose of this line was to give some recognition to the needs of small northern communities by offering some protection to its low-density transportation markets and to the air carriers operating in them. Allowance for financial assistance to ensure that essential services are maintained is also included in the new legislation, but the provisions are judged to be virtually useless.

Before drafting these provisions into the new Bill C-18, federal officials canvassed northern areas for opinion on the effects of deregulation. The two territories and some communities in northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba supported the northern regulated zone. In British Columbia there were no comments nor submissions on the federal proposal, except from one carrier in Fort St. John who opposed it.

In its initial comments on the "Freedom to Move" paper in 1985, British Columbia stated that it did not wish to see the province's airline industry forced to operate under two different sets of rules. Further to this, it was suggested that the benefits of competition should not be denied to northern communities and that the demarcation line should be moved north to at least the British Columbia-Yukon border on the 60th parallel. The province continues to believe that northern communities will benefit most from a competitive airline industry which will ensure that services are maintained at the lowest overall cost. Although some service adjustments can be expected initially, reduction and/or elimination of services is not anticipated. In any event, the legislation provides for the line to be adjusted by orders-in-council.

I thank the member for the question, as it has been a lesson to me as well in researching the answer to the question.

LOG SCALING AT SHOAL ISLAND

HON. B.R. SMITH: I want to make a ministerial statement on the subject of Shoal Island and matters that were raised in this chamber yesterday by the member for Vancouver East. In his remarks yesterday the member reiterated the long history of Shoal Island, and repeated the oft-made charges that the revenue of the Crown had been cheated, that the ombudsman had been blocked, that there had been a court case — he revealed — and that that court case had been held in camera and it had not been possible to know the results of the settlement. The member did his own summary of a decision of the chief justice which has not yet been made public. I would normally let something like this go, but he's purporting to give conclusions of the court; and he also makes a number of allegations against a number of public servants, who he suggests all left the Forest Service because they were afraid of the lawsuit. Therefore I am going to make a statement for the record, because I think it's important.

Shoal Island was a dry land log sort in Crofton which opened in 1978. It was a new method of processing timber. During the period 1978 to 1981 a number of independent logging contractors delivered logs to Shoal Island for B.C. Forest Products, and there was an agreement that they were to be paid on the basis of volumes determined in the Crown scale of timber. During that same period –– 1978 to 1981 — there were apparently a number of concerns expressed by logging contractors to B.C. Forest Products regarding the accuracy of the scale. These concerns were never expressed directly to the Crown, nor did B.C. Forest Products pass on the complaint. A contractor by the name of Traer and Mahood started delivering logs to Shoal Island in 1981 and found that their scale results from Shoal Island were below what was expected. As a result, they sent independent scalers into Shoal Island who checked the accuracy of the government's scale. The results of this check were allegations that the government scale was inaccurate. When these were brought to the attention of the Forests ministry, immediate action was taken to determine the validity of the complaint, scale checks were immediately introduced and changes in procedures at Shoal Island were inaugurated.

B.C. Forest Products themselves, Mr. Speaker, came to a settlement with the four contractors in 1981 on the basis of a 6 percent under scale, and those payments were made for a period beginning in 1981 to the discovery of the under scale. The Crown's legal advice was that it could not properly determine the amount of the under scale, and therefore it had no statutory authority to make additional stumpage billings to B.C. Forest Products.

The ombudsman then brought this matter into the public area, investigated it and indicated that the Crown should bill for unpaid stumpage. This is the charge that the member opposite has made again. So in April 1984 the then Minister of Forests, Mr. Waterland, had an inquiry made into log scaling, conducted by Mr. Don Grant, who was a senior and experienced employee of the Vancouver region. He made inquiries and reviewed evidence, and he made a report, in which he concluded on June 17, 1985, that there was not sufficient evidence on the basis of his investigation to prove discrepancies outside the limits, and he recommended the scales as billed be accepted as correct and no further adjustments be made.

Litigation was started as well by a number of these contractors against B.C. Forest Products and against the Crown. They were seeking compensation for unscaled timber. After the Grant report, this litigation was vigorously pursued. In the spring of 1986, the first of the cases involving Kyuquot Logging against B.C. Forest Products and the Queen was ready for trial.

In this litigation, the Crown alleged a claim against B.C. Forest Products for unpaid stumpage, so we asserted that claim to see if it would stand up in law, so that in the event of any under scale determined by the court, the Crown would be in a position to determine the validity of supplementary billing.

When this case came for trial, Mr. Speaker, it was agreed by the parties that rather than go to trial, which would have taken six months of court hearings, it would be in the much better interests of all and much less costly if there was a ministerial. This is a new procedure that the Supreme Court has introduced in the last few years. A 17-day mini-trial was held before Chief Justice McEachem, and in that proceeding the various lawyers produced summaries of the evidence for trial which were not challenged by the other parties. The hearing took place before the Chief Justice, and all aspects of the case were canvassed.

The question of whether that should be public or not was before the Chief Justice, and the position taken by the contractor and by the Crown was that it should. But B.C. Forest Products disagreed with that, and the proceedings were ruled to be closed at that stage. After the mini-trial, the Chief Justice reserved his decision, and he gave his decision to the parties in September 1986.

There was further argument again as to whether that should be made public, and we took the position that it

[ Page 159 ]

should. But the report was not made public because of the objection of B.C. Forest Products.

I am going to mention this report, because it is important that we do so rather than accept thirdhand commentary made by a member of this House, which is incorrect on a number of material issues. In his report the Chief Justice — it was a lengthy report — indicated that he had never seen a case where so many persuasive reasons had been adduced and so much evidence. He said there were no allegations or suggestions that there was any intentional impropriety on the part of any party. That was one of the claims: that there was some kind of a conspiracy to defraud the revenue of money and to keep money from going to contractors and keep it with the forest company.

The case was concerned exclusively with unintentional want of care. It was concerned with the adequacy of the scaling procedures at Shoal Island, which were complex, and after an analysis of the reports which were submitted in the trial, the Chief Justice concluded that there was an under scale at Shoal Island. He found that the quantum of the under scale was very uncertain, and he admitted difficulty in coming to a conclusion as to the quantum.

In the end, he held that a proper disposition of the claim would be a payment by B.C. Forest Products, to the logging contractor, in an amount based on an 8 percent under scale. The contractors had claimed as much as 19 percent, and the ombudsman had determined roughly 12 percent. The Chief Justice came up with 8 percent. He also found that the province of British Columbia was not obligated to make any payment to the contractor. He held that the purpose of scaling was the calculation of stumpage revenues to the province, not to the facilitation of private transactions in logs, and he said the only remedy available to a person who has a belief that a scale is inadequate is that of requesting a second scale. In the event that that doesn't take place or is too late, the government scale governs.

Finally, the Chief Justice indicated that he was not satisfied that the contractors had taken reasonable steps to inform the Crown of suspected under scale. Their failure to advise the Crown of their suspicions until 1981 was further reason to deny them compensation from the Crown, and even if the Crown had been found liable, the Chief Justice would have substantially discounted the amount of liability as a result of contributory negligence.

So the Crown's claim for stumpage against B.C. Forest Products was dismissed by the Chief Justice. He indicated that because the Forest Act is a complete code with regard to the collection of stumpage, the Crown cannot succeed against B.C. Forest Products by showing that some amount of timber has been missed in the log scale. He said the log scale is conclusive: "I do not think the province has any other cause of action against B.C. Forest Products." That meant that the Crown's position in not pursuing the claim against B.C. Forest Products initially was upheld.

On the basis of this mini-trial report, negotiations were conducted among the parties. Now a settlement has been arrived at. In the settlement, B.C. Forest Products has agreed to pay Kyuquot Logging the amount of $1.5 million inclusive of interest and costs. It has also agreed to pay the sum of $300,000 to four other logging contractors who had commenced actions. The Crown, for its part, agreed not to pursue its claim for stumpage, which the Chief Justice had said was not a valid claim, and the Crown made no payment in the Kyuquot Logging case. But the Crown did make a payment of $300,000 towards the four logging contractors.

The settlements are now complete except for some minor technicalities in completing the documentation. The decision of the Chief Justice would have been made public by us following the completion of that documentation. On March 5, 1987, our lawyers appeared before the Chief Justice requesting that the mini-trial report be released. It has not been released, but the parties are free to release it themselves.

Mr. Speaker, those are the facts. When I review the remarks of the member for Vancouver East — intemperate remarks — in which he makes wild allegations as to what the Chief Justice found when he didn't find it; when he points the finger at various public servants who are no longer in the employ of government and cannot defend themselves, and suggests that they retired because of lawsuits; when he does all those things without being in possession of the decision of the Chief Justice or in possession of the facts, I think it's very disappointing, and a very disappointing beginning for a Legislature which has been marked by good, positive debate on both sides.

I'm going to file the decision of the mini-trial of Chief Justice McEachem, and I invite this member to review that file and to withdraw the comments and remarks that he made in this chamber and to emulate the example of the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) who, when she found that she had made a mistake, came honourably before this chamber and withdrew.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister must have leave to file the report.

Leave granted.

MR. WILLIAMS: You know, we've gone through a long exercise over the last couple of years in terms of the whole issue of uncollected income from our great forest resource in this province. The Americans had a quasi-judicial case going on for a couple of years. They concluded that in another area we had very serious problems of under collection of economic rent — i.e. stumpage — in British Columbia, so serious that in the end the new Premier of this province ended up accepting their point of view. As a result of that, we now, in this coming budget, will have $400 million in new revenues properly due the people of British Columbia, because the Americans were doing our policing for us. The Americans were doing our work for us in terms of proper management of our Crown resources in the form of public timber. This whole exercise around Shoal Island....

In terms of the courtesies of this chamber which this member talks about, I would say that in every other chamber in the land his statement would have been provided for a member like myself in the opposition at least one hour before. That kind of courtesy we expect in the future, Mr. Minister, if this House is to carry on in a proper manner, as other legislatures in this land.

Let's look at that record. Who did you farm this job out to, in terms of reviewing those problems, from your Forests ministry over there, when you were Attorney-General still? You farmed it out to a medium-level civil servant who was responsible for the whole issue in the first place, an impossible position for the manager of the Vancouver forest district. That's how you dealt with it.

[2:45]

[ Page 160 ]

You suggested yourself at an earlier stage that the ombudsman was exceeding the authority of his office in so zealously pursuing some of these matters. Well, we have that former ombudsman to thank for his serious attitude toward these serious questions. What happened after the check by Mr. Mahood and his partners at Shoal Island, Mr. Speaker? What happened is that all of a sudden all of the loads, all of the shipments into Shoal Island were heavier, bigger, of greater volumes on average than they had been for all the years before. The pattern was abundantly clear. Once there was proper checking, the numbers increased. If it was a random kind of problem, why, there would have been some ups and some downs; but it was all down in this case.

We've had a period of five years or something like that, under the former minister and under the former deputy minister, Mr. Apsey, of sympathetic administration, where the rules and obligations were not followed. I suggest that the problem at Shoal Island was simply part of that bigger issue of not following the rules that were set out there for the industry to follow.

What we desperately need is a full inquiry into how much the short-measure was across the board in British Columbia over the last five years. It does raise the very serious question, which is not being pursued — because what average citizen, what average contractor, could pursue it? — of negligence around the Crown. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that has never really been addressed, because the average citizen can't afford hundreds of thousands of dollars for a court case involving negligence by the Crown.

But I suggest to you that negligence there was — negligence at Shoal Island and who knows how many other places. Belatedly we're getting some information. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, this is part of that whole exercise of the $400 million we lost, and how many other tens or hundreds of millions we have lost in this Forests ministry through inadequate or improper administration. Negligence, sir, it was.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought we were making great progress in giving and receiving notice of ministerial statements. I really regretted it when I saw the Attorney-General, whom I admire very much, stand up and attempt to smuggle five pages of detailed information into this House that under the rules had no business at all in this House.

I'd like to cite to you — and I would think the whole debate should be called out of order, especially the minister's statement — on page 47 of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, written by a distinguished Canadian sitting not too far away from me, and dealing with the limits on statements in reply: "General arguments or observations beyond the fair bounds of explanation or too distinct a reference to previous debates are out of order......

So I say to the minister that if he has a statement like this to make that's clearly out of order, he should at least have the courtesy of either providing that statement for a decent examination and rebuttal, not the off-the-cuff remarks left to my hon. friend, or else bring it before the proper forum and debate it there at the proper time. This is not the proper time.

HON. B.R. SMITH: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the matter was not raised by me; it was raised in the throne debate remarks of the member for Vancouver East. He is the one who dealt with smokescreens and various things, and raised Shoal Island, and gave an inaccurate account of a chief justice's decision. I felt that it had to be dealt with at the earliest opportunity. I could have brought it as a point of privilege, but I sought some instruction from the Clerks, and I brought it this way. But I would never have brought it at all had I not been bringing it in response to remarks made yesterday. I wanted to deal with the matter quickly.

Hon. Mr. Michael tabled the 1985-86 annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

Hon. Mr. Richmond tabled the 1985 annual report of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I suspect the House is becoming somewhat lively. That's our job: to ask you questions and to maintain integrity in the province of British Columbia, in terms of the government of British Columbia.

Yesterday, I welcomed all members to this chamber and to the city of Victoria, and wished you all a pleasant stay over the next few years. I also suggested that if you had any trouble with various government agencies, we indeed have a very successful office down on Blanshard Street which can help you with your problems. I was remiss in telling all members — particularly those on the opposite side — that Victoria is a quiet, pleasant town with certain traditions, and I hope all members will leave the town as they found it — in a nice, quiet state. Please — a request from all citizens of Victoria enjoy yourselves, but please leave the city intact.

I want to reflect a little bit about Victoria because this is the throne speech and we are supposed to talk about our community. Before I do that, first let me congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your election, and the member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) on his election to the esteemed offices that you now hold. I wish you well in all your endeavours. I shall miss our debates, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker was, I believe, the buddy MLA for Victoria for a number of years in the last session, and I'm sure I will miss some of our debates, but I wish you and the member for Dewdney well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to dwell initially on the city of Victoria and reflect on some of the great attributes and special flavour that we have in Victoria, and then perhaps reflect on the throne speech in terms of its potential impact on this great community, this beautiful city that we all love and cherish. It is a heritage community; it is unique; it has special talents in terms of the people that live here; it is a great tourist community; and it is, I think, a very special town in British Columbia.

It is the capital of British Columbia, and I want the government members to remember that in the years ahead. It is the capital of British Columbia, with all the various ministries, staff and people who work here, because over the last few years we have seen a little bit of a job loss in terms of people being moved out of this great city. So just a little remembrance to those members in the cabinet, when they're looking at their priorities, to remember that this is the capital of British Columbia, and we want it to remain so in terms of the priorities of this government in the next few years.

[ Page 161 ]

Mr. Speaker, this is a special town heritage-wise. We like to emphasize the things we do best here. We like to emphasize our arts and our cultural attributes; we like to emphasize some of the more wholesome activities. We are becoming one of Canada's leading sports centres, for instance. We will be applying for the 1994 Commonwealth Games. All these things add a special flavour to this community. They are the things we promote outside of Victoria.

But there have been some admissions by the government in terms of potential policy that might impact on this community, and I refer to the issue of gambling that this government seems to have a desire to introduce into the province of British Columbia — that is, casino gambling. Victoria, it would appear, led by the chief law enforcement officer of British Columbia, wishes to introduce casino gambling onto the Princess Marguerite. We have grave concerns not only for the impact on British Columbia but in terms of my riding — great concerns about the impact on the city of Victoria.

In short, we don't think it's appropriate for this community. We have enough non-profit kind of gambling, Mr. Speaker. We don't want to see — which I think is the agenda of this government — a move towards private sector gambling casinos, and we certainly don't need it in Victoria. Victoria's reputation cannot be enhanced by the clink of slot machines and other kinds of activities. In terms of the theme of culture, heritage and tourism, we're a very special place, the capital of Columbia. A word of caution to those members of the House in terms of this gambling kind of issue — gambling casinos. We are very concerned about that kind of move.

Mr. Speaker, we have great things happening in our community. The convention centre is on the way. It is being currently constructed. The hole is dug. The workers are at work, and we are pleased that the government is, hopefully — I think on request and support from this side of the House — now a partner in that particular proposal. It took a number of years, but that is ongoing, and the convention centre will be a great addition to this community. We are glad the government has decided to do that.

There are a number of other proposals and good things that are happening in our community, and one that I wrote to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) about this morning: the Pacific Nations Place on Songhees. We're pleased to see that that development is not dead and indeed looks like it's going to go ahead. I've made a request this morning that the management of that particular project be held by a Victoria-based management firm rather than Vancouver — no reflection on Vancouver, of course, but we would like to see Victorians manage that particular project, Mr. Speaker.

[3:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Things are happening in our community — positive things. We hope in the next few years things will be enhanced in our community and we can work with the government to bring great prosperity to the capital of British Columbia.

We have a great project happening at the Royal Jubilee Hospital — an expansion of a major project in food services. Again, that's something we from this side — both members for Victoria — have asked for and supported. Finally and gladly the government has responded. It's very necessary, and we hope again, in the atmosphere of cooperation in this House, we can support and ask the government to consider other proposals in the capital of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, other things are happening in terms of business in Victoria. The Business Victoria office is active and alive and well and doing extremely good things for this community, and I might add that the government, in its wisdom, is supporting that office, I don't know how that fits into the future in terms of the Premier's statement about subsidies for these kinds of activities, but I'd like to report to the Premier and to this government that that office is doing an extremely good job. I might add that it's not chasing smokestacks — the illusive smoke-stacks from the Philippines or somewhere else — but it's looking at things that we do in Victoria best, based upon our talents and our strengths.

For instance, Mr. Speaker, it's looking at the "Buy Victoria" proposal — connecting businesses in Victoria with each other. If one needs a particular service, the other may be able to service the other business that they didn't even know about that was across the other side of town. Those sorts of things are happening, and this community is very pleased to see that. Again, we hope that will continue in the years ahead.

Those are some of the activities that we're pleased to see happening in Victoria, and I might add that our constituents are pleased that this community is starting to bounce back after certain years of difficulties with the past government. I won't go into them, but we know that this community was hurt badly by some of the ill-conceived and badly planned strategies and policies and legislation of the past government. We hope we won't see that happen again.

I might add, though, in terms of the throne speech, that the item of privatization is creating some concern in our community. When we've finally started to see our loyal public service settle down and begin to spend in the community and have some feeling that their jobs are going to be intact, I'm a little apprehensive about the whole question. The Premier has said that many public assets that we have taken years to build may be indeed for sale. I think we have to be extremely cautious in those areas, especially in this kind of community where we are a public-servant town, where people work diligently and loyally for the government of British Columbia.

When they hear off-the-cuff remarks by the Premier — "Hospitals could be for sale if the right bidder came in or the right price was asked" — that creates fear and apprehension, Mr. Speaker. So to the new Premier, who perhaps is a little new at the job: perhaps a little more thought before he speaks on these kinds of issues.

The whole question of privatization draws me to think a little bit about the throne speech. When the throne speech came down last week, all of us, I am sure — and I was not alone; I did the same thing — listened to the sages on the radio or the television and the reporters and those who analyze these things. When I was hearing that this was a different throne speech, an ambitious throne speech, a new throne speech and a whole new approach to government, I thought, well, that's nice.

AN HON. MEMBER: New start.

MR. BLENCOE: New start, new buzzwords — no longer new reality — new start, right. We've got new glowworms, I guess, who will write the stuff.

[ Page 162 ]

But anyway, it made me think I'd go back and look at some of the old throne speeches, particularly in 1983. I wondered if there was anything really new in this throne speech. Well, you know, the similarities are overwhelming, particularly when it comes to the old 18th century, free enterprise, desperation when you've got nothing else to do, no new policies. What do you do? You start to sell the people's assets; you start to use that phrase "privatization."

Let me read some of the quotes out of the 1983 throne speech and see if they are reminiscent of 1987.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do they say?

MR. BLENCOE: What do they say, a member asks. Well, I thought nobody would ask. Here's what they said. Here we are, page 5 of 1983; it's a mandate to encourage private sector confidence by eliminating regulatory roadblocks and allowing greater scope for the free play of market forces. Where have we heard that before? I think we heard it in 1987.

AN HON. MEMBER: 1887.

MR. BLENCOE: In 1887. Here's another on page 7 of the 1983 throne speech, and we all remember 1983.

AN HON. MEMBER: The bad old days.

MR. BLENCOE: The bad old days, we're told. Here's page 7: "My government will be proposing opportunities for transferring to the private sector activities currently undertaken by the public sector." That's 1983, but where's the 1987 throne speech? It's all new, I'm told.

AN HON. MEMBER: The new start.

MR. BLENCOE: A new start — this is the new start. This is the 1983 speech. Here we are, same page-page 7in the 1983 throne speech: "And my government believes that the road to recovery lies through the private sector." Through the private sector. Well, that was 1983. And here's the 1984 throne speech: "The tendency of government to grow is being reversed, and opportunities for those working in the private sector are being expanded." Have you read that before? Does that sound familiar? Here's another one here which I thought was fascinating — but I can't find it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the point is made that here is the new start in '87, here are the new themes of bright, new Socred government with oh so many things to offer that are new. But what do they come up with as the major underpinnings of their throne speech? We'll sell the people's assets. Well, you know, here we go again. Nothing new, all the same stuff: privatization, sell it off, deregulation, sell off the B.C. Ferries if we can do it — and we all remember the crazy days before the government was involved in the B.C. Ferries. But they will tell people that it's brand new. This great, new privatization and selling off of the people's assets will all be done in terms of the theme of job one. Job one is to free people from government, industry from government, deregulation. That'll be the theme.

You know, there's nothing new. If we all go back and read a little of Dr. Samuel Johnson.... Some of you may have read Dr. Samuel Johnson. Dr. Samuel Johnson said, in terms of those who cry for freedom for business and freedom for industry.... Do you know what he said? "The greatest cries for freedom come from the owners of slaves, because they want to do what they want without any restriction, any control; unrestricted free enterprise and laissez-faire." Do as you wish — the Adam Smith theory.

We hear governments talk about freeing up enterprise. We've heard it all before. What it means is get rid of regulation that protects people. It means sell off assets that have taken a long time for the public to build up in the common interest of all citizens of British Columbia and other places.

I'm reminded when CP, for instance, pulled out and wanted to get rid of the Princess Marguerite. The minister of the time is not here; it's too bad. He would reflect on this well. CP wasn't going to run the Princess Marguerite. Do you know who were the first people at the doors of our government at that time? "Please buy the Princess Marguerite for us." The Chamber of Commerce. Yes, those great free enterprisers; but when the time came that their interests were to be protected, they were knocking on the door of government and saying: "Today we want you to participate in the economy and buy something for us."

When it suits government or those great free enterprisers to be involved in the economy through the government, they will do it. They were on our doorstep: "Please buy the Princess Marguerite. We need it. Our economy needs it. My business needs it. The people of Victoria need it." We bought the Princess Marguerite, and thank goodness we did, because that ship alone brings more tourists to this community and this great city than anything else. It was a New Democratic government that did it in the interests of all citizens of British Columbia.

I wonder if the Marguerite is again for sale to the private sector. I doubt very much that we'll hear about that from the Attorney-General. He'll do it by ministerial statement.

It has been said by many members on our side that this throne speech did very little for the unemployed. It didn't talk about youth — nothing at all. Very little help in this throne speech for those who are desperately in need of support and in need of employment. We've heard many members on the other side reflect on their personal views, their religious views in terms of how important they are to their job in politics. But I wonder how many of them....

We in Victoria are very lucky to have the head of the Catholic bishops — one of my colleagues has already mentioned this — Bishop Remi de Roo. I would urge all members on the other side who believe they want to help people to read "Ethical Reflections on the Economic Crisis" by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, and look at the priorities of this particular paper. So far I've been somewhat light today, but this issue is quite serious. I've heard many members on that side, through their religious beliefs or whatever else, talk about how concerned they are about people. Read the Catholic bishops.

[3:15]

Let me quote one statement: unemployment which deprives people of the dignity of human work and an adequate family income, constitutes a social evil." That is why consistently through this throne speech, through mo tions and other amendments, we have been asking the gov ernment to pay attention to unemployment. We don't need a war on what certain members believe to be personal morality or standards for people's personal behaviour. We need in this chamber a war on unemployment in British Columbia. That's

[ Page 163 ]

what we should be declaring war on. That's the issue, and that's what we're going to speak to in the next few months.

Traditionally it's New Democrats who have stood up for those in need and the unemployed. You can see it happening not only in British Columbia but across the country as our party gathers momentum and people begin to recognize that jobs and dignity and place in a community, in terms of worth in that community, are the most important aspects of life. Read the Catholic bishops, I urge all those who cite their concern due to their religious beliefs about things. I suspect they will see that the priorities according to the Catholic bishops are somewhat different from the Social Credit priorities — they are indeed very different — but they certainly could listen to and read closely some of these things that the bishops talk about.

The people of this province, particularly young people, are looking to this government for some new direction. They are looking to see if there is anything really new, if they can expect some hope and support in the future. A lost decade has been referred to by many of my colleagues in terms of the last government and what it did to people in this province. All of us on this side are prepared to help this government take a look at its priorities. The number one challenge facing all of us in this House in the next few years is to declare war on unemployment and get our people back to work. That's got to be the number one priority, because if we don't do that within the so-called framework of cooperation, people will continue to become, as they have in the last few years, more and more cynical about the democratic system, about this chamber and this place — which is a very special place, and should be — but they will become more cynical, more apathetic, feeling that we don't care about their problems and their desires, and their wish to be meaningfully employed. So that's the challenge, and I hope we can certainly meet it in the years ahead.

I want to conclude by reflecting a little bit on the whole question of integrity in government. In question period today I think we started a very important debate. I wish the Premier were here. The Premier said that what he's doing with his office is not wrong. I think he misses the point, and it goes back to what I just said a minute ago about people having faith in the institution, having faith that we're clean, that we're honourable. He's the Premier, the first minister, and people are looking for change. They're seeing too much abuse of power going on in various quarters, not only in British Columbia but in other places as well, and they want to believe again. When the Premier of this province can glibly stand up and see no difference between doing a little campaign for money and using the office of Premier at $1,000 a time to raise money for a political party, it's a sad reflection on the state of affairs in the province of British Columbia and on that Premier. I hope he thinks about what he said, because the people of British Columbia want integrity back in government; they want honour back in government; they want this House to be above reproach and they want the Premier of this province to be above reproach. I close with those remarks, and I think we all on this side of the House reflect them. Hopefully the Premier will rethink his thoughts.

HON. B.R. SMITH: It is a pleasure to rise in the new look Legislature and speak here in the throne speech debate. I notice that I am receiving the usual courtesy in my maiden address in the new-look Legislature of not having more than a heckle every minute. I appreciate that. I must observe that about 60 percent of the members on both sides have never been here before. The Premier is new. The Leader of the Opposition will soon be new again. We really have had change. We have new House Leaders. All the important people who make this place function are now different then they were a year ago. I think that's exhilarating and healthy.

I've noticed a very good climate in this place by and large. We have had some moments when we have perhaps departed from that good climate, and we've had our dukes up a little bit today, but basically the climate has been pretty good. The suggestions on both sides have been good; the spirit of the speeches in the debate have been good. There's a difference in philosophy, but there isn't a lot of rancour, and there's a feeling that we all want to do things together and that we're not going to play personalities in this parliament. We're going to try to deal with issues and have our differences.

I want to pay a few tributes. I want to pay a tribute to the former Premier who is now retired, because I think he was a major figure in this country who did a great deal not only for this province but also for dominion-provincial relations. History will show him to be a much larger figure than was sometimes recognized during his tenure.

I also want to pay tribute to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who isn't here, the Leader of the Opposition. I think that he has had an honourable service in this House as a member and that he set a standard of decency as the leader of his party. I wish him well.

I also want to pay respect, because the throne speech, being a new look — it was a new throne speech, a new style — didn't deal with some of these things. I want to say a few words about a departed member whom we haven't spoken about. We've spoken a lot about Al Passarell, and I deeply regret his passing and miss him. But I want to say something about Ernie Hall. Ernie Hall was a member in this place for two terms. He was a member from Surrey. He shared that dual riding with the Premier. He was here during the first term that I was here, 1979-1983. He served in a former government as Provincial Secretary, and I had many dealings with him. I was a mayor at that time, and I can tell you that he was a highly decent man with a great deal of integrity. In this chamber he always set and lived by the highest principles. You always knew that you could deal with him with confidence and with integrity. He left this place involuntarily and relocated in the private sector. His death was very untimely; he was far too young. I am sorry that he is not here with us.

I also congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Speaker, who so reluctantly took his place. The Deputy Chairman as well — I'm absolutely delighted with her appointment and with your appointment. I think they are superb recognitions.

Now the throne speech. Just as it's a new Legislature and a new government, it's a new style of throne speech. Clear, concise, lots of meat — not just potatoes, but lots of meat — practical, philosophical. It deals with matters of substance, sets out clearly the thrust of the government and also sets out, I think, the philosophy of the Premier on major matters, particularly matters of economic development.

It's going to be a major thrust of this administration for sure — economic recovery and trade. We tend to approach this from the standpoint of improving the climate, and I know that there are members opposite who have their doubts about that approach and about talking about improving the climate of economic development. They don't all believe that ministers really achieve very much when they go and try to sell

[ Page 164 ]

people on coming to British Columbia, but I can tell them that it makes a great deal of difference when you do that. I know the late Ernie Hall did that sort of thing. It's very important that we sell British Columbia and go abroad to do that. It's important, I think, that opposition members and our business representatives do that. Quite often when our businessmen go abroad they don't put their best foot forward; they go and complain and grumble and say, well, my gosh, in British Columbia the labour costs are so high and there are strikes and lockouts and all the rest of it, and my gosh, all these things happen back in British Columbia.

When you start to look at it, we've got a pretty good record in this province, and particularly in recent years we've got a very good record of stability in the job place and very few major work stoppages. With the exception of the tragic IWA dispute that we had this past year, we've had very few major disruptions. We've got a good message to tell abroad, and it's important that everybody goes abroad and tells that message. When I say abroad, I mean to Alberta and Saskatchewan and Manitoba and Ontario and Quebec, just as I do to the Pacific Rim.

We've just come through a very difficult time with our softwood lumber. We were forced to be in very serious negotiations under threat of a countervailing duty, and we came through that with great difficulty and with tremendous tension.

Our Premier, in a very short time, has made a number of major trips abroad. I think we're very fortunate that we have a Premier who has a very strong marketing background and who knows how to sell and how to meet people and how to attract them to this province. We're going to need that, and we're going to need that direly in the years ahead.

There is a strong necessity and a message in the throne speech that we have got to be competitive in the world. This province has to be competitive if we're going to create the kind of jobs and opportunity that we need. The throne speech said that our industry must produce and deliver on time and at a fair price or lose credibility and, even worse, investment customers and jobs. That is so true.

Part and parcel of this is the debate that took place in the Canadian Parliament earlier this week — a historic, landmark debate — on the question of the free trade talks. While the results of that debate were an overwhelming mandate to continue those talks and to support free trade, I noticed with some disappointment that divisions on that issue were largely — not solely — on partisan lines.

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH: The member who just asked me that, the opposition House Leader, would probably know better than I the workings of that place. I always thought that in that place matters of that kind would be of such bipartisan importance as foreign policy is generally, that we could rise above party lines and that we could deal with an issue like free trade not on a partisan basis but for the good of the country. Because how can it be said that freer trade with the United States can do anything but benefit this country?

Not only will it benefit British Columbia; it benefits Ontario. Ontario is no longer the Ontario of Bob White. Ontario isn't protectionist Ontario. Ontario is an export regime. It exports far more than it imports.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

HON. B.R. SMITH: What? That's again the kind of mentality that we have had during the debate in the House of Commons: we think the world revolves around Auto Pact and that the whole national trade policy should be formed to keep Auto Pact intact. But I can tell you that for this province as a major exporter of raw materials and a major trading part of North America, our future and lifeblood depends on free trade. We have got to have freer trade. That's why I'm pleased, Mr. Speaker, that this throne speech emphasizes the important things that we're going to market in the years ahead.

[3:30]

Hydroelectric export. This isn't the exportation of jobs. Hydroelectric export is using valuable power that is unneeded at the present and selling it to the Americans for a term of certain years, to recover it later if required and to use that capital to generate more power and more development and open up more opportunities in this province.

Markets also for selling our coal. And why shouldn't we be selling our coal to Ontario? Why should they be buying their coal from other countries? If there was a national energy policy on oil, why shouldn't it apply to coal? Why shouldn't Ontario take some of our coal?

Another commodity that we are starting to sell — and we can sell in a major way, I believe — is our specialized professional and educational services. We have only yet begun to realize the potential and the markets for those services in the world. We have people all over the Pacific Rim who are dying to avail themselves of our educational services here. A start is being made in that direction, and I support that.

I notice in the throne speech as well — and both members for Victoria, I know, will be very pleased with this — the emphasis on developing stronger business, trade and tourism links with the Pacific Northwest and California. That is a priority, and I know they would both support that. They're very supportive of that kind of tourism link.

I know also that they support the expanded service of the Princess Marguerite and the Vancouver Island Princess. We are hoping, as well, that we will have a steamship service to San Francisco this summer. Those negotiations are underway for some direct service. If you read our old Terms of Union, you would know that that was a promise the federal government made to us back in 1871. They were going to run a fortnightly — I think that was the term — steamer service between Victoria and San Francisco. They've never delivered on that. Maybe we should raise that in the ministerial talks in Ottawa next week. But if we can get a private sector service during the tourist season between San Francisco and Victoria, I think it would be a major step forward.

There's been criticism, Mr. Speaker — and I know that it's only isolated and not widespread on the other side — that the throne speech doesn't speak of the creation of jobs. I'm not surprised that some would say that. Those that would say that particularly believe that it's the function of government to actually create jobs and put people on the payroll, whether it's at the local level or the provincial level, and have additional public servants hired and have government giveaway programs and create direct jobs. That is not the function of government. What we have done is place an emphasis on economic renewal. The throne speech says: "My government's mandate stems from its commitment to make a fresh start in order to create a stronger economy and jobs for our

[ Page 165 ]

people. We said we would free up the private sector and work with it as a partner to get our province moving."

Interjections.

HON. B.R. SMITH: The gentlemen opposite who are interrupting at the moment still don't understand that government doesn't create jobs; jobs are created by the energy of the private sector. The government creates climate. Government has a decent tax policy. It has a decent, stable system of public services. Another thing it has is a stable labour climate. Those are the things that attract jobs. Those are the things that bring capital into this province.

One of the major thrusts of the new government is going to be the cutting of red tape and the freeing up of the private sector from regulation. To do that we're going to have....

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH: No, that's where you are. You're in the fourteenth century. You belong with the Luddites somewhere. You're a pre-Luddite. You're an Elizabethan Luddite.

I withdraw. You're not Elizabethan. You belong in the eighth century.

Privatization initiatives. There's the decentralization mandate of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is going over this province now finding ways that we can give back to local people closer to their electorate than we are certain regulation and certain areas of government that don't have to be run out of Victoria. I applaud that.

The throne speech says: "We will act to bring long-term stability in labour-management relations." To do that the Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) has gone on a very successful consultative tour of the province, and he has heard a number of briefs from labour and management and from the public. In the throne speech there is a definite commitment to establish an economic development council with ranks from both labour and management in that council. So I believe that our labour relations laws can be improved, can be reformed, and that we can have better labour relations laws to improve the economic climate and attract capital. Those will have to be based on stability, fairness and democracy, and also on competition of the bargaining place. I think that with those conditions in mind we can improve our labour relations legislation and improve it in a material way.

You will also notice, Mr. Speaker, that this throne speech made a major commitment to improve social services, probably the most major step in that direction in five years. Welfare rates are to be raised for families and single parents. A very important step forward. Education is to be strengthened.

You know, I'm glad that since I came into this chamber I haven't heard a lot of the whining that went on on that subject over the past several years. I haven't heard a great deal about how the education system has been devastated — "devastated," they told us — and how the morale of everybody in that system is so low that they all walk around with their heads only an inch off the ground. I don't see that, Mr. Speaker. I see educators in this province who have their heads held very high; who do an excellent job; who, sure, haven't had much of a raise over the last three or four years, but they're still teaching students in a positive way. They've learned during the restraint program to be more creative than they were before. They've learned to do things a little differently than they did before, and they are not in agreement with the whine merchants on the other side. Whine merchants. W-h-i-n-e.

Interjections.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Those are under you. That's not under the minister of consumer affairs; that's under the member for Victoria: whine.

The Royal Commission on Education. I wish that royal commissioner well. Barry Sullivan is an excellent choice. He really has earned his spurs in the educational field by going around and dealing with most school districts in this province on the very touchy question of child abuse. I think his report was a good one, and I think he'll be well received in the educational community. He won't go with a lot of preconceived ideas. He's not a professor of education, nor is he somebody who has worked in the system and has preconceived ideas. He'll be able to go out there, he'll be able to listen and he'll be able to bring in a good report. I know how tough that is, because I went and did it as a minister for two months in 1981.

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Oh, no, many good changes came.

The throne speech also presents a pledge to do something for victims of crime and for victims of sexual assault, and that, I think, is a provision that will be applauded on both sides. I happen to believe that victims of crime in this country have not had a very good shake. We have one of the finest justice systems in Canada in protecting the rights of people who are accused of crimes, and we have a very, very good prison system and a good system of rehabilitation. But we do not have a system that has done very much for those people who are robbed or beaten up, raped or assaulted, and are in that justice system and don't understand it — nobody has time to explain it to them and they're terrified about that system, and we don't have support for them. The only reason that anything is done for them in the system is that we have volunteer community groups in some of our towns, and the police have also devoted a lot of their volunteer time to helping victims of crime. So a commitment to do something for victims of crime pleases me greatly as Attorney-General.

Finally, I want to just speak about the throne speech in terms of federal-provincial relations. Since becoming Premier, our Premier has had to deal very rapidly with major federal-provincial matters. Within days of being sworn in he attended a conference of Premiers in Edmonton. I went to that meeting with him, and I was very pleased to see that in a short time — in a matter of days — he had managed to make a mark on his colleagues, have a very good degree of acceptability with the other Premiers, and be able to discuss very complex issues with them and have a good grasp of them. Since that time he's had to deal with the countervail issue, the free-trade issue and a number of other issues involving Ottawa, most of which, I guess, I could put on the basis that we in this province expect to have more attention from the federal government. We expect to get more of our fair share for this province, not just in terms of more contracts, more procurement and more jobs, but also in terms of decision-making. That is, we expect that we will have more of a role to play in the major agencies of the federal government — the CRTC, the Supreme Court of Canada, the boards and decision-

[ Page 166 ]

making bodies and, indeed, the Senate of Canada — than we do now.

We've had meetings. The Premier has had meetings — when he's been to Ottawa — not just with the Conservative members, whom we met in Vancouver on Sunday, and the government of Canada, but also with the Leader of the Opposition. Each time I go down I try to meet with the Leader of the Opposition and also with some of the federal members of the New Democratic Party for British Columbia. I know the Premier has done that as well. So we do go down there and try to talk to our elected members — all of us representing British Columbia as we do — on a non-partisan basis and say: "How can we work together to do more for British Columbia?"

I think the Premier has made a landmark beginning in this regard, setting up a joint council, as we have done — the federal government and the provincial government — a council of ministers, which three of us, including the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Mazankowski.... Three on each side and one caucus member on each side will be meeting on a regular basis, at least once a month, to deal with British Columbia issues and prioritize them. That is a major step forward. We are the only province that has such an arrangement, so I applaud the Premier for that. I think that's a huge step forward in dominion-provincial relations.

We will be going to Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, next week to a first ministers' conference on aboriginal rights. That is a very important occasion as well, because there we meet not just as provincial governments and the government of Canada, but also we have the representatives of the national native organizations and many of the regional native leaders who come to that meeting. That will be an occasion, I think, in which we can make some real progress on trying to do some things to help native people help themselves, to help them get out from under the yoke of the old federal Indian Act and the notion of paternalism, to allow them to develop the kind of communities that they wish to develop for themselves, and to allow and encourage them to continue with their own cultural development and to have agencies of government which maybe are not the traditional agencies of government, which they will structure and run in their own way.

They can do that, I believe, without upsetting the balance of Confederation, and there are many opportunities for native bands to enjoy self-government in reality. That is what we are working towards: not constitutional tablets but self-government on the ground for native bands. So I look forward to that meeting, and I look forward to a very good era in dominion provincial relations.

It's an honour to speak in favour of the new Speech from the Throne, the new administration — the administration that followed the "Vanderslide" — and the new house of assembly, with all these new faces, all so positive and cooperative.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to echo the comments of the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) by making some comments as well about Ernie Hall. Ernie was a good personal and political friend of mine and, I know, of many members of this Legislature. His death was indeed untimely, long, long before he should have gone. I miss him, and I know many other members of this House and thousands of British Columbians who were his friends too miss him.

May I make a small correction to the Attorney-General on that. It was inadvertent, I'm sure. Ernie actually sat for four terms, not two. He was first elected in 1966, re-elected in '69, again in '72, and then was returned in 1979, the same year the Attorney-General was first elected.

[3:45]

I notice the Attorney-General is keen on having a lawyer do this royal commission into education. It struck me that perhaps we should get an educator to do the Attorney-General's job — it would make about as much sense. I won't say more about the logic of that than that.

The Attorney-General made some comments about victims of crime, with which this side of the House agrees. Victims of crime have not been well served by the justice system. Mr. Speaker, we applaud the Attorney-General's decision to interfere in the lives of private citizens in this way. We applaud government interference in the economy and the society, when he suggests that the government will interfere on behalf of victims of crime — a good decision.

Government interference is an appropriate response in many situations. Government interference is an appropriate response too when it comes to dealing with people who have for, in many cases, four or five years been unemployed in this society. That does not mean putting them on the government payroll necessarily, as the minister suggested, but it means taking the kind of government initiative and involvement that will result in those people being allowed to work again. There's nothing wrong with government interference, nothing whatsoever. The minister suggests, in terms of victims of crime, that he intends to interfere more, and I applaud him for that.

I want to take a couple of lines out of the throne speech and make some comments this afternoon about some Vancouver Island issues that come from three lines in the throne speech. The first is: "We promised an open and accessible style of government that responds to the needs of people." Later on: "We will listen, consult and lead by example." And then on another page: "My government will preserve and protect our environment." So commitment to public involvement, commitment to consultation and a commitment to environmental concerns.

I want to talk today about Strathcona Park. Strathcona Park is, as most members will know, British Columbia's first provincial park and was set up for economic purposes back in 1911. The government advertised this park in a booklet called "Strathcona the Beautiful" published in 1916 as the Vancouver Island Alps, and there were suggestions by the government of the day that this particular park would result in job creation in a monumental way in this province. From a report by Price Ellison, who was the MLA for the Okanagan and chief commissioner of lands in the McBride cabinet: "Certainly," he says,"there is no spot in North America which combines so many picturesque and wonderful studies in the way of natural scenery, variety, grandiose and primeval beauty, all localities and national parks being considered." The government of that day was saying that Strathcona Park was more beautiful, more attractive and more spectacular than even Banff or Jasper or any of the other spectacular parks that exist in this country. For those of us who have hiked Strathcona Park, all we can say to that is amen.

Mr. Speaker, there is an excellent book called Strathcona, A History of British Columbia's First Provincial Park, written by a gentleman in Campbell River — who had a Bob Ostler sign on his lawn in the last election campaign, a Social Credit sign, as the Minister of Finance knows — by the name of Wallace Baikie, a very distinguished Campbell River citizen. It's a book that I recommend to all members. It's a

[ Page 167 ]

history of, as it is described, British Columbia's first provincial park. This book — and I am not going to quote from it — talks about Strathcona Park not just being as the establishment — and I am pleased to see the Minister of the Environment and Parks in the House.... The book talks not just about the beauty and about the priceless asset that that particular area is for those of us who are able to backpack into it or to get into the park and see it, but talks about it as being an economic resource for this province. I want to echo those comments that are made throughout this particular book. 

Strathcona Park has been butchered; it has been mutilated and, not to put too fine a point on it, raped by successive governments in this province to the extent that it is no longer recognizable. The dream that Price Ellison had, the dream that the McBride government had, the dream that people who cared about our natural resources in this province have had for generations.... The park has been so destroyed that those dreams are all but dead. The parks branch has been working since at least 1959 in trying to develop a master plan for Strathcona Park, and in the meantime we have had hydroelectric dams which have flooded the centre of the park. We have had a major mine established in the mid-1960s which has for all intents and purposes destroyed the southern end of Buttle Lake, and for hikers, as long as two days hike away from that mine the sound pollution is such that they still hear the noise of the generating station as it produces power for that particular mine. The mine is there; no one argues any longer — and I certainly don't — that the mine should be closed down; it's a fact of life. But there have been members of the government in the past and there have been members of the parks service who have suggested that one mine in that park is enough.

I want to talk about potential mines a bit later, but first of all I want to read a selected bit of my mail. Before I do that I want to quote Roderick Haig-Brown, one of British Columbia's most distinguished citizens, who back in 1966 wrote the following words. I'm going to quote Rod Haig-Brown's words exactly as he said them, Mr. Speaker, and you will pardon the language in one case. This was at a time when the proposal to locate a mine at the southern end of Buttle Lake was being made.

"Why can't we secure parks and wilderness areas and wild rivers and the other spectacular things of the continent hard and fast in the heart of the constitution, so that they will be safe from violation even if the biggest goddamned diamond mine or oil well or underground facsimile of the whole General Motors complex is found in one of them? Why not? Has industry some inalienable right to invade public lands, wherever found, and destroy them?"

That was in 1966. My apologies to those members of the House who find the language offensive; it was Rod Haig-Brown's.

Mr. Speaker, the question seems to have been answered in British Columbia: if you do find these kinds of resources in our public lands, then it's carte blanche. The short-term economic benefits, a few jobs for perhaps ten or a dozen years, seem to be more important to the government in power than the long-term economic benefits of hundreds of jobs for thousands of years — if this planet can survive. But the government can't look at thousands of years, it can only look in terms of its tenure in office, and it wants a quick fix now. It doesn't want to look at economic realities a decade or a hundred or a thousand years from now.

I want to quote briefly from a letter from a husband and wife, resort owners on Quadra Island:

"Visitors from abroad sometimes come here after a few days at Strathcona Park and always talk with envy about the virgin forest that has been kept as a park, and the streams with water safe to drink. This kind of park is becoming unique in today's world. Why give it away for a few dollars today, when it will be worth so much more to the province as a natural park for years to come?"

Another letter, from a gentleman who is a professional forester in Campbell River. This letter went to the current Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers) when he was Minister of Environment and Parks. "I am a professional forester with the Ministry of Forests and Lands" — here's a public servant putting his job on the line — "and am in favour of developing our natural resources, including mining. I am not in favour of destructive exploitation of parks; we have so few." He goes on: "I am a long-time Social Credit supporter but I cannot abide by this decision." He concludes: "Please listen to the people."

A letter from the Campbell River Environmental Council — perhaps predictable from that particular group; nevertheless an important group in Campbell River, given that it represents 15 different environmental groups — makes the point that the Strathcona Park Act of 1911, which was an act of this Legislature, states that the land should be set apart for the benefit, advantage and enjoyment of the people of British Columbia. That's certainly not happening today. That's the Environmental Council.

Let me quote then from the chamber of commerce, whose opinion may not be so predictable. The Campbell River and District Chamber of Commerce, over the signature of the president, says: "The board of directors unanimously voted to demand a public hearing by the government on proposed alterations to Strathcona Park boundaries and classifications." To demand — that's language that only the left has used, And here's the chamber of commerce demanding as well.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

A letter from Myrna Boulding, wife of the late Jim Boulding, whom many members of this House have been privileged to know; a man who fought all his life for Strathcona Park and, as he was dying, witnessed in his last years the continuing destruction of what was for him his lifetime work. Myrna Boulding quotes a current deputy minister in the Ministry of Forests and Lands. When he was Deputy Minister of Tourism — I don't think he was at this time, but nevertheless — he said that one mine in a park at a time is enough. Myrna writes a four-page letter which very neatly sets out concerns that the government has completely ignored.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, there are two issues involved here that concern me. One is the issue of the decision itself to gut Strathcona Park, to destroy the heart of that park. To take out of that park the very area for which it is famous — so famous, in fact, that the cover of the parks branch brochure that promotes Strathcona Park has on it a picture of Cream Lake, which is now no longer in the park. A bit farther south from Cream Lake, and visible from that area, is Della Falls, the highest waterfall in North America — now no longer in the

[ Page 168 ]

park. Both are included in what is now called a "recreation area."

What does a recreation area mean in doublespeak, in the Orwellian language of Social Credit? It means an area where logging and mining can take place. And is the mining a result of the Tener decision in Wells Gray Park a couple of years ago? The minister nods his head. Why then are prospectors allowed to prospect for new claims in that recreation area if it's as a result of the Tener decision? Why is the area so broad and so expansive as to allow for additional prospecting and perhaps the discovery of additional ore reserves? That's not a result of the Tener decision. That park has, as a beautiful feature, the Forbidden Plateau area, which thousands and thousands of people hike through every year. Right in the heart of that area are two mineral claims which have now been taken out of the park. If those claims are to be developed, roads need to be constructed, huge areas need to be devastated, in what for international tourists is the prime attraction of that particular park.

One concern of those of us who are heartbroken about the decision of the government in late January to change the boundaries of this park is the fact that the heart of the park is completely gone. Combined with the decision to flood Buttle Lake, the decision in the late sixties to allow Western Mines to go in, this decision destroys this park.

The second issue we concern ourselves about is process. For a government which proclaims in its throne speech, in its election campaigns, which proclaims at every opportunity, including question period today in a response from the Premier, that the government is open, responsible, wants to consult — look at the process about the decision on Strathcona Park. It was included in the terms of reference for the Wilderness Advisory Committee, which had a brief three months to complete its work.

The Wilderness Advisory Committee recommendations report noted that they were unable to make specific and complete conclusions about what should be in or out, because they didn't have the time, they didn't have the resources, and, for a good part of their hearings, they didn't have the cooperation of the parks branch, to paraphrase Bryan Williams, chairperson of this particular committee. The committee recommended that some parts of the park come out — one of the reasons I was unhappy with this report. But one of the things they also suggested, in recommendation No. 4 on page 100 about Strathcona Park, is that the proposed package of boundary changes and the master plan be subject to a public review, preferably through a process recommended by this committee. So we've got the Wilderness Advisory Committee saying public process, public review, public hearings — some form of public discussion about what the boundaries should be around Strathcona Park.

In the course of doing my job as an MLA, I want to make sure that the government is on track on that particular recommendation. So I write, as the minister knows, to respective Ministers of Parks. First of all, I wrote to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, who is now the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). He writes to me, dated August 13, 1986: "This will acknowledge your letter of June 19, 1986, in reference to Strathcona Provincial Park. As I have recently announced my intent to hold public meetings to receive comments respecting a comprehensive master plan for Strathcona Park, I feel...." Here he rejects my appeal that he have a meeting with the environmentalists in Campbell River.

"I would anticipate going to the public in late October or early November 1986."

Now as we all know in this House, there were good reasons for not going to the public in October of last year. I accept that; we couldn't do it in October — let's do it later. The party opposite had a leadership convention, so we had a new minister. The Deputy Speaker of this House became the minister. I wrote him a letter congratulating him, and reminding him of the commitment made by his predecessor. He wrote back to me: "As you are aware, my predecessor" — the hon. member for Omineca — "announced his intent to hold public meetings to receive comments on a comprehensive master plan for the park. I agree that all interested parties should be given the opportunity to participate in this process and plan to pursue the same course of action."

So then we had another.... First, we had a change because of the convention, then we had a change because of the election and a new minister, the now Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers). His letter: "As you note, it is this ministry's intention to conduct public meetings to elicit public input on a comprehensive master plan for this park."

All of us were led to believe that the government was committed to adhering to recommendation No. 4 of the Wilderness Advisory Committee, which recommended that public hearings be conducted on the master plan for the park, which at that time included all of these areas which have now been excluded. Our understanding was that we had a commitment — we being people concerned about the issue, and the public — from the government to hold public hearings about that public park and the boundaries as they were at the time of the writing of the letters and the Wilderness Advisory Committee recommendation.

What do we get? In January we get a series of events that lead to a cabinet decision — on the last Wednesday of January and announced the last Thursday of January — that six provincial parks in this province have had their boundaries changed. There were some additions in some cases, and interestingly, in Strathcona, additions that were going to wait until the logging had been completed before the land was put into the park; and of course, the deletions that I talked about — Cream Lake, Della Falls, Big Interior Mountain — in the heart of that park.

Just prior to the decision coming down in cabinet, I began to pick up rumours that cabinet was in fact going to discuss this issue. So I wrote a quick letter. I did it in one day and hand-delivered it to the then minister, saying I wanted him to keep to the promises that were made — have the public hearings, have the consultation. The response I got was a phone call from a public servant saying the minister is going — this is in January — to take a helicopter tour of Strathcona Park and is going to have lunch at Western Mines mine site at noon. Would I like to join him for lunch, which is being put on courtesy of Western Mines? I said: "Not particularly, but I wouldn't mind joining you for the helicopter trip, because there is 15 feet of snow up there. You aren't going to see very much of Strathcona Park in the middle of the winter under 15 feet of snow. You won't see Cream Lake and you won't see Della Falls, because from a helicopter it's not quite the same as it is looking at it from below." So I said to the minister — not to the minister, to the public servant who was doing his political work, which I found a bit strange, but nevertheless, I am prepared to accept it occasionally.... I said to this public servant: "Tell the minister that if he wants to take me

[ Page 169 ]

along on a helicopter ride so I can point out to him what's under that snow and what kind of a beautiful park that is that they're talking about destroying, then I will come with him and have lunch at Western Mines — however that offends my principles.

"Oh, no, you can't take an opposition MLA along with a minister on this kind of a trip," so I was denied the right to come. So I didn't go to the lunch that was sponsored by one of the lobbyists for this particular decision, the mining company that has additional claims, or would like to have the potential to exploit further mineralized areas to the south of its present property. The lunch sponsored by this group was attended by the minister. Is that not a conflict of interest? He expected me to go along and join him.

So I said: "No, I'm not going along in those kinds of circumstances. I'm not going to compromise my principles." The minister may be prepared to, but I won't. I then get a letter from the minister regretting the fact that I didn't come to have a discussion with him about what could be done about the future of Strathcona Park. Is that open government? Is that how government consults? Is that how the people of this province are able to have input into what is a fundamental decision on Vancouver Island? Is that how it works?

The MLA for part of the park — not the whole park; the member for Comox has a great chunk of it, anti the member for Alberni a chunk more.... Is that how the public gets its input — lunch sponsored by a major potential beneficiary of the decision to gut the park?

Madam Speaker, I have asked a question of the minister on this issue and got the wrong answer. Today I presented a petition containing 6,342 names, a petition gathered in a few weeks. I have since been advised there are hundreds more names out there that weren't ready and weren't collected yet, so I may be doing it again at some point.

I know that the government has had hundreds — if not a thousand or more — of letters on this issue because I have had hundreds. Isn't this a case where W.A.C. Bennett's famous second look is appropriate? Isn't it appropriate now that the government say: "Wait a minute. Perhaps we've made a mistake. Perhaps there is a way we can deal with this differently." Perhaps there isn't. Perhaps the decision that you have made is the only decision that a government could make. But make that decision after you've consulted the people of this province, after people have had an opportunity to talk to you about it.

That's not a weird, radical idea coming out of left wing. That's an idea that was promised by Bryan Williams' committee and by three successive ministers of this government and the previous government. So what's wrong with doing it? Is the government afraid of hearing what the people might say about Strathcona. Park? For thousands of British Columbians and an increasing number of people from all over this world who hike in that park.... Are they worried about what those people might say with respect to the decision that was made by the government?

What is there to be afraid of? What's the government's concern? What is wrong with following the words of the throne speech? What's wrong with consultation? They certainly didn't have the consultation in the wilderness advisory committee process. I had to drag a meeting out of that group to come to Campbell River, and they came on New Year's Eve or the day before. It was short notice. It didn't even get in the newspaper that they were going to be there. Only about 20 people knew about it, much less were able to attend. The process there was short circuited, because at that point, and even subsequently, the commissioners didn't have full cooperation from the parks branch. We've not had a full public review, as has been promised since 1959 by successive governments, Madam Speaker.

I invite the minister to do two things. One is to postpone the decision until after the public hearings have been held, and I suggest you can get that underway in the next few weeks and months. It can be completed by late spring. The process doesn't have to take too long. Make the decision after you've had those public hearings and after you've done one other thing — that is, come hiking with me in Strathcona Park so you can see for yourself how fantastic and how beautiful that park could be.

MR. JANSEN: Madam Speaker, greetings to you and all hon. members of the House.

It is with a great sense of pride and humility that I rise in this chamber to participate in a debate on the Speech from the Throne — pride in this institution of democracy in which we now participate, as our forefathers did since the first Legislature of the province in 1872; humility in that the electors of the constituency of Chilliwack have entrusted me with the honour and privilege to represent their interests in this, the thirty-fourth parliament. Before I proceed, I would like to ask this House to welcome a special guest here this afternoon, Mr. Fred Feistmann. Please make him welcome.

[4:15]

At the outset, may I extend my sincere congratulations to Mr. Speaker on being elected Speaker of the House. I look forward to his learned guidance and leadership in ensuring that the dignity and decorum of this assembly is preserved. I share with my colleagues an earnest desire to be true to our ideals and practical in our actions as we serve as Members of the Legislative Assembly of this beautiful province.

I extend also warm congratulations to the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) on his election as Deputy Speaker and wish him all the best in his endeavours. I know full well his high character, service and loyalty to his constituency and to our province. May Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy Speaker be blessed with the special wisdom and inner strength that is essential in presiding with absolute impartiality over this honourable institution as democratic government is exercised through free and untrammelled debate and discussion.

May I also take this opportunity to extend warmest congratulations, and those of my constituency, to the first member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), the Premier of our province. It is indeed exciting and an honour to be part of a party and a government represented by a leader whose commitment to a stronger economic future for our province and determination for success is commendable indeed. His vision, his enthusiasm, his example and his leadership have already brought stability and respect to this Legislature and have instilled confidence in the hearts and minds of the people, the workers and the investors of our province.

I commend the Premier for his leadership in establishing a revitalized government and a renewed spirit of economic enthusiasm, and convey to him and to this House my commitment of cooperation and initiative in this regard. May I also commend the Premier for his considered and outstanding selection of the executive council. I know that they will ably assist in the realization of our goals of excellence in government. I know, too, that the staff who provide the administrative framework necessary for our government to operate

[ Page 170 ]

are dedicated to the underlying principle of professionalism and service, and share the enthusiasm of our government for a new opportunity.

I congratulate, too, my colleagues on both sides of the House on being elected as Members of the Legislative Assembly of this province. I know all of you share with me a spirit of enthusiasm and optimism that heralds a new beginning and a sincere willingness to put the needs of our electorate, the people of British Columbia, before all else. It has been said that wherever we look upon the earth the opportunities take shape within the problems. It is my wish that together we may develop the opportunities for a better British Columbia.

I would particularly like to express my sincere appreciation to the people of Chilliwack constituency for their expression of confidence in my ability to represent them in this Legislative Assembly. I pray that I will be worthy of that confidence and that I may indeed represent their interests and concerns with dedication and perseverance. I am especially indebted to those people who have worked hard on ensuring the re-election of our government, and I particularly thank Mr. Jake Isaak, constituency president, for his support, hard work and encouragement. Throughout our political service, we depend heavily on those who make family sacrifices. I am indeed grateful for the continued special support and assistance given by my wife and family.

The people of Chilliwack, like most constituencies in this province, have continued to place their trust and support in the principles of our Social Credit philosophy and are committed to the spirit of free enterprise being the only logical choice for a stronger economy and a better quality of life.

On a special note, I would like to, on behalf of the Chilliwack constituency and indeed on behalf of the entire province of British Columbia, extend a very special word of appreciation to the previous member for Chilliwack, Mr. Harvey Schroeder. Harv has indeed served this assembly and this province with distinction. He has, with his continued optimism, his sense of humour, his high moral standards based on deep-rooted Christian values and his dedication to the service of our province, given exemplary service indeed in both his capacity as Speaker of the House and Minister of Agriculture.

His unfailing sense of humour was particularly welcome during less friendly periods in the House. One of our cabinet colleagues of long service to the province once remarked: "Harvey was the only Speaker I've seen who could quell heated debate and outrageous language by simply saying, 'Mercy, mercy."' I know this House joins me in saying thank you, Harvey, for your service to British Columbia.

Allow me for a moment to describe my constituency. Chilliwack, the home of the famous, fertile Fraser Valley, is many times described as the green heart of British Columbia. It is an area of land of approximately 4,800 square kilometres, extending from the Abbotsford border to the west, north to north of Harrison Lake and east to Jones Hill and No. I freeway. Agriculture is the historical and current mainstay of the economy. The gross farm income in the constituency represents approximately 10 percent of the entire farm income for the province. Because of the importance of agriculture in the economy, coupled with its inherent peaceful and quiet nature, agriculture has indeed become a way of life in Chilliwack.

Our government firmly believes that the best investment we can make in our agriculture and food industry is the education of our young people — young men and women who will continue the long tradition and legacy of progressive agriculture in the Fraser Valley. Testimony to our belief in the value of education in the pursuit of continued economic prosperity, our government announced the construction of the new agricultural technology centre at Fraser Valley College — the only two-year agricultural technology program in British Columbia. The college has been chosen as the agriculture specialty centre because of its location in the heart of the fruit, vegetable, dairy, poultry and beef feedlot production community in British Columbia. It provides the students with a natural lab from which to observe the industry in operation.

Forestry is also of major consequence to the economy and livelihood of the people of Chilliwack. The Chilliwack forest district has an annual harvest of approximately 50,000 truckloads of some of the finest forest land in British Columbia. As a result, reforestation and intensive silviculture practices have become routine. Logged areas are planted where necessary, the plantations are brushed out and weeded, the young stands are spaced at the appropriate time and fertilizer is applied when required. The continual development of secondary wood processing is also assisting this industry to become increasingly important.

Tourism, Madam Speaker, is of ever more importance to the economy of this province. Expo 86 was an event that opened the eyes of British Columbians everywhere. People saw the vast potential they have to secure a position of leadership in the further development of tourism. This recognition will act as a catalyst to initiate further action to explore this opportunity. The Chilliwack constituency has contributed to this position of strength in a positive way through its Rainbow Country promotion, a promotion that captures the spirit of our community's friendliness and hospitality, set against a backdrop of the beauty and natural attractions of the area. Attractions such as Minter Gardens, Flintstone Park, the Chilliwack Museum, Cultus Lake and Harrison Hot Springs are simply world-class and are actively promoted at our first-class hospitality centre, which saw 56,000 people stop in to seek information in 1986.

Madam Speaker, I have had the honour and privilege of serving the District of Chilliwack as its mayor for three years, two years of which I was also elected chairman of the Regional District of Fraser-Cheam, an area of some 11,000 square kilometres extending from Chilliwack to just north of Boston Bar. This experience, together with my business background as an accountant in public practice and owner of a wholesale nursery, has given me a unique and special insight into the wishes and the character of our community.

It comes as no surprise that Chilliwack has consistently and strongly voted Social Credit since 1952. It comes as no surprise because we, like many other communities throughout British Columbia, believe in a spirit of free enterprise — the freedom of our own initiative, unencumbered by a government bureaucracy, and indeed supported by a framework of a positive business environment. It has been said that the highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets for it but what he becomes by it, and that value is held dearly by the people of our constituency.

Madam Speaker, as I listen to my constituents I hear them tell me they are tired of the politics of confrontation. They are tired of politics that centres only upon tackling issues from a negative viewpoint. They know the problems; they don't need to hear them identified again and again. They elected

[ Page 171 ]

this government to solve problems — to take advantage of an economy that is becoming more prosperous, to take advantage of trade opportunities and not become mired in approaches that only depend on yesterday's solutions.

Indeed, Madam Speaker, as I look at our major economic indicators I see growth and improvement in this province that British Columbians want to be part of. They want this government to help them achieve that participation. Since our election our government has wasted no time in beginning this open approach. On November 6, 1986, our Premier announced a most aggressive program of major review in key policy areas — in some areas the most extensive that have been held in decades. The throne speech clearly demonstrated the continuing commitment this government has to identifying issues, seeking consultation and pursuing solutions.

I am very fortunate in my capacity of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) to have been personally involved in the Labour Code review and in the review of the liquor policy. As a result of these reviews and public consultation, the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services will seek initiatives that will bring long-term stability in employment relations. We believe such action is necessary to secure, for all British Columbians, an unfettered access to world markets for our products and skills.

We urge laws designed to keep the province moving and not stagnating in confrontation that ultimately benefits nobody. During the course of this session, the liquor policy review, which was formally announced on February 26, 1987, will be completed. It will involve extensive dialogue and discussions with the public and the parties which would be directly affected by the policy. As chairmen of the review work with my colleagues the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) and the first member for Boundary Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt), we will complete the most comprehensive review ever held on liquor policy.

Madam Speaker, this government is committed to an environment of cooperation where government is a partner in the economy and the private sector companies and their employees become leading participants, achieving a strong, vibrant economy. This requires a view to the future for not only those in the workforce today but also those who will look towards making a contribution tomorrow.

[4:30]

I believe my constituents are excited about the Royal Commission on Education as an opportunity to again step away from confrontation and look forward to a positive approach that will mean a better education and better future for our children. We look forward to a continuing focus on education that complements and supports the community's desire to develop its strengths and resources. In this regard, continued upgrading of our educational facilities and further development of Fraser Valley College will provide the necessary foundation to help achieve that objective.

We are pleased with the emphasis the throne speech places on people through education initiatives such as education savings program, science and technology initiatives and encouragement of post-secondary education. We are pleased also with the initiative to further assist the independent education system in this province.

Chilliwack is fortunate to have approximately 13 percent of its population as senior citizens — 2 percent higher than the provincial average. Seniors contribute a great deal to the community, sharing their wealth of knowledge, contributing their time, raising funds for worthwhile projects and contributing substantially to a stable economic base. We are pleased therefore to see the emphasis of care that is placed in this sector of our population and encourage continued development of health care facilities to ensure a world-class level of service.

My constituency also commends the Premier on his recent initiative to provide a constructive forum for decentralization of government to restore more decision-making and functions to the grassroots or community level of government. In this context, we look forward to a review of current floodplain legislation that seeks a constructive solution to this very sensitive issue.

I commend too, Madam Speaker, this government on the appointment of a Cabinet Committee on Native Affairs to work closely with our native people to provide a forum for discussion on matters of mutual interest.

We particularly applaud the initiative of this government to work in consultation with the private sector in developing more of our primary agricultural products into marketable processed and packaged goods. Underlying the quiet, plodding images that agriculture and farming conjures up in the minds of British Columbians is a dynamic, thriving, processing industry that our government is eager to tap into. It is apparent that the agri-food industry plays a major role in the economy, and Chilliwack is a major player.

We look forward to the sound reforestation policy this government is committed to, in order to continually develop a more revitalized industry, which is a critical part of our local and provincial economy.

My constituency also looks forward with excitement to the further development of our tourism industry, with particular reference to cooperative promotional packages of the Pacific Northwest, such as the Gold Rush Trail. This dynamic industry not only has an immediate impact on the economy but also enables a window of opportunity for future investors in our province. This, as the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) would say, is good stuff.

Our constituency looks forward to continued upgrading of the No. 1 freeway, to ensure the elimination of level crossings. Transportation is a critical component of economic recovery, and we commend continued development of the necessary infrastructure.

We also commend the government on its initiative for change in taxation policies respecting job creation industries, with particular emphasis on small business. This, coupled with our goal of an international financial centre for Vancouver, will provide a positive environment for attracting investment dollars. The generally improved business climate in British Columbia, specific measures to encourage international and domestic financial activity, and our natural advantages are a potent combination which will in the coming years help to accelerate the development of British Columbia's financial sector.

We are particularly encouraged by our government's initiative to support current free-trade negotiations with our largest trading partner. It is through such an agreement that a constituency such as Chilliwack will continue to grow and prosper.

Madam Speaker, the future is built upon cooperation. The government must be committed to open participation, to consultation and to developing the approaches that will allow

[ Page 172 ]

business to grow, for it is on that growth that long-term stability can be founded. It is upon that growth that those without jobs today can look to work tomorrow. It is upon that growth that our children can look to a future optimistically and not burdened with the fear of economic disaster.

Many years ago a famous cartoon character said: "I have seen the enemy and he is us." We will not let ourselves fall into that kind of reproach. This government may say: "I have seen the future and it is us." Cooperation, consultation and an improved quality of life for British Columbians will become the legacy of this government. That is indeed the litmus test of any government, and this government will achieve that.

It is my wish and prayer, the Lord willing, that I may serve this House and my constituency with humbleness, dignity and diligence. I close, Madam Speaker, with a quote: "It would be well to bear in mind that the present of today was the future of yesterday, and that it is what it is because of human actions, the human decisions from yesterday." And therefore, with God's help, the future will be what we make it.

MR. BARNES: I would like to congratulate the hon. Speaker on his appointment as Speaker of this assembly.

I just have to have a few moments to reflect, being one of the few remaining old guard of the opposition, although I'm probably one of the younger old guard. [Laughter.] Let me just say to them that I'm glad humour still prevails in the House, and that it looks as though it may even improve with so much new blood — because this job is onerous enough without us losing our sense of humour. And I know that we will be committed to the causes that we were elected to defend.

But before I reflect on a few things that I believe I should use the privilege to reflect on, I must say — this being the throne speech debate, where latitude is provided to members — that, Madam Speaker, I want to make a complaint. This is, I believe, the fifteenth throne speech that I've participated in, and I have never in all my years had to go outside to get into the House. The way you've got it set up now, although the accommodations are excellent, we do have to go through a breezeway to get to our quarters — at least, a large percentage of us. And that's fine; I enjoy the fresh air. But, you see, depending on the time of year it could get to be a problem. We may have to don our raincoats and our umbrellas and just about everything else to get from the east wing into the Legislature. So I just raise that as a point of recommendation to the House to look into that matter.

MR. BLENCOE: It doesn't rain here.

MR. BARNES: I just heard from the hon. second member for Victoria that he just had a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce the other night and found out it doesn't rain in Victoria, so perhaps my points were not as well taken as I thought.

I want to first congratulate a number of the members on the opposition side for excellent presentations. Most of them, as you know, are experienced politicians, but this is nonetheless their first time in the Legislature, and I thought the presentations were excellent. Even on the other side of the House they had their scripts very well laid out, and I thought they read them with admirable quality and style.

Not to repeat all of the things that have been said by so many members, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, who took great patience to appreciate all of the efforts made by former members who are no longer with us, I would just like to say that I am going to miss my good friend and colleague Gary Lauk, who served with me for 14 years. However, in saying that, I can say that the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt), who at the time of Gary Lauk's and my first election to the Legislature was our campaign manager.... You can judge from that how successful he will be on his countdown of some 1,000-plus days to the next general election when he becomes the Premier of British Columbia.

I think as well that I should say that some sad things happened. As many of you know Alan (Landslide) Passarell and I were buddies of sorts, even though he had a difference of opinion with respect to the party he was with in the latter years of his career and joined the government side. Nonetheless, friendships being what they are, Alan and I continued to enjoy good times together. I had the privilege of meeting his second wife Ruth, who was recently coming to this country, and I had the privilege of being invited to their wedding, as a matter of fact. Although I was unable to attend, I got the chance to meet with them afterwards and saw two very happy people. It looked as if the two were on their way to some good times, and unfortunately, as we know, they were the victims of an airplane crash on his way to his nominating convention. We will miss Al. I know his family well, Debra and little Rocky — we used to call him little Rocky Landslide — and Tasha and Jackie, two of the other young children. They were in the precinct recently. We will miss him, and I just wanted to pay that tribute because, you know, in this place you never know who your friends are going to be, and we do need to be able to keep the lines of communication open at all times.

A final tribute, Madame Speaker, is to a former Provincial Secretary when we were elected in 1972, Ernie Hall. He was the first Provincial Secretary and left a legacy of very good initiatives for us all to follow. Ernie was an athlete of sorts, you know — a soccer player, as I understand it. He and I used to talk quite a bit about sports. In fact, when Ernie brought the first government-sponsored lotteries to this province, the idea behind his thinking was to support culture, sports, the arts, recreation and these kinds of things. That was the idea of lotteries in this province. Some 15 years later, you can put the pieces together yourselves. I will save that for a later speech.

But as you know, we now have evolved somewhat to what we call a gaming commission, and we have now a major growth industry in the province which extracts from the people their desire to get rich quick by selling them their tax dollars in the form of lotteries. However, that is not something that we can do much about now. I think it is very obvious the government has decided to go along a certain path in its economic strategy, in terms of what it is trying to do to get British Columbia back on its feet.

I want to have some flexibility in my approach to my brief remarks before my short time is up. I understand the Whips have arranged to agree with the government on when the Premier will be coming into the Legislature and making a speech. I won't deal with that too much. I'll get right to the point, because so far we have had a fair amount of congeniality and very rational debate. Passions have been controlled.

AN HON. MEMBER: Muted.

[ Page 173 ]

MR. BARNES: Muted, someone said. But I can tell you, at my age, at my point in time, I haven't got time to wait for you guys to get down to business, especially when you are in the opposition. I want action, and I want it now. You say what action?

[4:45]

AN HON. MEMBER: You're getting married.

MR. BARNES: You're right, and I'll tell you that's part of it. I'm very proud of that. For the second time, and it took a long time to reflect on that first time before I tried to do it again. So, mister ex-minister of universities, I can tell you that I have thought it over very carefully, and I know what I am doing. This is no mistake. No, you don't make mistakes when you get my age. You know what you're doing. I have plotted this course very carefully.

But look, let me tell you something. All of the speakers on this side of the House have been talking about the lack of recognition or attention to the problems of youth in this province. All of us know that there is a problem. Even those people on that side of the House have their rhetoric down. In fact, the last member to speak referred to the needs of the youth in some form or other.

But you know, Madam Speaker, there comes a time when you have to come clean. We can't put it off any longer. The young people in this province, I can say almost with no exception.... I'm not just talking about the poor people, the ones on welfare who are dependent on families on fixed incomes, unemployment insurance. I am talking about all of them, all of the young people, no matter what the socioeconomic situation. This is one of the fallacies of this business of talking about poverty and the poor. We think we're just talking about so-called ordinary people, but I can tell you, there is no such thing as an ordinary person. Everybody is an individual, and everybody counts, and we're all Canadians.

As far as I am concerned, the situation has gotten out of hand. Now we're talking about specific things, and in Vancouver Centre, I can tell you, I can't go in and out of my office without seeing examples of what is happening on the streets. Young children. I want to get right to the point, and I can tell you that this government, either by will or by ignorance or by whatever way you want to put it, has been negligent when it comes to defending the rights of children in this province. It is not doing its job. We have certain statutory responsibilities, and we should be living up to them. The tragedy is that we've become so muted or so complacent or we've given up to the point that we don't fight for our youth any more.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. BARNES: We do not. Do you think that a $400 million program of grants to children has anything to do with the needs of the young people in this province? Nothing. What is $400,000? That's what it would cost to move a castle from the waterfront downtown someplace. It doesn't mean a thing.

We're talking about lives, lives that perhaps are not ready to vote yet. There's something like 250,000 young people between the ages of 13 and 18 in this province. Those people are not voting yet, but they may be someday. The tragedy is that unless we get busy and make them feel like they're part of what's going on in this country, this culture and this society, they're not going to vote. Most of them are checking out, have given up and don't believe they're relevant.

You have a long list of faults, and yet the rhetoric keeps coming down. There's always tomorrow. The budget always talks about what we're going to do, but it gets shifted.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Let's go back to 1983, the great days of the dirty dozen, the days when the Premier of the day said we were going to have to bring in a restraint program in order to balance our budget. Let's go back to 1980. You have developed a direct debt of some $5 billion and the problem is getting worse. That's direct debt; nothing to do with another $15 billion that Crown corporations owe collectively. The situation is worse than ever. The situation is getting so bad that most of us take it to be just a normal situation. We don't think anything of it any more — you know, if those guys really want to do something for themselves, they'll pull themselves up by their bootstraps. As the critic for youth I intend to go out and bring back case histories. It's not going to be like it was in the past. When we start talking about the failings of the government in terms of delivering services to young people, we're going to talk about case histories. We're going to go out and find some people and bring them in and find out why the government isn't doing its job.

The first thing the government did in 1983 was cut back those people who were public employees; almost 600 people — 599, or so, I believe — who were giving direct service to families and children. Family support programs, child abuse teams, counselling services, something called post-partum depression instructions and help for people who were suffering from the fear of being left alone; all of those problems that go along with keeping families together. All of these are no longer in place. If they haven't been privatized they've been completely eliminated.

And the consequences? We have in B.C. the worst statistics in the country. No one gets panicky when we talk about 27 percent unemployment among youth. We don't pay any attention to that. We say: "Oh, well, what does that mean?" And the youth themselves? They're not out there beating the bushes and fighting and demanding their rights. They don't have that sense of constructive revolution inside them that demands their just rights and their due in a society that believes in democracy and equal opportunity. Why aren't they learning that? We should be telling them to fight for what they deserve, the same as you people do when you're not getting your fair share, the same as the seniors do when they force the government to back down on their pension deindexing. But those are the kinds of things that the young people don't normally do. They sit quietly hoping.

When their families get squeezed, the kids get desperate and leave home. Where do they go when they leave home? They go to their friends, hopefully. Maybe some of you can recall a few times when you've had a teenager want to sleep on your couch and stay with some of your kids. I certainly have. Even though I had a bunch of kids myself I still picked up a few extra who didn't have anyplace to go, and to this day they thank me for being a sort of substitute parent. But it's a serious problem, what's happening to young people. And it's not just happening to them for today, it happens to them for a lifetime, because where are they going to go? How are they going to plug in again?

[ Page 174 ]

Here are just a few statistics. I told you there were something like 250,000. These are round numbers. I'm not sure how many there are, but that's a pretty considerable number of young people between the ages of 13 and 18 in this province. Every year about 10,000 of those young people are charged with some crime or another. So where do they go? They're thrown in with adults in most cases. I understand that in some cases, like at the Willingdon school, they're so crowded that these young people are in sleeping bags on the floor. If they're not today, they were yesterday; and if they weren't yesterday, they will be tomorrow. The point is, there's stress on the system. What are we doing about it? Obviously turning a blind eye.

As I mentioned before, 9,500 of them run away from home; 20,000 drop out of school. In fact, we had a group of people here yesterday who fortunately were able to.... The native alternative education program at the First United Church were here. But how many of these alternative programs can we keep developing in order to deal with children who cannot fit into the conventional system? We visited one of those in Kamloops, where we are doing a patch job and not really looking at what should be happening in the educational system. What is this one-person commission going to do in terms of really reviewing the educational system in this province?

The bottom line is that unless the end product is right, we're failing. It doesn't matter about our fiscal planning; it doesn't matter about whatever our philosophies are. If those young people do not feel that they are part of the system, that they have a future, then we're failing, period. We have to make a commitment to that. That's the bottom line — make a commitment to ensure that young people have a sense of belonging, have a sense of identity, and that has to happen by practice. It doesn't happen by rhetoric; it doesn't happen by me making speeches in the Legislature.

It happens by spending money for those programs and ensuring that they have the opportunity. That's the difference. That's not happening, notwithstanding the fact that the government would claim that it is spending more and more money on the basic program than ever. The point is that those are formulas that all of the intellectuals can use, but the facts are that the young people are not getting the services they require.

Another figure that I'm going to be bringing back further information on to the House is that some 5,000 of these young people are reported to have attempted suicide. Can you imagine young people attempting suicide? Now I don't know how many of them are successful, but imagine. Were any of you people ever thinking about committing suicide in your lives? It's happening all the time — provincially, internationally, and certainly throughout Canada. But my point is that when we do the assessment and the analysis that we intend to do in the opposition, we're going to come back with some facts.

We're going to see if British Columbia is leading in suicides among teenagers. We're going to find out, in fact, who these teenagers are. How many of them are from the so-called multicultural mosaic? How many of them are at a certain age? Where did the breakdown happen? What is happening to their families, and what was the history of their families? Let's find out where the problem is. What is the breakdown? Let's stop this neglect, because it is a tragedy that taxpayers are going to have to pay for and those kids are going to have to pay for.

Now you know, Mr. Speaker, that what I'm saying has validity. But I guess the problem is that when we get into this Legislature and we get busy and we start fumbling around with our papers and looking at the dollars and the cost and the means by which we can generate revenue, we forget that a lot of people out there are depending on us to get our priorities straight and spend the money where it will do the most good. It's as simple as that. Those of us in the opposition realize that it's going to cost money to run government, and we know that people really don't care when you talk about the deficit any more. It keeps going up. It looks like it's just going to keep on going up.

But the point is, we're using the wrong examples in describing why the debt is up. We better start talking about case histories. Maybe we better bring to this Legislature what really happens. What do you care about some person being stabbed to death by a so-called trick for prostituting down in the downtown east side or the Mount Pleasant area? Does it matter to you? Do you ever bother to go and find out what happened? Aren't you concerned that that's happening to our young people?

Why are they out there in the first place? Why have they run away from home? Why don't they want to go to the conventional institutions for treatment? Why is it that there is no place for these people? We should be curious. We should call on our intellectuals at the universities, our psychologists and our sociologists and our criminologists, people who can tell us something about human nature. We know enough about human nature to know that we can exploit their passion to get rich overnight by selling them lottery tickets, and we don't know enough to know that they also have to have some satisfaction in life, that they have feelings, they have passion, they have desires and hopes. We have suppressed that. We're ignoring it, and the crimes are carrying on every day on the streets.

[5:00]

I think it's a crime that this government has not put its priorities in place and begun to make expenditures in that area. That's a simple case of fact. I know I'm in the opposition and I can't pass the legislation to do it, but I'm telling you that's the bottom line. We talked about the poverty line. That's an abstract that people don't understand, but I'm talking about the bottom line of human lives. I am talking about the bottom line of young people, people being born, children being apprehended by the system, taken into a system that is burdened with too many cases, not enough money and no facilities. We are traumatizing people families, children, relatives, the whole works.

It is a shame that our social system does not reflect our sophistication and capability of providing better services and compassion — and not only that, but inspiration. After all, if those young people don't feel good about what they are doing, about their future, what are we teaching them in school? How much excitement can you get into a group of students out at the university who have to go and borrow every dime before they can get a basic education? There are no grants. Assistance programs are complicated and insufficient. Kids are getting out of school with debt. They are leaving the province, going somewhere else. Don't we care about that?

Well, Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the agreement made by the Whips, I realize that I am not going to be able to complete my remarks. But the message has been made: we do not seem to show the political will that we should be showing. The

[ Page 175 ]

government is going to be catching it, I can assure you, from this array of people over here when it comes to people services. I can say for the first time in 15 years: I am warning you. There is a guy up there called Jim Hume. He used to crack jokes a lot, you know. This is maybe a little bit of an aside, but I think that guy is cracking that joke for a very interesting reason. I will just wind up by saying, in good humour, that the jig is up.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First, I wish to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your elevation to the office of Speaker. I know that, with your knowledge and experience in the federal arena as well as provincially, you will do a tremendous job for this Legislature. Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.

I also wish to congratulate the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) on becoming Deputy Speaker. He is a member who certainly commands the respect of all people in the House, and elsewhere. We congratulate him and I congratulate him as well — and the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) for becoming Chairman of House committees. Again, congratulations.

It is a pleasure to welcome all of the MLAs and to congratulate them for being a part of this Legislature. I am particularly pleased as well that my colleague the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) covered all of the issues affecting the constituency so effectively. I know my colleague oftentimes has a difficult job in that. Since I have to be so many places throughout the province, he often has to attend to the majority of the constituency problems. But I certainly am very proud of representing such a fine constituency. I am available to my constituents. I represent them, and I intend to represent them well. But obviously I must represent all people and travel throughout the province to attend to problems regardless of where they are in our beautiful British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I am very impressed with all of the speeches that have been given in the House on both sides. I am very pleased to see a new mood of cooperation, of people speaking out on the issues, where it is no longer a question so much of left or right, but where, instead, we deal with the issues as opposed to the politics. I hope and trust that this mood will continue, and that we will keep working together for the good of all British Columbians. I know that from time to time the system seems to demand that, obviously, we have some debate back and forth, and all of it may not be complimentary. But as long as this is constructive criticism and constructive debate, all of us, regardless of where we are in this province will benefit from such.

The throne speech, Mr. Speaker, has received mainly praise from all quarters. I'm pleased to see that even those who are in the opposition pay tribute to many of the things referred to in the throne speech. It's a very ambitious program, it's a blueprint for a new era in British Columbia, and it deals with the issues. It demonstrates the need for a new start. It shows — as I said a little earlier — that we can't afford the left or the right or all of those sorts of debates. It calls on us to cooperate and to operate as a unit for the good of all British Columbians, regardless of where we are or which side of the House, working together for that common good, and that's what British Columbians really want.

Mr. Speaker, it's a positive document. It sets out for the first time perhaps in many years anywhere in our great nation not only a program but it shows us dates, names, direction. It's accountable. It tells the people where we want to see our province moving and how we wish to see it moving ahead. It's an answer to a promise to be up front, to be open, to be available, to level with everyone. It meets that test, and I'm proud of this.

But, Mr. Speaker, the throne speech also meets a commitment that we would involve all members of the House, whether on the government side or on the opposition side, in the process. We've established the committees, as promised. We've provided additional funding for the opposition so that they can do their research — moneys over and above those available other years, moneys over and above that provided historically to government or opposition, moneys provided to the opposition to give them the opportunity to bring in, too, the best people to do the necessary research in order for them to best perhaps view or review that which the government proposes. And that makes for healthy government. That is good, and I certainly am pleased that we were the first to really introduce that in this throne speech.

We've also provided for the first time in our province a board of internal economy so that again the opposition along with members of government can look at the needs of the Legislature, can review what is required and come at it together to bring forth the necessary recommendations for us to act upon — a very good, a very positive move.

Mr. Speaker, we want all of the MLAs involved, and I think we've demonstrated that, and I hope we can continue to demonstrate that. We want to involve all of the MLAs — not just us; not just them; but them and us working together for the good of British Columbians. We want a Legislature that provides and that is seen to be fair.

I'm very pleased that for the first time perhaps in a long while — and I'm not sure that it's happening so much anywhere else in Canada — we've asked the Leader of the Opposition to participate in first ministers' conferences, so that the Leader of the Opposition could — as should be — see the actions at that level with that body, and again constructively provide recommendations or suggestions, and certainly keep his people involved — the party members, the members of his caucus — as to what is being proposed, or the rationale for it.

Mr. Speaker, I commit that we'll listen. We'll not always agree, but certainly we'll listen. We'll consult and communicate and be open and accessible.

I think the throne speech provides this element of fairness again and again, not only in how we deal with each other as members in a Legislature but also how we as members of the Legislature and the government deal with people on the outside, those that are affected and have been affected in the past by the expropriation procedures in the province. We've said we wish to deal with these people in a fair and equitable manner, and we're going to provide legislation to that end; and to provide a fairness, through the Police Act, to citizens who have a complaint against police, and similarly to provide fairness and protection to those that are serving us in the police, to ensure that they're not unfairly dealt with. I think this may be a good opportunity for us to recognize too that the police throughout the province provide a tremendous service to all of us, regardless of what the community in our beautiful province. We're very appreciative of all of their efforts, but perhaps we don't often enough show the appreciation. Too often too, when accused we somehow.... At least oftentimes people will tend to see them as somehow being guilty of some offence. Hopefully — and I believe it will — legislation

[ Page 176 ]

such as the Police Act will provide that protection fairly, so that we'll not see that again.

We promised, Mr. Speaker, that we would address this whole question of dual ridings and provide for single ridings in the province. It's been long argued by many that perhaps this would provide fairer, more equitable representation. Again, we've addressed that by the appointment of Mr. Justice Fisher, who I'm sure will do an excellent job and bring forth a report which will be fairly considered by all members of the House.

The throne speech addresses many of the social concerns of the government. We deal with families, and we recognize again the importance of the family unit, and how we must, in whatever way we can, ensure that we provide the necessary helps for the family. In the throne speech, again, we give particular significance and recognition to the value of education. We've said very clearly that we're going to provide the assistance to ensure that education in British Columbia will be second to none anywhere in Canada. We've recognized the needs of those on welfare, and we've recognized that there haven't been increases for some time. We've said in the throne speech that we would provide, in recognition of this, additional helps to those on welfare.

[5:15]

We've said there would be increases in the day-care program, so that single parents may have the opportunity to become a part of the workforce, or to have the opportunity of seeking employment as others do, by providing perhaps a more available and a better or more affordable day-care service. We've also said that we would provide a better foster care program in order to look after those youths who need that special bit of attention that the member from the other side referred to just before I started to speak.

We've also addressed the question of Indian affairs by providing the opportunity for self-government such as will be outlined in the legislation. We've certainly received with pleasure the news from the minister responsible for Social Services that we are beginning to work out better arrangements with native Indian communities for the provision of social services that recognizes the need for them as a community to have the necessary input.

We're committed, Mr. Speaker, to better education, to more opportunities in education, and to more job-training opportunities as well in the many excellent facilities available in our province. We recognize the need for greater opportunities in the area of science and technology and therefore have developed a strategy to address that. We want to develop new skills for our people. We can't be relying continually on the forestry sector, on the mining sector or on tourism — major industries for which we're extremely grateful. We must diversify, and we must provide training opportunities for people to acquire the necessary skills in the various technologies that are fast becoming a part of the labour scene in British Columbia and elsewhere. Teaching the skills is certainly an important first step.

Mr. Speaker, we are fulfilling the people's potential by giving them these opportunities for retraining and by providing greater opportunity as well in the area of education. We are committed as a government to decentralize. The goal of government is to try and provide more opportunities for decisions to be made at the local level, to give recognition to the fact that oftentimes many of the decisions we've been faced with here in the past could better be decided upon in the community through the government of that community, be it a municipal council or a regional board or a school board, to provide more of those opportunities at the local level.

For the first time, I suppose anywhere, we saw a Premier's conference where we called together members from local government to participate in a process where we would select and seek out those things that might better be dealt with locally, that could be moved from the province to the local government with the necessary resources to get the job done properly. The response was tremendous. We saw a turnout much beyond our original anticipations and we certainly saw a great deal of excellent input. The committee that developed therefrom through the UBCM will be reporting to us shortly, and we commit to make progress very early on in order to see this become a reality in our province.

We also address the need for more economic development in this province. Much of it of course is a matter of establishing fairer and better relations between ourselves and the federal government in Ottawa. Certainly it is not only those things that have been talked about a great deal in British Columbia, and so they should be: a fair deal in federal procurements; a fair deal in the letting of contracts; a fair deal in representation on the various federal boards; a fair deal in all of those things that are initiated federally, be it through government or the various boards and commissions, taking into consideration the population of our province and the needs of the province. That certainly is extremely important, but it doesn't end there. While these issues will, I know, be well addressed by the new council that was established after my meeting with the Prime Minister, a council made up of federal and provincial ministers, we must also continue with the federal government to strive for important issues affecting British Columbia, such as free trade.

We are going to continue at every opportunity, at every first ministers' meeting or conference, to push for free trade, knowing full well what it does for our province and what opportunities it offers the people of British Columbia. I appreciate that there are those in other parts of Canada and those who, for political or philosophical reasons, might oppose free trade; but I hope and trust that all members of this House, regardless of whether they sit with the opposition party or on this side, will support free trade for what it will do for British Columbians. We can't be dependent on attempting to sell manufactured products in Ontario, Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. We can't rely on that market in central or eastern Canada. It's a market which tends to look after itself. It's also a market which costs more to reach from western Canada than it does to reach our market from eastern Canada. The freight rates, as they exist today, penalize or really take away the opportunities for us to establish manufacturing here and to tap those markets in central or eastern Canada.

We have to look south, a market ten times the size of Canada, a market which in California alone is the equivalent of the whole of Canada. Unless we get that market freely available to us, we'll not see those factories from elsewhere in the world; we'll not see people here building factories; we'll not see the expansion of existing factories to take advantage of those markets just south of us.

It's a tremendous opportunity. It would be a mistake for us or for any member in this House to go against that, because if we do, if we're not supportive, if we don't stand together, if we don't stand united, we will be denying British Columbians job opportunities. We'll always simply be dependent on those major resource industries, for which we are grateful,

[ Page 177 ]

but which are always so reliant upon whatever the marketplace is elsewhere in the world. If we want to diversify, if we want to provide security of jobs to our people, we need that free-trade opportunity, and we've got to be pushing for it together — all of us. We need it.

We also have a tremendous opportunity and we may need some cooperation federally for this for selling abroad, until the need is developed right in our own province, one resource which is totally renewable and which we have so much of: our hydroelectricity. We have an opportunity to sell this hydroelectricity and perhaps to provide the opportunity of thermal energy so that we can take some of the waste coal or the surplus coal from the Kootenays or in the northeast of our province and utilize it to create the energy for which there is a great demand, especially in the southwest part of the United States.

They need that energy. We have it available, and we should be working toward securing some reasonably long-term contracts in order to make sure that, instead of spilling the water, we try and turn this into revenue which will again provide the necessary moneys in turn to provide the programs that we've heard talked about by all members of the House, programs that are good for British Columbia. We have the opportunity now to really develop that potential, and I intend to pursue it. As a matter of fact, next week I will be meeting with representatives of Soquel, a utility company in southern California, to see if we can't begin those negotiations. If from this resource we can bring revenue to British Columbia, all people regardless of where they live in this province will benefit for a long time to come.

I recently had the opportunity to travel to Europe and to meet with people who are potentially investors or builders or manufacturers in our province, and I am very impressed with the fact, first of all, that there's a great awareness of our beautiful city, Vancouver. Regardless of where you travel in Europe — and I tried it many a time — when asked, "Where are you from?", I tried "Vancouver" before I would mention the name of the province, just to see the results of Expo and all the promotion therefrom. It was wonderful to find that people, regardless of where they were — England, Holland, Germany — knew of Vancouver. They knew it to be a beautiful city, perhaps the world's most beautiful city, as I always say, and they too, I'm sure, not only are greatly intrigued about the city and about the province but are wanting to know more about what opportunities are here. We intend to go out and sell those investment opportunities so that we'll see people from other countries putting their money in British Columbia to create jobs for British Columbians. The opportunities are there.

We are a fortunate province facing the Pacific Rim, and the opportunities in the Pacific Rim are growing daily. We too need to take advantage of not only the investment opportunities but the trading opportunities and the tourist opportunities as they exist with all of those nations on the Pacific Rim. As a government, we intend to pursue this aggressively.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech points to the private sector, and the opportunities for progress, job creation, growth and better social programs all depend on the strength of our private sector. If our businesses, large or small, do well, we all do well.

But for too long, Mr. Speaker, we have overregulated our people. Through regulations we've taken away the incentives, the ambitions, the things that would make people move to see things done. We have regulations which keep people from developing simply because the bureaucracy and all of the rules become such a burden and such a stumbling-block that they can't go ahead and do the things that need doing or begin those new industries that would be such a tremendous asset to our people. We must deregulate. We've got to get away from that stranglehold of government that somehow always it has to be made difficult, while it could be a whole lot simpler.

[5:30]

Mr. Speaker, we've heard a fair bit lately about privatization. And yes, we do believe that government should not be involved in those businesses that can properly or better be dealt with by the private sector. If the private sector can do it — and I'm sure that they can do most things far more efficiently than government can — then we should get out of the way. There are no Crown corporations to speak of here or anywhere else in the country that are really profit-makers for the people. There are very few. The private sector does a better job. We'd better recognize that and not try to simply hang onto all things because we're wanting to be big government. Let's get out of the way and let the private sector do the job they do best.

For the first time in this province, Mr. Speaker, we are establishing a Premier's science research council so that we can bring together all of the best brains, bring together people from wherever to contribute to the opportunities in science and research in British Columbia. I want to tell you, it was really wonderful to go to New York on a trip to meet with the financiers and all the business people and to have it repeated time and time again that the University of British Columbia is the finest institution in North America.

But I've had the good pleasure, and I suppose much of the compliment paid to the University of British Columbia is because that particular community in New York draws from those courses which are so well provided at UBC. Over the past many months I've had the opportunity of meeting fairly regularly with the presidents of each of the universities, and we as members of the Legislature and as British Columbians can all be very proud of all of the universities we have in our province. They're all first-class institutions, and we're going to help them all we can. I've heard it said time and time again by the presidents of those institutions that they want to work with us as well; that together we can build a stronger economy; that they've got a lot to contribute; and that they want to — and should be — a part of that.

Not we, nor anyone here within these buildings, has all of the answers or the best available information as to how we can provide best for greater economic progress in our province. For that reason, we're establishing an economic council which will give us the opportunity to select the best people, those who once more have that broad experience on the outside and are willing to contribute, be they from labour or management. We want them all involved in that economic council. They're going to be a part of it, and they're going to provide us with a lot of information, from labour's viewpoint as well as management's. The economic council will be established very shortly. We intend to create job opportunities through investment, through ensuring that people who want to invest in our province, be they already here, elsewhere in Canada or abroad, have that opportunity and are made to feel welcome to invest in our province. We intend to do that, and it will create many jobs in our province.

I was very pleased to hear again the words of Mr. Georgetti, and he said it a number of times: that labour in the

[ Page 178 ]

province, as well as management, recognized that we must work together — be it labour-government or labour-management or all three — to provide for a best or a better image of the labour or industrial climate in British Columbia. We intend to work towards that end and we're going to call upon them to be involved in that process as well, so we can have good labour stability in our province.

Mr. Speaker, soon further information will definitely be available on silviculture, on community projects and on municipal projects, and how in those areas we can provide more job opportunities for our people, perhaps especially for those that are young, able, capable, willing but now unfortunately in receipt of welfare; to give them that opportunity to be involved, to give them that first start, to give them a chance to be involved in silviculture, in community projects or in municipal projects.

In British Columbia we really ought to, and will be, very actively providing further opportunities in every way we can, and we seek advice from all quarters to encourage more small business. We're grateful for the large- and medium-sized businesses that we find in all parts of the province, but we must strengthen our small business sector — those people who go out and hire 5, 10, 15, 25 or 50 employees; those people who know all their employees by name; those people who go through the plant, who talk to them, who know about their families, who meet them in the shopping centre, the community centre or in church. Those people really have a feel for the people that are working for them.

By assuring that there are further opportunities for small business in our province, we'll provide a far greater degree of job security, as well as security in general, to make certain that we don't have those situations such as we've so often experienced: where one industry goes down in a town and all of a sudden everything's chaos. Let's develop more opportunities for small business in British Columbia.

We also have a lot of people who are perhaps unfortunately unemployed or underemployed today, and we also have a lot of people, possibly single parents or others who are having to go to welfare for help, and if somehow we can take their skills.... Many have those particular or unusual skills or skills that are perhaps not developed or untapped. If we can give them a chance to establish a cottage industry of their own and be self-employed or to manufacture or develop a product that might be marketable in our province or elsewhere, then again we want to give them that opportunity, and that's a further commitment we make. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) will pursue that to the fullest.

The establishment of Vancouver as an international finance centre didn't go quite as far as some of us here or on the outside would like to have seen it go, but it certainly is a great first step. Hopefully this international finance centre for Vancouver will lead to further trade opportunities, not only in the area of finance. And as we continue our negotiations with the federal government for the taking over of the international airport, once again there's a great opportunity for us to use that as a vehicle to create further opportunities, not only in greater Vancouver but elsewhere in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, we want to see the establishment of many new industries, and it's encouraging — though we have a long way to go — to see that last month we had the best improvement of people employed that we've seen in a good while. As a matter of fact, it's probably one of the best figures we've ever seen in our province. The increase has been encouraging, and we want to see this go up, up, up — more people employed — because we know that the suffering from unemployment is something that no one wishes on anyone, not even for a short while. As we develop new industries, new opportunities, more and more of our unemployed will see that job opportunity become available to them.

We need good labour stability. We must change the image of B.C. being a bad place labour-wise. I'm afraid it's more a perception than reality, but we definitely should work on it. I'm pleased to see that both industry and labour will be joining us in that effort. Mr. Speaker, as has been said so many times, we all have a responsibility in this House to do whatever we can to provide for that which will give our province the best image possible, because only in developing that image can we see those job opportunities and those investments come about in B.C.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech has also addressed this whole question of providing increases for social programs. But there has to be an awareness that British Columbians do want to see us in this House address the deficit. We can't have growing deficits. We can't see happening here what we've seen in other parts of the country where the deficit has become almost the equivalent of 50 percent of the actual budget. We must keep the deficit under control, and hopefully soon eliminate that deficit. We are continuing with good social programs and improving upon them all the time. We won't do it by throwing money at the problems. We need to help bring this about through strong leadership.

Less government, better government, freedom for the people and fairness in taxation — it all adds up to confidence. Our throne speech is well balanced. It provides help where help is needed. It proposes a good plan to free up the private sector. It sets forth as one of the priorities a reduction of the deficit. It shows that all of us want to see a diversified economy, an economy where there are more job opportunities, where we are not totally reliant upon the major industries, but where we build new industries, new manufacturing opportunities, new businesses in the service sector, jobs for our people — a good, progressive government that knows the needs of the people and addresses them properly and provides economic opportunity for all British Columbians.

[5:45]

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I put the main motion. The motion is:

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session."

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 44

[ Page 179 ]

NAYS — 19

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, by agreement, tomorrow at 2:30 p.m. we will begin the budget debate. It will be televised — and I might add that the response on Friday from the hon. first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) will be televised as well, beginning at 10:30 on Friday. The House then, when standing adjourned this afternoon, will reconvene at about 2:20 p.m. tomorrow. I'd like to advise the members of the sittings next week, since tomorrow will be a different type of day and not the regular Thursday. The House will sit on Monday; a full day Tuesday; we will stand adjourned Wednesday; a full day Thursday; and a regular Friday sitting, including question period and members' statements. On Tuesday morning — this Tuesday next — the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) will present the interim supply bill, and we will have the pleasure of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor later on that Tuesday afternoon for royal assent.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.