Hansard — Monday, March 21, 1988, Afternoon Sitting — British Columbia Legislative Assembly

MS. CAMPBELL: In the gallery today visiting from Vancouver-Point Grey is a young constituent, Mr. John Boehm. I'd ask the House to please make him welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: From the beautiful Fraser Valley — more precisely, the central Fraser Valley — we have in the gallery today Terry Schellenberg, Louella Schellenberg, Tim Rempel and Flo Rempel. These are people who were instrumental in bringing me to this House. Would the House please make them welcome.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a young man whom I've known very well for 24 years. He's a good friend of mine, and he's also my son. Would the House please welcome Blair Gran.

MR. LOENEN: I'd like to ask the House to join me in congratulating the Richmond Colts. On Saturday they won the B.C. senior boys' high school basketball championship. We're indeed proud of them, because it means that the Colts have won three times in the last four years. It also means that in the last five years a Richmond team has won four times. I'd like to pass on congratulations to the team and to coach Bill Disbrow.

HON. MR. VEITCH: As all hon. members are aware, the Queen's Printer has been an integral part of this chamber. As a matter of fact, when I first came here in 1975-1976, the Queen's Printer had a desk over here in the corner and used to keep track of the votes manually at that time.

At the end of this month, Mr. Howard Britt, director of government printing services, will be taking retirement. I want to bring this matter to the attention of the House today, because the Queen's Printer, as I have said, not only serves government well in all the printing functions it performs but also performs a most necessary service to this House. The Orders of the Day, the Votes and Proceedings, the bills which later become statutes, are a vital part of the Queen's Printer operation.

Close liaison with the Speaker's office, the office of the Clerk of the House and the office of the Deputy Provincial Secretary is most necessary. In recognition of this fact, I am pleased to say that the hon. Speaker has agreed to host a small dinner tonight for Mr. and Mrs. Britt to honour Mr. Britt and to recognize his outstanding contribution to the smooth running operation of this Legislature.

You may be interested to know that Mr. Britt, who spent 44 years in the public service, was sent to the province on loan from the Department of Supply and Services in Ottawa in 1969 to take charge of the branch and has remained here ever since — which says something for east-west transfer. The next nine years at the Queen's Printer saw many changes and innovations which have greatly improved the productivity, efficiency and customer service of the Queen's Printer operation, and this is in no small measure due to Mr. Britt's leadership.

Mr. Britt is in the House today on the floor of the House. His favourite hobbies are gardening and wine-making, and I understand that he is now going to try his hand at golf. I would ask the House to join me in expressing our thanks to Mr. Britt and wishing him and his wife Margaret many years of happy retirement.

MR. ROSE: On behalf of the opposition, I'd like to add my voice of thanks and also best wishes for Mr. Britt's retirement. A record such as 44 years of good and loyal service certainly deserves this kind of recognition, and I can only add that I, too, on behalf of my party, wish him a productive, enjoyable and carefree retirement. Thank you for your work, sir.

MR. REE: Possibly today should be classified as Carson Graham Secondary School Day in Victoria, because we are favoured in the chambers with three groups totalling approximately 150 students from Carson Graham Secondary School. They are under the guidance of their teachers, Mrs. Kathleen Barter, Mr. Rob Karr and Mr. Paul McCormick. I would ask this House to welcome them to Victoria and to this chamber.

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question for the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. The B.C. Supreme Court has ruled three times recently in the Testa, Kolman and Guadagni cases that the commissioners at the Workers' Compensation Board were wrong in law to refuse to implement review board decisions. The commissioners refused to implement review board decisions on average seven times a month in 1987 and ten times a month so far in 1988. Has the minister taken steps to point out to the commissioners their duty to follow the law and pay benefits to all injured workers who are successful at the review board?

HON. L. HANSON: I'm sure that the members of the Workers' Compensation Board are well aware that they are required to obey the law, as all citizens of British Columbia respect that responsibility. You suggested that there were a number of turndowns of review board decisions in 1987. I'd like to put that in perspective.

There were about 5,000 decisions made by the review board in 1987, of which 84 were not instituted in the total year. That's something like 1.5 percent or 1.75 percent.

The latest decision was not that the Workers' Compensation did not have the right to overturn a decision, but that the review board decision had to be implemented as soon as its decision came out, and then the commissioners had the ability to review that decision. That is in place now. The Workers' Compensation Board has not made a decision as yet whether they will appeal the decision of the court.

I'd also like to point out to the member opposite that we are announcing very shortly — it has been announced earlier, but not the specifics — that an advisory body is being formed representative of those people most involved in the workers' compensation system: labour and management. Things like this will be some of the subjects they will discuss in a broad sense to best have the input from the employees and the employers to the Workers' Compensation commissioners.

MR. GABELMANN: I find it astounding that the minister would justify breaking the law because it happened only 84 times in 1987.

Second question, Mr. Speaker. Vic Stusiak was recently appointed to the board and withdrew for both personal and political reasons, the political reason being that his appointment was controversial. The controversy arose because neither the Business Council nor the B.C. Federation of Labour was consulted about the recent appointments. Is it now the government's policy to consult with the parties of interest before making appointments to the Workers' Compensation Board?

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, I disagree with the contention of the member opposite that Mr. Stusiak's resignation from the board had a political connotation to it. Mr. Stusiak had some difficulties personally and asked to be withdrawn.

Secondly, I believe that we as government have a responsibility to communicate in most appointments, and we do that. There were accusations that the decision to appoint a member to the Workers' Compensation Board was not communicated as well as it should have been, but I don't really find that those accusations have total grounding in fact. And yes, wherever it is important and necessary, wherever it will have a beneficial effect, consultation will go on.

MR. GABELMANN: Is it necessary and important for future appointments to the commissioners that those consultations do in fact. take place prior to the appointments?

HON. L. HANSON: The member for North Island is referring to the understanding that there would be equal labour and management representation on the Workers' Compensation Board, and I believe that to be the case. We will consult as we feel it is appropriate.

MR. GABELMANN: Third question. Just about everybody in British Columbia thinks the WCB is a disaster area. Has the government, in the interests of making a fresh start, decided to remove Jim Nielsen and his colleagues and to appoint as commissioners people who are broadly acceptable to both labour and management?

HON. L. HANSON: I have to contest the statement that most British Columbians are upset with the Workers' Compensation Board. If you look at the record of the Workers' Compensation Board as it relates to other jurisdictions in Canada, I think it's a pretty good system. We don't have any intention of calling for Mr. Nielsen's resignation.

MR. GABELMANN: Final question. In the interests of making this fresh start in the WCB, has the minister decided to convene at the earliest possible date a conference of representatives of all interested parties to consider the system of workers' compensation in B.C., as recommended by the ombudsman in July of last year?

HON. L. HANSON: That, of course, is future policy. The member opposite is quite aware of the report that was done on the advisory committee that I hope to have in place by the end of this month. It's certainly my belief and the belief of members of my caucus that that will serve the purpose of reviewing the Workers' Compensation Board.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, could the Premier advise the House why he recommended the appointment of David Poole to the board of the Enterprise Corporation?

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the Premier aware, Mr. Speaker, that the former Premier, Mr. Bennett, had two senior people in his office: one who was a political person and another who dealt with the bureaucracy? This Premier has them all in one person. Is he not concerned about the potential conflict in terms of political interference in the activities of the Enterprise Corporation, which lends hundreds of millions of dollars?

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the Premier aware that the predecessor of the Enterprise Corporation lost $500 million through bad loans? Does he want his political operative associated with that kind of activity?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We've moved away from the loan portfolio, and the emphasis will not be there.

MR. WILLIAMS: Assets of $700 million or more are going to be sold off by the Enterprise Corporation. Does the Premier find it acceptable that his political person in his office should sit at the table directing the fire sale of these hundreds of millions of provincial assets?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There's an excellent process in place, and we're following the process which was established and appears to be working very well.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Audain, the head of Polygon Properties, indicated that the province would lose tens of millions of dollars by the process you are undertaking in selling off those assets, as has Mr. Brian Calder, both of them outstanding realtors in greater Vancouver. Have you reconsidered with respect to that fire sale?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it's not a fire sale. Proper evaluations are done by people expert in the business. Obviously one could follow an approach of piece-mealing it or selling it little by little or, alternatively, take and sell the bigger chunks. We've decided to take the latter approach, and I believe it will serve the people of B.C. well.

MR. ROSE: My question is to the Minister of Health, and I'll try to be objective about this matter. I don't want to be alarmist either, but I would like to ask if the minister can confirm that all kinds of problems, including an increase in violent crimes, are resulting from the government's deinstitutionalization at Riverview?

HON. MR. DUECK: We've done a consultative report on deinstitutionalizing or downsizing of Riverview. That

report has not yet been approved by cabinet, and so the process has not yet begun. We hope to have that report before cabinet within the next few months, and at that point in time we will then decide to go ahead with it or to stay as we are.

MR. ROSE: Supplementary. Can the minister confirm that there has been an increase in staff injuries in handling these patients since the downsizing, due to early retirement and less experienced staff?

HON. MR. DUECK: I am certainly not aware that there has been an increase in injury to staff. I know there are a number of people taking early retirement, and just this morning I instructed my senior staff to be sure that we do not have a shortage of senior staff, or any staff, for that matter, because of the early retirement.

MR. ROSE: Supplementary. Does the minister not agree that non-institutional placement for the mentally ill patients creates far more problems of community safety and patient security than have placements for the mentally handicapped? I'd like to make a distinction between those two groups. Does he intend to change his policy, or at least proceed more cautiously at Riverview?

HON. MR. DUECK: I would certainly hope that we're proceeding cautiously. I would certainly not be in favour of anyone going ahead and not being cautious. We have, I think, roughly 1,900 mentally ill people in the province in various facilities — some of the larger ones, but smaller than Riverview — and thus far there have been very few incidents. I believe people who are mentally ill, who are assessed as functioning well in the community, should be given that opportunity the same as anyone else. When I open the paper in the morning and look at the crimes committed around the province, most of the time they're committed by so-called sane people. So when an incident occurs.... I want to be kind when I say this, because I know of the last incident, which I think we all feel very sorry for, but we're doing everything we can to see that this will not happen again.

MR. JONES: I have a question for the Premier regarding the family life program in B.C. schools. Given the fact that the program has been well received by most school districts in British Columbia and that the existing program can be adjusted to meet local community standards, would the Premier explain why he feels it necessary, based on his own personal views, to order revision of that excellent program?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I hadn't heard that the Premier had ordered a revision of the program.

MR. JONES: It has been reported in the press that if the program is teaching that homosexuality is normal, then corrections have to be made. To me, that's a revision and a call by the Premier for a revision. Can the Premier explain why he feels that revision is necessary? What's wrong with the existing program that has been accepted by school districts throughout this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, that appears to be a little more accurate, Mr. Speaker. I gather that what the member is saying is that there was some comment made with respect to a review, if need be, and changes, if required. Frankly, I've had the beginnings of that, in discussing it with the minister, and we'll be discussing in more detail the exception apparently expressed by at least one school district with respect to one aspect of the family life program.

Whenever we have a group of citizens, regardless of where they are — whether they're in a school district in the north or south or wherever in the province — if they have a concern, I don't think we should, because of our own particular hang-ups on a particular issue, such as obviously exists with some of the members opposite, simply say: "No, we won't listen." I'm saying that if people have a valid concern, the least we can do is say: "What is your concern? Can we look at it? We're obviously prepared to see what it is and why you have this concern." That's really what we're talking about, and we're not so dogmatically tied in and so hung up as obviously some members are with respect to this question. We're prepared to look at it if need be.

MRS. GRAN: It is my pleasure and privilege today to rise to speak to the throne speech.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the time that I worked with you and with the Deputy Speaker, the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton). I would like to thank both of you for the assistance that was always offered, and I would like to thank the Premier for giving me that position in the first place. It was a wonderful learning experience, and I think it's an experience that every member in this House should have — sitting in the chair. It gives you a completely different perspective of the House.

I would also like to congratulate the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) on his appointment as Deputy Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and wish him well, and perhaps give him a little advice: you can't say "Good stuff!" from the chair.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) for all his help in the past 18 months, for his support even when I've not been sure whether he really supported my ideas, I thank him for being a compatible partner and for helping me, together, to look after the concerns of our mutual constituents.

The throne speech, in my view, points out very clearly that individual responsibility and accountability must be brought back to this province and to this country. I myself firmly believe that. We are all in charge of our own lives and we all make our own choices. There are many among us who have problems and difficulties in being able to make their own choices, but I believe that most of us choose to make our own choices and that socializing the world is not the answer to our problems.

I want also to congratulate the government on the commitment to eliminating the deficit. I think all would agree that

there is nothing more burdensome in this world than countries that owe debts they know they will never be able to repay. This government's commitment to eliminating the deficit is commendable, and I support it 100 percent.

I'd like to speak a little about the ten-year plan that the Premier and the government are doing for our province: another commendable action. As chairman of a special committee of government MLAs and ministers, I am proud to say, working with the private sector, the Premier's Economic Advisory Council, that that plan will have the input of the public, of the public service and of the politicians, and will be a guide for the next ten years, as we face many difficult problems in our society and in our economy.

There has been some criticism in the press of statements in the throne speech regarding the federal government. I would like to take this opportunity to talk about two instances in my own riding of Langley where those statements become very valid. The first one is South Moresby Park, which we have not been compensated for yet. The loss of logging on Lyell Island has been very hurtful to the forestry industry. In my riding there is a company called McDonald Cedar, a division of Whonnock Industries. The loss of Lyell Island was a very heavy blow for that company. I recently toured McDonald Cedar, which is the largest private sector employer in Langley. The mill is located on the Fraser River in Fort Langley. Each year McDonald Cedar produces approximately 50 million board feet of western red cedar. The mill is now using new technology to increase efficiency and to create more, not less, jobs for the people of Langley. The forestry industry has an untapped potential for new economic growth for British Columbia; I merely point out that decisions made by the federal government do have direct effects on people, and valid criticism is due the federal government.

The second item is Fort Langley. Fort Langley is, in my view — and in the view of many others — probably the most historic spot in British Columbia, yet it has been consistently ignored by the federal government. While millions and millions of dollars have gone to other parks in Canada, Fort Langley has received nothing but empty promises. So I say that the press coverage of criticisms of Ottawa is bunk. Ottawa deserves to be criticized.

I'd like to go on and talk a little bit about women and children. The issues we have been dealing with as a government and as a society have pointed out very clearly that there is a great deal of misunderstanding where women are concerned. I was extremely happy to see so many of those issues addressed in the throne speech. The throne speech promises more money for day care. I must tell you that day care is lacking in this province. Although this government, with two throne speeches, has given more money, more money is still needed. New ways to look after our children must be found. Our children are our future, and I thank the government for including day care in the throne speech.

The mention of improved social services to those in need also pleases me. A lot of those people in need are women who through no fault of their own are left with children to raise without the skills to get a job that pays a decent salary. They are left to live on social assistance. I thank the government once again for addressing those needs.

I also recognize in the throne speech assistance for women facing unwanted pregnancies. I think this issue is better understood now than it ever has been at any time, in my lifetime at least. I think we owe the Premier of this province a debt of gratitude for bringing this subject to the front, for forcing us to discuss it as a society. We may not all agree on how it should be handled, but for sure we've all got an opinion on it, and we've all dealt with it in our minds.

I'm also happy to see more flexible adoption procedures mentioned in the throne speech. I've talked to many adopted people who spend a lot of their lives searching for their natural parents. As a human race I think we have to understand that adoption procedures that don't allow enough flexibility for parents and children in later life to find one another aren't worth having. I thank the government for recognizing that.

As an elected member I will only be happy and feel I have accomplished something in my position if I can say that we have recognized that women and children need our help to help them help themselves.

I'd like to talk a little bit about education at this point. Just about everything that we deal with in life stems from education. Never in our society has it been more important or more misunderstood. The throne speech promotes excellence in grade schools, colleges and universities, but those institutions must be updated. There are new ways of learning, and I fear that our institutions are not up to date.

At the Vancouver Learning Centre, the president, Dr. Geraldine Schwartz, who is a psychologist, author and scientist, teaches people of all ages how to learn. That may sound very simple, but there are many people in this room, in this city and in this province who have never learned how to learn. We do not teach our children in school how to learn. Dr. Schwartz has made that commitment for her life: to teach people from ages 6 to 76 how to learn.

Dr. Schwartz believes, as I do, that Canada is one of the most exciting countries of the world, and that we are on the edge of a future beyond our own imagination. New technologies of the mind must be introduced throughout the education system at all levels. The public and private sectors must also be ready for the new age. The minds of the twenty-first century leaders will need to be nourished, created, educated and tutored in unprecedented ways. I can't emphasize enough how we must all recognize that the old ways of learning must change if we are to keep up with the rest of the world we live in.

I would be remiss if I didn't spend some time talking about seniors. In particular, I'd like to talk about how we waste valuable knowledge when we retire our seniors at age 65. Today's longevity provides for more than 65 productive years in this society. The brain doesn't stop functioning at age 65; in fact, it just gets started.

I'd like to talk about two people who are excellent examples of what you can do in your golden years. The first one is Rita Levi-Montalcini, who shared the 1986 Nobel Prize for Medicine. She is 78 years of age. When asked if there was any reason why a healthy person at any age shouldn't continue in science or any other field, she replied: "My brain has not deteriorated, as far as I know, so why should I not use my brain as I use my hand? My eyes are also very good. As long as I have these advantages, why shouldn't I work?" I commend that lady. We should all strive to use our brains for as long as we are able and to contribute for as long as we are able.

My second example is the chairman of Borden Inc. — the dairy business that good old Elsie the Cow made famous. A 63-year-old creative thinking man has been at the helm of that company for two years. Borden's will close 1987 with a 30

percent revenue increase over 1986, and a jump of 20 percent in estimated earnings. The potential is real, and the future is unlimited. 1 say let's keep our seniors working as long as they want to, and as long as they are able.

I think that one of the things we have the most difficulty with, as a society and especially as politicians, is change. No one likes change. It's natural to reject change, but change we must. This government has introduced more change in the last 18 months than any government in the history of this province. I'd like to talk about one of the changes and give you an example of how the first reaction is negative but the end result is positive, and that's regionalization.

My example is in my own constituency, and it's the Langley School Board. A couple of years ago they decided to decentralize their budget. Each principal receives the money that is needed to run his school, and he puts in his own particular budget. Those principals were terrified and upset, but today they understand the budgeting process. Most of them save money on their budgets and buy buses to transport students to sporting events. I think there's a lesson for the provincial government in this one. Instead of losing the money that they saved, they're allowed to keep it and use it for something special, and I think that that is missing in the provincial system and well worth looking at. I would hope that the Minister of Education would do that.

So you see, you can change, and it can be positive, and it is positive. And the rest of British Columbia deserves as much opportunity as the lower mainland. In fact, I understand there is a great deal of life beyond the lower mainland — and of a much higher quality in some cases. So I compliment the government on the regionalization program, and I urge the opposition members to participate so that when the next election comes along you can say: "I was part of that process."

Finally, Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech is the mention of enhancing the viability of the horse-breeding and racing industry in this province. I may be biased, but of the 700 thoroughbred breeders in British Columbia, over 300 reside in Langley. That's quite an industry — and I see by many faces around this room that there are a lot of racing enthusiasts and perhaps even thoroughbred breeders in the room. I wonder how many people think about the spinoffs from the horse-breeding industry. Millions and millions of dollars are spent on feed, on veterinary services. Most horse-breeding operations exist on marginal farmlands. As we all know, the Fraser Valley contains 85 percent of it, in the land freeze, and so the horse-breeding industry is extremely important to the economy of the Fraser Valley and in particular of Langley. I would like to commend the government for its actions.

The B.C. thoroughbred breeders are capable and have the desire to breed for an extensive export market but have not had the essential proving ground, a one-mile track. It is my hope that in the next year we will see an acceptable proposal for a new one-mile racetrack outside of the city of Vancouver.

MRS. GRAN: Someone says: "Colony Farm?" I don't know. I'm just saying I hope that in the very near future we have a new racing facility for the breeding industry in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to end my comments by thanking all the members of this House for their cooperation and their friendship over the last year, and I look forward to this session being lively but cordial.

MR. WILLIAMS: How can one follow that speech from the hon. first member for Langley? She plans on stealing the most attractive racetrack in the province; but we'll deal with that another time.

I'd like to talk about the way this Premier does public business in British Columbia, I'd like to talk a little bit about the Energy ministry and what came out of the throne speech in terms of that, a little bit about some aspects of the Enterprise Corporation and the latest appointment to that corporation. I'd like to talk a little bit about the Premier's travels in Europe with the director of the Krupp corporation, and a little bit about the conflicts of interest that the Premier always seems to turn a blind eye toward.

We were really given only one line or so in the throne speech. I think we have to look at these throne speeches now in terms of what they don't say as much as for what they do say. As a member who has been here for some time, I might say that I find myself somewhat offended by the words this administration consistently puts into the mouth of the representative of the Queen. They said this: "To encourage industry participation in the management and development of British Columbia's mineral, petroleum and natural gas resources, my government will investigate the establishment of joint venture operating boards." It seems quiet and innocuous, but it's an extension of the kind of radical "public be damned" program that we get day in and day out from this Premier and this administration. What he's talking about there is the privatizing of the powers of government itself in the form of the mining industry and government taking over the civil service of the mines and energy department, of its being put in the joint hands of these two groups.

You get the impression from the throne speech that they're really going to think this over. that there would be a public dialogue and all the rest of it. But no, that was not to be the case. A day or so later there was a private meeting in the Newcombe Auditorium, with 300 employees from that ministry simply being told: "You're going to be part of some new agency that will be funded jointly by government and by the mining and the petroleum people." This is a $24 million chunk of government in British Columbia that is being privatized. It's the fox and the chickens getting together to run the public sector; it's $3 million in administration. $1 million in executive management, $6 million in energy resources, $10 million in mineral resources and $4 million in petroleum resources in terms of our civil service staff that will be privatized by the actions of this Premier. There was no dialogue, no discussion with the staff. Nevertheless, all the details are spelled out in lengthy reports that have already been printed which the staff have not been advised of.

Who was the deputy in this case? Mr. Plecas, the fixer throughout the whole restraint era, was plugged in there to get rid of a department. Who prepared the report that set up this system for destroying public government in British Columbia? The consultant was one Mr. Ed Northup, an assistant deputy minister for many years in Human Resources. My experience is that the Human Resources ministry has been historically the worst managed ministry in the province at the top level — not at the field level, but at the top level. Mr. Northup was one of the main players. He now goes on to his just reward of higher consulting fees and preparing the plan to gut this ministry. That has been the case.

Throughout all this, this Premier has the idea that what's good for Noranda is good for the people, that what's good for General Bullmoose is good for the people. It is a blind-sided view of conflict of interest that continually dominates his thinking. He has no understanding of what human capital is. When we had a small debate here in the fall sitting, I dealt with this question of human capital and civil servants: what their experience, know-how and training is worth if you keep them on. It was a naive kind of man who sat there in the chair. It was clearly a new idea to him that there could be such a thing as human capital, a kind of collective wisdom built up over the years by people working together. All of that is going to be gone as this process carries on. It's part of this blind-sided view in terms of conflict of interest that dominates his decision-making again and again.

My colleague from Vancouver East dealt with part of that the other day on the question of Fantasy Gardens, of the Terra Nova lands in Richmond and so on. My colleague from Nanaimo dealt with the question of conflict of interest even when it comes down to such basic things as automobile testing, where the guy who does the testing has an interest in repairing your automobile. But this Premier and this administration don't seem to understand the conflict-of-interest question. It's there again and again.

Now we've got the case of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. Let's think about the predecessor of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation — the B.C. Development Corporation. A year ago, the predecessor was written off in terms of its huge debts and bad loans to the tune of $500 million. That's an abysmal record by any standard. Now that is replaced by the new corporation — the energy corporation — nominally under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Economic Development, the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). We know there's been a kind of minor war going on between the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development, and she is clearly slated for an ouster; there's no doubt about that. Somehow he's threatened by that other aspect of feminist strength in his cabinet.

Let's get on to that in a minute. He just recently appointed Mr. David Poole to one of the jobs as director of that corporation — clearly his man on the board. As I mentioned earlier in question period, the last Premier, Mr. Bennett, recognized the problems of conflict, and he appointed two people to his senior level staff in his office. One was Dr. Norman Spector, who was the chief bureaucrat, if you will, dealing with government generally. The other was his political fixer, Mr. Smith, who currently is the second member for Kamloops. So he saw that there was clearly a difference in these roles.

This Premier again has a blind eye on these conflict questions. It's one thing to be a senior bureaucrat and deputy minister under the British system; it's something else to be the principal secretary, or your main political hit-man. You can't marry the two, Mr. Premier. Surely you know that; surely you understand that. You can't, because what's good for politics and the Social Credit Party and the friends of the Social Credit Party may very well indeed not be what's good for the people of British Columbia or the management of the public's business. They are two very different things indeed.

So this employee takes his orders from the Premier — a Premier who's a very political Premier, There have been a lot of rumours about the Premier phoning that board and telling them that he'd like things to go a certain way.

But let's understand, Mr. Premier, this.... You've already authorized $325 million in borrowings for the B.C. Enterprise Corporation by order-in-council. They have that authority now, and now you have your political man sitting on that board. That is not acceptable in the modem democratic state, Mr. Premier; it's simply not acceptable. Now you're entertaining the selling of the best land in the city of Victoria — the Songhees reserve. You're entertaining the sale of the best land in the city of Vancouver — the B.C. Place lands, miles and miles of downtown shoreline. Your political man will be sitting on the board and pushing them to make the decisions you want made. That is not acceptable. Three hundred million in loans out there that you want to sell, in addition to $400 million in lands, and your political man is sitting on the board and, I'm sure, doing as he's told. That is not acceptable. You don't understand what is improper, Mr. Premier. You don't understand that people like this should not be in those roles, Mr. Premier.

MR. WILLIAMS: I hope that the Premier will join in this debate, because I plan on moving an amendment talking about the way he does business. It's not acceptable, and I'd like you to join in that debate, Mr. Premier.

Mr. Audain from Polygon Properties says that what you're doing in the energy corporation is all wrong; Mr. Calder, with one of the major national companies, says that what you're doing is all wrong. They basically say you're going to lose money, that the Crown will suffer because we won't get what those lands are worth. Are you going to tell your man on the board not to sell to one big company, to a Monopoly game player like Li Ka-shing from Hong Kong? Are you going to tell him that he should vote for your player, Peter Toigo, a longtime political supporter, or are you going to tell him to vote for Bell Canada — the primary players? Come on! That's no way to do it.

Clearly there should be pluralistic ownership of these lands. Clearly there should be opportunities for small business, and there won't be under the kind of game you set up and with your man on that board. Those opportunities will be gone for the independent British Columbia players.

There are 650 hectares on the Westwood Plateau in Coquitlam. I'd like you to hang in, because I'd like you to explain your association with the Krupp empire in Europe on your trip.

MR. WILLIAMS: You can laugh all you like. Was he not with you in Europe, Mr. Premier, the representative of Krupp? No? Is the picture of you from B.C. House in London with Mr. Ekhard Freiherr von Maltzahn, director of Friedrich Krupp, simply not so?

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh! Was the note in a column in the Vancouver Sun not correct — through you, Mr. Speaker — that indicated that you were indeed traveling with or being introduced by this representative of Krupp in Europe? Is this not true?

Just to deal with the Enterprise Corporation before we leave that, Mr. Premier, I'm sure that the municipality of Coquitlam, with respect to those 650 hectares, would like to embark on some involvement of the municipality in its development, not having to deal with Li Ka-shing or any of the other major buyers that there might be waiting in the wings or foreign companies that would end up owning it. Are you prepared to entertain municipal proposals when these lands are in those municipalities? That's what should happen. If you really believe in individual enterprise in this province, you would be providing opportunities in British Columbia for entrepreneurs in British Columbia.

I would note, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to lands already sold by the Enterprise Corporation, I intend to show in the coming budget debate how funds were indeed lost even by the scale of sales that this government entertained under the Development Corporation and the Enterprise Corporation to date, parcels that are far smaller than they plan on selling now to one single buyer. The data is in. It's clear that it has cost the government a bundle, but we'll deal with that in the budget debate.

When you get down to the question of what's going to happen to these ministries, it seems clear. There's going to be a gutting of the ministries under this administration. I suggest that the next one's going to be Economic Development. The signals are all there. The first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain has clearly been too strong a player around these halls, and she's going to go. Right now the signals are all there. The deputy minister — there isn't one; there's only an acting deputy minister, and there's going to be an acting minister before long too. After all, her job has been handed to the graduate of our greatest universities, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch), who is the super mayor for the lower mainland region. it’s a reward for his great abilities, there's no doubt about that.

What's next after that, Mr. Speaker? Why, probably Human Resources. There's a one-line reference in the speech: "My government will reorganize the delivery of income assistance and social programs in the coming years." It's the one-liners you have to worry about in this speech.

There are clearly going to be fewer cabinet ministers around — because who needs them when you run it all out of the Premier's office?

The private sector is clearly worried about the flakiness of this administration. Make no bones about it; there's a flakiness around here like we have never seen before. So that's why the private sector said: "How about a ten-year plan? Because we never know where the goalposts are with this guy and with this operation." So that's all understandable.

I did raise this question of the Premier meeting with the director of the Krupp corporation in Europe. He has decided that he will not attend at this point. But I would note that the B.C. House newsletter of February 1988 has a picture on the front cover that shows the Premier with Mr. Gardom, who's our director of B.C. House. It was a meeting of the Premier's Economic Advisory Council, and it included Ekhard Freiherr von Maltzahn, a director of Friedrich Krupp GrnbH, and also, interestingly, the representative of the Swiss Bank Corporation International.

Well, I don't know. I found the idea of our Premier in British Columbia meeting with the director of the Krupp company offensive. I may be young and naive — I was just a kid during the Second World War — but the Krupp name is one that I, as a result of my understanding of those days, would never, ever again want to be associated with. The Krupp corporation were the merchants of death in the Second World War. The Krupp corporation were the manufacturers of armaments for Nazi Germany. The Krupp corporation and others were financiers for the Nazi Party in the 1930s. That is the background of the Krupp corporation, and I can't ever forget that, as a Canadian. I'm sure there are countless other Canadians of my age and older who can never forget it either.

We were told by a leading columnist that the guide for his tour of business concerns in Europe was indeed this man from Krupp, Mr. von Maltzahn. The Premier can answer to that. It appears that the meetings took place, and so on. But you know, this is a company that was convicted as a war criminal in the Nuremberg trials. They were advised, as a result of those trials, that 75 percent of the corporation should be sold off so that this monster should never rise again. But as time wore on, it turned out that that didn't happen at all, and the company remained intact.

I find it disturbing that the Premier should travel with these people in Europe — as the Premier of British Columbia. It's one thing, in terms of his private business interests, if he wants to associate with these people, but I find it extremely offensive that he should have associated himself with this company. I find it offensive that representatives of this company, as well, should be on our Economic Advisory Council in British Columbia, in terms of how we build a modem British Columbia.

It doesn't add up, but it's part of that blind side of the Premier. There's a blind side that doesn't see these things that

are incredibly offensive to most people. Oh yes, you can shake your head. He talked about the Holocaust in his offensive speech on the question of choice and abortion. Anybody who speaks about the Holocaust knowingly would certainly have trouble with this relationship.

So there's going to be an economic plan, and one of the people who is going to work on how that plan is going to be developed will be this representative of this corporation from Germany. That's extraordinary. But taking the clue from industry, which has been concerned about irrational decisionmaking in the Premier's office, this government of the Premier's accepted the idea of a ten-year plan, so that there might be some consistent pattern. Well, lots of luck.

If you were going to prepare an economic plan for the province of British Columbia, who might you hire to do it? Who, indeed? Well, you might go to our universities. We have departments of economics at all three universities, with eminent people. Would you ask them to carry out the actual staff work? No, apparently not. Who we have doing that work for us is a television reporter. We're told in the Speech from the Throne that there's going to be a draft in August, and it's all going to be complete within a year. Well, that strikes me as quite demanding, Mr. Speaker, and quite a challenge for that former television reporter.

MR. WILLIAMS: South African investment indeed which many people found offensive, again in terms of the Premier's attitude with regard to their representative when he was here in Victoria. But indeed the Krupp company carries on and has many economic activities in Africa as well.

What we got from the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, was essentially a fog of fed-bashing that was covering an approach that is consistently there: there's going to be dramatic change in the nature of this province, a dramatic change for the worse in terms of income levels and wages for workers and privatization. We were not advised that there were going to be any changes in terms of that foot on the accelerator; we were not advised in that regard at all.

So, Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the Premier would continue, in terms of this debate, because it's my intent to move an amendment to the Speech from the Throne that deals partly with the questionable way this man does business in British Columbia and the way he does not see the issues as clearly as most citizens in the province do, with the fact that he does not see conflicts of interest where they obviously are, and with the fact that the provincial economy is captive to his kind of inconsistent pattern.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am moving that the motion "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," be amended by adding the following: "But this House regrets that the throne speech contained no new initiatives for economic development. Rather, it represents a continuation of reactionary and discredited economic policies and ideological dogma which have caused uncertainty and instability instead of setting out new directions to benefit British Columbians."

MR. ROSE: It should be pointed out that I am seconding the amendment but not speaking to it at this time.

MR. BARNES: I guess because of a technicality I will not be seconding the motion. However, I will be speaking to the spirit of the motion, as intended by the first member for Vancouver East, who, I believe, very forcefully expressed the concern of all of us on this side of the House: regret that the throne speech failed to take seriously the conditions in the Legislature and in the province that we've all been desperately attempting to bring to the House's attention.

I would just say that it's rather significant, in fact, to reflect on that day when we sat here and the throne speech was being presented by His Honour. I believe that it was perhaps even too much for His Honour to take, because I cannot recall any time in the past when a page of the throne speech was accidentally overlooked by His Honour. Perhaps it says something, though, Mr. Speaker, in terms of this government's karma, shall we say, and the way things have been going, because it was definitely a document of vitriol and rhetoric. Just about all of us have expressed our disbelief in this shift from traditional protocol in non-partisan documents coming before the Legislature to give us an opportunity to express our varied concerns constituency by constituency; for the government to take an overview, at least in presenting a philosophic statement that would indicate its concerns, of whether it was in a position to address all of those concerns, at least to afford to do so at any particular point in time, at least recognizing those concerns....

So the document in effect failed to achieve that level of cooperation or understanding, as far as I'm concerned — and, I believe, the members on this side of the House as well. To call it an ideological reactionary document is certainly an understatement. The document was somewhat flagrant in its arrogance and lack of sincerity. In other words, it wasn't a very convincing statement.

Like the first member for Vancouver East, I have sat in this House for some years. The thing that should be happening when we have throne speeches is for all of us to have an opportunity to really take a look at the things that concern us, rather than using a psychology that attempts to divide the province. This should be a time for rallying and coming together. But what we had was a series of statements basically suggesting that one part of the province was more important than the other. We heard, time and time again, the government's reference to the private sector being in support of its initiatives, particularly with the government's agenda of privatizing services and resources. You must recall that the opposition leader attempted to suggest that we were all together in this — public and private. It's a rather offensive statement to be in a document that is a non-partisan document, suggesting that the private sector is more important than the public sector. As we know, the government has demonstrated its disdain for public employees by its agenda of removing many of them from employment and placing them at jeopardy and great risk, despite their many years of service, to the highest bidder, which, as we know, has its surprises. The most notable was, of course, the decision to remove automobile testing from the public domain to the private sector. Now the government, although not coming back entirely, has certainly realized that the lack of proper maintenance of vehicles is causing accidents and is costing us

more money. ICBC rates, as a result, are going up. There are more at-risk situations as a result of that short-sighted initiative.

1 want to spend some time talking about a matter that I believe is probably the only issue, when you get right down to it, that we can get enthusiastic about, and that concerns the situation with young people today. We can talk and we can politic and do all kinds of things, but ultimately we have to look to tomorrow. We have a responsibility to look after today, but it's tomorrow that our young people have to be concerned about. I think that's the issue this afternoon, as far as I'm concerned, that I would like to talk to you about.

First, let me just tell you the reason I raise this as an issue in terms of the future. Last week when the Leader of the Opposition was advising the House that my wife Janet and I were recently proud grandparents, 1 had a quick flash. Although I've always felt some responsibility for trying to look after the problems of today, the world as it is today, it suggested to me that tomorrow is also a challenge for all of us; that that is the abstraction of it all that a grandchild can stimulate in one's thinking. I suppose, when you think of it that way, it has relevance to everyone in this House, because we are all at least grandchildren, even though we may not become grandparents. Somehow there is a significant factor there, in terms of how we handle our affairs.

As you know, over the years I have attempted in this House to profile issues respecting young people, sometimes with success and sometimes with not so much success, depending on the nature of what it was I was trying to present. What better time than now for this government to demonstrate its commitment to tomorrow.

I have difficulty when the government suggests that it can't afford to do something about the young people on the streets today, do something about the high number of dropouts, for instance, in the public school system, the amount of unemployability, the level of illiteracy with respect to young people — not only in secondary school; even post-secondary students are having difficulty, are functionally illiterate or very close to it. These are large numbers we're talking about — 14 and 15 percent unemployment among people who are 25 to 30 years of age. Certainly it reaches much higher when it comes to teenagers, not to mention the incredibly high amount of unemployment among native youth. Just up-Island in the Cowichan Valley there is a tribe which has something like 80 percent unemployment among young people and, in fact, among the population generally.

Why is it that we are not addressing those issues? This is the thing about these throne speeches. They should be inspiring. We should be addressing the real problems that face us all, not the abstract kind of jargon that we're getting. The government is talking about the economy never being better. Well, the economy may never have been better, but the provincial debt is rising. In fact, the provincial debt is ravaging. You've heard these figures before, but since 1975 the debt has gone from less than $5 billion. including Crown corporations — and the consolidated revenue balance sheet wasn't what it should be — to something like $20 billion in 1988, give or take a billion or two. And it's still rising, as the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) was just pointing out — sell-offs, giveaways, situations like the Coquihalla Highway project, which expended so much money the government was totally without authority to spend that money through debate in the Legislature.

We've all gone after those issues over the months and years. They're not new. What would be new — what isn't new, and this is why I'm supporting this amendment — would be the government's resolve to say, despite all these problems and all our human failings and the machinations and the antics of the Premier and his cabinet members.... One thing is clear. We all have children, and we've said time and time again.... Although it's a clichéé nowadays, we talk about youth being our most valuable resource, that we are bound and obligated to do something for our young people. That type of commitment would be the thing I'd like to hear in this House. There's no reason why we can’t.

The real picture out there with young people is scandalous; it's frightening and desperate. I'm sure that every member in this Legislature could probably point to examples in every constituency of what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter whether you're in the downtown inner city or out in the boondocks — any place in this province. You're going to find neglected youth.

In fact, there was an example of this in West Vancouver. Denny Boyd wrote a column quite recently in which he described a situation so desperate that people with children couldn't afford to live in West Van in the first place because of the high rents; all you had over there were wealthy retired people with no children, and it was a bit of an unhealthy situation in that community. They've got to import children. The next thing you know, they'll be busing children to West Vancouver in order to get some semblance of a normal, healthy environment.

But the youth are left to fend for themselves, and this is a tragedy. The youth are endowed with a lot of survival instincts, and we all know that, because as youths ourselves, despite all the good advice and the strategies and opportunities placed before us, we still had to exercise our right to take our chances. So it's always a case of experimentation in growing up. It's always the case, in the final analysis, of motivation, a person's values, the type of support they have, role models, and a number of other factors which affect how a youngster will develop in society.

I'm not suggesting that this Legislature can lay that out to a T — in other words, set out a format to ensure that every single youngster in our society is going to achieve his maximum potential which — incidentally, is another point raised in this throne speech. The government suggested that it wanted to have an effective education system that would permit each youngster, Mr. House Leader.... The government in its throne speech was suggesting that each youngster have an opportunity to reach his maximum potential. Right?

MR. BARNES: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons this motion is put forward is that that is rhetoric. That is not, in fact, the case.

I have a sheet, which I will refer to in a second, indicating the number of suicides among young people, the number of young people who are becoming pregnant, without sufficient education and understanding, who are at risk, who are going to become new members of the social assistance rolls, who are going to be single parents, and who are predictably going to have a great deal of difficulty making it through life — many of them struggling to get an education with great difficulty and at great odds.

To get back to the government's initiatives, the government’s responsibility, the kinds of strategies it is putting in place, let's deal with the most obvious situation. One of the most tragic things that always alarms me is young people selling their bodies, and young people who have abandoned their desire to live at home for whatever reason, because the parents are unemployed or have stresses in their lives like abusing alcohol or engaging in a number of other activities that they feel are more of a priority than looking after their children and providing a home.

Where is the government? Where was the government when the city of Vancouver, through the school board, suggested that it should try to provide nutrition for children who were going to school inadequately fed, and who were basically hungry, in varying degrees, for various reasons. But whatever the reasons, in many cases they are from families on social assistance where the rates are inadequate.

The minister suggested that perhaps those rates were not so much inadequate as it is a case of mismanagement or improper budgeting. We can get into that debate. We can argue with the government as to whether or not the rates should be raised, or whether people have access to the proper markets to purchase the nutritious foods they require within their budgets, in terms of their ability to get to those places and buy in bulk and all of the other techniques used by people who have the resources to ensure that they can provide adequate sustenance for their children.

That is not the point. The point is that the children are hungry. Something like 600 young people in the greater Vancouver area are hungry. The school board has approached the provincial government — the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. It has requested assistance and has been rejected, but while rejecting the request for assistance, the government has said: "We agree in principle that these children should be fed, and if you can get the money from someplace, for instance Ottawa, we're quite agreeable to that. We're amenable to you getting the money." In other words, we don't disagree with you getting the money, but we don't think it's appropriate for us to provide it.

You say: "Well, how can that be?" This motion talks about ideological dogma. One of the reasons for the nonconfidence motion is that the government is talking ideology. For some reason, it's the view of the provincial government that it should not help feed these children, because it is contrary to the principles of Social Credit. I would like someone to tell me if I'm incorrect in drawing that conclusion. But that's the only reason the school board finds itself alone and has, in fact, found it very difficult to get assistance from Ottawa unless the provincial government is prepared to cost-share. All the provincial government has to do is say: "We agree with this concept. These children are hungry; we know that parents could manage their affairs better, that there should be a budgeting program in place, and that there should be access to resources. We agree with all those things, but in the meantime, we are going to assist in feeding the children."

I'm sure that if the members of this Legislature were to consult with nutritional experts who have studied the effects of hunger and starvation and a number of other environmental factors affecting the learning ability of young people, they would agree that it is close to criminal to neglect young people when it comes to fundamental things like eating and a good environment in which to develop. The costs are beyond imagination when young people are traumatized in that way; when they are, in effect, falling asleep in class, or dozing, or preoccupied, or daydreaming because they are either hungry or haven't had enough rest the night before, or in some way are not stabilized. They are young and impressionable, and in many cases find themselves ostracized because of inability to function properly. We have to pick up those youngsters somewhere along the line. Many of them have given up and dropped out by the time they reach grade 8, and we find that while they're doing that, they've been faking it for several years; many of them have not been functioning but have been smart enough to pretend.

We find that many of those dropping out are going to become unable to function properly in society — especially when we consider the way the world is going, the way tomorrow will be. Those of us who have had an opportunity to study the future know that our workforce, the marketplace, the commodities that will be traded, the resources that will be required in the future, will require well-educated people. Not to mention the new technologies that are coming on stream, the demands that will be made upon all of us, even those who are already well educated and already employed. We'll find through phase-outs and through decentralization and privatization and a number of other strategies that cut back on budgets that these people again will have to find themselves new markets and new ways to function.

So what's going to happen with these young people? I feel that we have reached a point where we're going to have to stop talking about it. We're going to have to put in place children's rights, children's guarantees, not rhetorical but in fact, through legislation — guarantees that youth will be a priority. We'll have to look after them and give them the confidence they need to function in society.

I have a lot of stuff that I'd like to talk to you about, but quite frankly I feel that no matter how much we talk, what we need is results.

I mentioned that I would say something about the suicides. I've talked about these things again. It's not the kind of thing that's pleasant, and it's not the kind of thing that I'd like to talk about to make my case, but I think everyone realizes how bad the situation is. The suicide rates over the last several years have tended to level off, but as late as 1982 there were 34 male and female teenagers who took their lives. It stayed close to that range up until '85, and it has increased slightly to 38 in '85. In '86 it dropped down about ten.

The alarming thing is, why would young persons be taking their lives? They talk about the different means by which they do it: firearms, asphyxia, drugs, alcohol, carbon monoxide poisoning; they fall, they drown themselves. Why are they doing this?

Why is it that youngsters between the ages of 14 and 15.... ? By the way, this is not the age at which young people should be able to get alcohol. These are Canadian statistics, and I imagine in British Columbia they would be pretty consistent. Between the ages of 14 and 15, some 36 percent have had alcohol in one form or another, and just a little less than that by age 17 — 33.9 percent. Putting those together, it would appear that just about every youngster, maybe 80 percent, has been drinking before the legal age to buy alcohol. By the time they reach the legal age, there's not very much difference: they just do what they've been doing all along.

That's a cultural thing that we've all experienced, I'm sure. I guess if I were to be very honest with you, I'd say I had my first drink when I was probably six years of age. I had to

steal a bottle of beer from someplace, from an adult. I was curious. I could see everybody drinking, and I wanted to try some.

The thing is, it's a cultural habit in our society that I believe is beginning to have a very serious effect on people. It's a very serious problem. Even though I've done a lot of drinking, I will suggest to you that it is a contradiction in our society, because we read in the paper just about every day where there is an alcohol-related accident, large numbers of youngsters are killing themselves, and they are finding the easy way out. They are not encouraged. If there is no employment, no recreational facilities or interesting things that young people can do to explore and enjoy their lives, then what do they do? They say: "Well, we can get high." Of course, alcohol is just one thing; there are other drugs that they're involved in as well. I think it's pretty alarming when you consider that many young people are drinking. Where is it going to end? What can we do? It's a problem that I certainly hope we take seriously.

I think we could do a lot if, for instance, we were to become more of an example of what should be happening in terms of recreational facilities in the schools. We should be highlighting the youngsters more. The government is talking about a passport of some sort for high academic achievement, but that concept suggests to me an elitist approach. We should have something that gives every youngster a chance to get a passport to better things. Not every youngster is going to go to university. Some will be involved in vocational training; some will be involved in business on their own. All kinds of outlets are available to young people. So I think we're looking for a comprehensive approach, something that makes sense for everybody.

1 would like to conclude, because to my mind this is not a time for making long dissertations. It's a time for some shifts and some reflections. I think that's well put, because I'm not too impressed with the kinds of things that have been happening. I would like to see the government commit itself to, for instance, the youth who are walking the streets. Large numbers of young people believe they can make a better deal for themselves by turning tricks or by getting involved in illegal acts, by cheating or beating somebody or getting something for nothing. Or they just opt out, not taking life too seriously, sort of feeling like: "What's there for me?" I think we should answer that question.

If we looked seriously at the statistics and put faces and families to those statistics, if we put families there and looked at those situations, we would realize that what we are doing, in effect, is turning our backs. We are simply saying: "There's nothing we can do. They all had a chance to make it." Let's not just leave it up to the youngsters. They have to make a decision, that's true, but let's give them the resources and the opportunity. And let's not give up. In their trial and error in development they have to experiment and don't always respond the way we would like, but let's at least be sure the opportunities are there. I think we have to admit that right now we are falling short on resources.

MR. WEISGERBER: I rise to oppose the amendment seconded by the first member for Vancouver Centre. To start off, I'd like to say that I always appreciate listening to that member in this House. His presentations are always very thoughtful, very measured, I think sincere, and in a style that 1 would really like to emulate; it's one that I think many members in this House would do well to.

However, having thought all those kind things while he was speaking, I was a bit disappointed to hear him question whether or not feeding hungry kids is against the policy of Social Credit. That seems to go against all those kind things that I said about him. This member has questioned the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) a number of times in the House on that issue and knows full well the minister's position: that we look after the entire family rather than one member of the family who might be identified as being hungry at school. I think that's a reasonable way of doing it.

It's a pleasure for me to rise today to speak in support of the Speech from the Throne. There were many, many items in the Speech from the Throne that are good news items for my constituents in South Peace River, and it is to those issues that I'll address my comments today.

Before I do that, however, I want to recognize the job that the Chair has been doing. The member for West Vancouver Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) has done an excellent job, as has the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton). The first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) spoke a little earlier, and I think she's done a great job in the past year as Chairman, Committee of the Whole. For you, Mr. Speaker, let me offer my congratulations on your recent appointment.

Now to the Speech from the Throne. One of the first items in that speech that caught my ear, and then my eye as I read it later, was the goal to eliminate the deficit. I think members on both sides of this House must agree with that. I was interested to hear the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt) talk about the deficit and refer to the fact that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) was also obviously in favour of eliminating or reducing the deficit.

MR. WEISGERBER: I didn't hear your speech, hon. member, but I did hear the member for Vancouver Centre. He pointed with some pride to the fact that in 1975 the deficit was only $5 billion in 1975 dollars. If my sense of political history is correct, in 1972 there was a surplus in the government account. The member for Vancouver East shakes his head, but I kind of think that I'm right. I think that we left a surplus that turned into a $5 billion deficit. Now gentlemen, $5 billion in 1975 dollars compared to $20 billion in 1988 dollars. You didn't come out of that as total winners on this thing. Believe me, I would have left those particular figures behind and just condemned the deficit had I been sitting on the other side of the House.

I am encouraged that members on both sides agree that we should reduce the deficit. First of all, we have to get back to balanced budgets. I think a balanced budget should be a first target, and second to that, we've got to start creating some surpluses in good years. I'm not against deficit spending on a one- or two-year basis. In good times government should accumulate a surplus. During that time they should have some major capital spending plans and be prepared to put them into place when the economy turns down, as we all know it does on a regular basis. But before we do that, we have to get out of the habit of overspending in the good years,

and I commend the Premier for his commitment to eliminate on an annual basis the deficit and then to work on the longer range the accumulated deficit.

I must say that this is an issue of major concern in my constituency; it's a major concern on the provincial scene; the $322 billion-odd deficit that the federal government has accumulated is a major concern. To say that the feds have one and we have one is neither bad nor good on either side. I think it's sad that western governments are budgeting for deficits even in the good years. I think that we have to decide what it is we want from government. We can't continue to make greater and greater demands on government and still ask that the deficit be eliminated.

MR. WILLIAMS: You're the one that wants that expensive gasohol plant that's going to turn grain into gas.

MR. WEISGERBER: I'll talk about that a little later in my speech, so stick around. Well, we could talk about social programs and all of the things that you want. That's not an argument that I think is appropriate in the throne speech.

The second major item in the throne speech was a reference to regional development in decentralization. I know that the members across the way find that something that they're not totally satisfied with. I think probably that's because they come from Vancouver and they've never really had to face the problems of communicating with government and are not really aware of the problems that people in the remote and northern parts of the region come up against. Your constituents, Mr. Speaker, would be well aware of them.

I came back Sunday night from Dawson Creek, having spent all day Saturday in Fort St. John at one of the second of our major regional development meetings, a meeting that was attended by 60 or 70 people, among them all of the elected mayors and regional district chairman, all supporting this activity, all well aware of the benefits that this activity could bring to our region. That's not to say that they didn't start off initially with some hesitation, that they didn't think that perhaps this was something that was going to encroach on their areas of authority. But people in my part of the country are positive and open-minded enough to take a chance, to have a look at the scheme, to look and see what it had to offer. As a result, we're getting tremendous support in the northeast region for the idea, not only for regional development but for decentralization of government services.

Decentralization to me doesn't mean a massive movement of people out of Victoria or Vancouver to Dawson Creek or Fort St. John. What it really means is bringing the decision-making authority to those employees of our government who are already resident within the region but who don't have the kind of regional manager authority necessary to solve some of the local problems.

In the northeast region, we don't have one regional office of one ministry. It seems to me to make sense that there might be a regional forestry ministry to look after the northeast region of the province; certainly that there might be a Ministry of Agriculture regional office, so that a farmer who had a problem with the ministry didn't have to travel 250 miles to talk about his problem.

1 don't think the movement of that decision-making authority has to be expensive. It's a movement of authority; it's not a movement of people. I think there's no contradiction with restraint and the setting up of regional offices within each of the regions. I think it makes tremendously good sense that the regions of the ministry — line ministry offices — conform with the economic development regions. I'm satisfied and convinced, Mr. Speaker, that over the period of the next few months and years we will see in fact some of those offices established in the northeast region, offices that make sense, like the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. It seems to me only reasonable that they might have a regional office in that part of the country that supplies the vast majority of the oil and gas for the province, a good percentage of the coal supplies and a large amount of forestry.

That doesn't seem to me to be unreasonable to expect, and it's an expectation that people in the northeast region can see coming through this decentralization initiative. So 1 for one support that very strongly. 1 am pleased to have the opportunity to be parliamentary secretary for the northeast region and to work with the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) as minister of state for that region.

The throne speech recognizes that about 90,000 new jobs were created in British Columbia between January 1987 and January 1988, and also recognizes that a goodly number of those jobs were created in industries like forestry, pulp and paper, and mining. Within the northeast region we are very well aware of the role that these industries are playing in creating new jobs. Within the last 12 months, within that January '87 to January '88 period, Louisiana-Pacific opened its waferboard plant in Dawson Creek, a plant that directly employs more than 100 people in the mill. The last time I talked to the manager of the plant, I asked him how many people they'd hired from outside of the region. He said: "One." That fellow was from Chetwynd, 60 miles away. So it created 100 local jobs. It created another approximately 200 jobs in the woods, jobs performed by farmers on a part-time basis, by construction workers who have suffered a turndown, by people in the oil and gas industry and....

It's unfortunate that my good friend from Vancouver East has seen fit to leave. He always spurs me on to greater ideas or whatever, so I'm sorry to see him leaving.

That good member for Vancouver East mentioned a subsidy, and in fact the government of British Columbia, the previous government, saw fit to assist Louisiana-Pacific to establish the first plant in British Columbia that would use aspen wood — and that has been tremendously successful, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell you just how successful.

Only last Saturday, the day before yesterday, I had the pleasure to be with the minister of state to announce that there would be in fact four new aspen-wood facilities established in our northeast region within the next two years and that they would create 1, 340 direct jobs and probably twice that many indirect jobs. We understand very well in the northeast region what the government means when it says that job creation through industries like forestry and pulp and paper is important. Of those mills I mentioned, two of the new mills will be aspen oriented strand board plants and two will be pulp mills.

We're excited. We see some good things happening in the northeast: the kind of development, the kind of expansion of the economy that probably wouldn't mean much in Vancouver; 1, 340 jobs — nice, but not really much when we look at the fact that there were 90,000 new jobs created in the

province. But I want to tell you, in the northeast region 1, 340 regular payroll jobs is big stuff; it's important stuff. That’s the kind of thing that our people look to the government to help them with, and I'm very proud to be a part of that.

I want to commend the foresight of the last government in making the decision to assist Louisiana-Pacific to set that pilot project plant in place. It's already been responsible for creating somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 to 15 times as many jobs as were in that original plant.

The throne speech mentions a long-term strategic plan. Again, I want to commend the Premier and the government for showing that kind of initiative.

My work history is that I worked for two multinational companies early in my career: Imperial Oil and General Motors. We took for granted that major organizations had long-range plans in place; no one ever questioned it. We just assumed that they were there, that we were working to a plan. If you're in the car- manufacturing industry, you know five or ten years ahead how many cars people are going to want. Are they going to want small cars or are they going to want large cars? Can you imagine a corporation the size of General Motors continuing with tailfins, etc., when people want small cars?

After having left the employment of those companies, 1 went into the automobile business for myself. Whether I wanted to do planning or not, I assure you that the banker and the manufacturer that I represented insisted that 1 have a longterm plan in place, or at least a mid-term plan — a plan by which I would be there long enough to pay the money that I owned them.

After I got out of the car dealership, I went to work for the region as an economic development officer. After a few months, it became clear that if we were going to be successful in that region we had to have a long-term plan: some goals, some strategy, something to shoot towards. The region that I was employed in, coincidentally, is exactly that same area now encompassed by the northeast region, So it's a coincidence that's been fortunate for me.

Anyway, when we went to develop a plan for the northeast region, it seemed sensible that the first thing we would do would be to find the provincial plan and then fit our regional plan into the provincial plan — that was in 1982. But I was surprised to find that not only did British Columbia not have a plan, but there wasn't a province in Canada that had a plan. Even more alarming was the fact that the Canadian government didn't have a plan; nor does the U.S. government have a long-term social and economic development plan. We work from election to election. The two countries that I found that do have long-term plans are, not surprisingly, West Germany and Japan, the two best-performing economically; the two countries that are performing best in the free western world. They have a plan.

When we talk about leadership and vision, 1 believe that our Premier has indicated very clearly that he has a grasp of what's necessary, that he's prepared to break new ground and take some political risks and establish a long-term provincial plan. I was again very pleased to have the opportunity to be among the ten MLAs appointed to the committee to work on this long-term plan. We're going to use the very best minds in government. We're also going to use the very best minds we can find outside of government: long-term planners, futurists, industry leaders, labour leaders. We're going to prepare a White Paper and circulate it, give it the widest possible exposure and, I think, come up with a workable social and economic development plan for this province that will put us further ahead of the rest of this country than we already are.

I think that when we look back over a period of time and look at this session of the Legislature and whato was put into place that had the greatest impact, there is no question in my mind that this long-term planning will stick out well above all the other activities that have gone on here.

There were several comments in the throne speech with regard to the inequity between delivery of goods from the province to the federal government and the return of benefits from the federal government to the province. These criticisms were justified. There is no question in my mind that British Columbia has been coming out on the short end of federal-provincial agreements and federal-provincial costsharing agreements.

We in the Peace River region know very well what it's like to feel that way. Prior to 1952, the region didn't even have a road that connected it to the rest of British Columbia. We didn't have a rail connection with the rest of British Columbia. Airline travel wasn't that common at the time, so if you lived in Peace River and wanted to go to Victoria, you had to detour by way of Edmonton and then Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, and then up into Victoria and Vancouver. As you can well imagine, there weren't a lot of trips between Victoria and Peace River. However. in 1952 the first Social Credit government acted quickly to connect us with the rest of British Columbia, and except for a few bleak years from 1972 to 1975....

MR. WEISGERBER: The Minister of Social Services asked what happened in those years. I had an opportunity to reminisce with my predecessor, Don Phillips, about what happened in those years. He said that they had a lot of fun sitting across the way, and he got about a five-mile powerline extended in the constituency during that three-year period. Other than that they didn't get much. That's why we get nervous any time the rest of the province flirts with the idea of socialism. We've never been guilty of that in the Peace region.

In any event, what I wanted to say was that while I fully recognize the comments that were made with regard to the federal government, I want to take this opportunity to commend our MP, the Hon. Frank Oberle, Minister of State for Science and Technology. Frank has worked very hard on behalf of our constituents, and he has a tough job in going to Ottawa and representing a reasonably small population in a caucus that represents primarily Ontario and Quebec.

I want to recognize particularly two things. The first is the investment tax credit which is available only in the Peace Liard region in the northeast part of British Columbia. This investment tax credit can amount to as much as 40 percent of the total cost of a new manufacturing facility. It's one of the best tools we in the northeast region have for attracting new industry.

I spoke a little bit earlier about the activity that Louisiana-Pacific and Fibreco and Makin are planning as it relates to aspen board and pulp production. The fact that these investment tax credits are there and available from the federal government plays no small part in that. I would be remiss if I didn't recognize that.

Another item in the throne speech that I was pleased to see was the government's commitment to enhance and

strengthen programs to deal with substance abuse, including drugs and alcohol. This is a problem that I hear about in every community that I visit, not only in my own constituency but within the region. When the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy met recently in Fort St. John, they heard about the problems that counsellors in rural areas are having. Alcoholism runs high in remote communities. It becomes the lead form of entertainment initially and dissolves into problems for many. It's something that we have to address; it's something that is far less expensive to address in the early stages than in the late stages, and I commend the government for taking that initiative.

Also mentioned, almost in conjunction with that, is the commitment to supporting and strengthening families in British Columbia. That is another area where the number of counsellors is limited in the remote areas, and they're very hard pressed. Anything that we can do to improve on that will certainly be welcomed in my constituency.

We have the Minister of Social Services and Housing here. One of the initiatives mentioned is the government reorganization of income assistance and social programs, to ensure that assistance is provided only to those who are in need. That's something very much at the heart of the feeling and the wishes of my constituents. Most of my constituents — 99 percent of them — want to be sure that anyone who is in genuine need of social assistance gets that assistance, and that it be at a level that allows them a decent lifestyle. But, Mr. Speaker — and indirectly, Mr. Minister — we don't want to see social assistance go to those who don't need it. We want to see jobs created for those who are capable of working, and social assistance, in my opinion, should be reserved for those who are not capable of working. That should be the focus of our social assistance programs.

There are several items in the throne speech that deal with education, and I'll just touch on them very briefly.

The first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) made the point the other day that while he applauded the government's decision to bring computers into the classroom, he didn't think they necessarily had to be third-generation computers. The important thing was that kids be able to operate the computers; they didn't have to be the ultimate state-of-the-art, big-dollar computer but the small working models. The theory behind it was what's important. That seemed to me to make a lot of sense.

I also want to commend the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) and the government for the Passport to Education program. I think that's a great program. My two kids have just gone through high school. They were very good students, good achievers, but we were always pressed to challenge them, to encourage them to do better. They could easily pass their courses; it seemed difficult to keep a plateau or a target out there that they could strive towards. For that type of student, this Passport to Education would have been of benefit in motivating them to better performance, and I certainly would have welcomed some assistance with the cost of their post-secondary education.

That brings me to the problem of kids from the remote parts of our province, not only from the north but I'm sure also from the Kootenays and elsewhere: the additional expense in traveling to Vancouver or Victoria for an education. From the Peace River region many of the kids go to Edmonton because it's closer, but even that's 360 miles, so it's not really close.

My oldest daughter, Joanne, of whom I'm extremely proud — not for a minute to suggest that I'm less proud of my younger daughter, Pam.... Both of them are at UBC now. Joanne has been there for three years. So I've got a pretty fair idea of the problems that parents and kids face.

Most kids, even from the lower mainland, live in residence, or in an apartment close to the university. So the residence thing is not really a valid argument for someone who lives a long way away. The valid argument, in my mind, is toward travel. It's fine when you have students in third or fourth or fifth year at university, to say to them that they should only come home at Christmas and at summer break. But when you send 18-year-olds from Dawson Creek to Vancouver, for the first time away from home, particularly if they're going to a school where they don't have any other family, they should be coming home at least once between start of school and Christmas, again at Christmastime, at reading break, and again at end of term. That's four return trips to Dawson Creek, which 1 think would be minimal for somebody in our area. You're looking at a couple of thousand dollars' additional travel expenses that anyone in my constituency would have, as opposed to perhaps students from the Coquitlam area, where they might travel in on Friday night and stay in residence and come back on the weekend. I urge the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) to consider that. We've got to give some sort of travel assistance to those traveling a long way.

Another item that I thought tremendously important to South Peace River was the government's commitment to open up back-country recreation opportunities to our own people and visitors. Really, all of the tourism opportunities in the Peace River region are along that line. Ninety percent of our tourists are U.S. citizens traveling up the Alaska Highway to Alaska. Our real opportunity to expand tourism in the Peace region is to keep those people in the region for one, two, three or four days extra.

With all due respect, they don't want to come and look at a museum or go to a play. What they want to do is get a wilderness experience. We should make available to them some of the exceptional scenery we have — things like Kinuseo Falls in Monkman Park, one of the great scenic opportunities in the province.

With that, I see, Mr. Speaker, that my time is up. I am particularly regretful that I didn't get to the problems of the agriculture sector, but I've talked about them in this House before. So thank you.

MR. CASHORE: I am pleased to see that the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is in the House, because I am going to try to find some time to talk about a few matters that I know he is interested in. We both have our hearts in the right place, so I know he will be here to cheer me on. Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on being in the Speaker's chair. I want you to know that we're going to miss the rabbit pack in the House. I would also like to extend my congratulations and appreciation to the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran), who spoke earlier this afternoon, for the work she did when she was the chairperson.

In supporting the amendment moved by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams).... This amendment not only has support from the members of the opposition; it also has very strong support from the citizens of British

Columbia. The citizens of British Columbia are disillusioned, disappointed and disgusted with this government, and the sad spectacle of the throne speech has certainly added to that feeling out there among the public. I think the government knows the public is feeling very disenchanted with what's being going on in this province with the lack of leadership and the way in which this places a real stress upon the moral fabric of the people of the province.

As the amendment states, there are no new initiatives for economic development. Sadly, we're still going to have the kind of pork-barrel politics that have epitomized this government. We deplore the continuation of reactionary and discredited economic policies, policies whereby the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and more and more of the middle class who pay higher and higher taxes become poor themselves.

It certainly is appropriate to make the point that the ideological dogma of this government has caused uncertainty and instability; and it certainly is true that there is a lack of new direction to benefit British Columbians. We might say that what we really have here is a continuation of the great vacuum in leadership in British Columbia. How can you give leadership when you choose to put energy and resources into unwinnable court defences, when ministers of the Crown should have taken action to correct obvious wrongs, and government insisted on an unnecessary and costly day in court? We really have a sad legacy when we look at the experience of this government's first year. I think we'd have to say that the B.C. government has received a failing grade from the courts of British Columbia, mostly from the Supreme Court. In fact, there have been — and this came out of a brainstorming session, and the list may not be complete — six failures before the Supreme Court of B.C.

It's interesting that some members opposite find that humorous; I find it rather sad. There have been an additional three losses by the Workers' Compensation Board before the Supreme Court of B.C. and a further loss before the B.C. Council of Human Rights. That's ten losses, Mr. Speaker. You have to ask where the Premier is getting his inadequate legal advice. Instead of bringing forward dynamic new initiatives for economic development, the throne speech indicates that the ineptness will continue. I think we have to be very sad when we see government human and financial resources that should be used for the benefit of our province being used to fight the people of B.C. in the courts. Instead of fighting to preserve illegal and unrealistic policies, the government should be standing up for all British Columbians.

I'd like to read into the record just exactly what is on this list. It's quite a telling list. In June 1987, following a work stoppage, the B.C. Supreme Court threw out the government injunction known as the "sedition injunction." What kind of advice was the Premier getting on that occasion? In July of 1987 the B.C. Council of Human Rights, this government's own instrument — a watered-down version of the Human Rights Commission — ruled that the government was guilty of age discrimination in welfare rates for those under 26. In August of 1987 we found that the government, instead of listening to the wise counsel of the human rights council, had persisted; again at great cost, the B.C. Supreme Court ordered the government to cease discrimination on the basis of age for those under 26.

MR. CASHORE: Yes, at great expense when you had wise counsel who could have advised you, and if you had followed it, you would have saved the taxpayers a great deal of money.

Then in January of 1988 the Supreme Court decided against the government on the issue of mandatory retirement. Where is this government getting its advice? Is it from the same people who drafted Bill 19? In February of 1988 there was the Supreme Court decision preventing employees from being sold along with their privatized services. That was another loss, another embarrassment, another day that the B.C. government flunked in court. In March of 1988 the B.C. Supreme Court decided in favour of an appeal brought by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association regarding abortion funding. Again the unwise action of this government had plunged the province into a debate that generated a great deal of heat and very little light when there could have been a process of consensus building if only they had gone about it in a wise and appropriate way.

I know it hurts to hear about it when you get flunking grades from the impartial courts of British Columbia. I think all of us have had to learn how to cope with failure. Hopefully that type of learning helps in the years to come, but looking at the throne speech, it doesn't look like it.

In March of 1988 — we're on to number seven here, the seventh loss before either a court or the human rights council — we had the B.C. Supreme Court decision against the government's wolf kill program. And then apropos of questions asked by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) today in question period, there were the three WCB cases. The B.C. Supreme Court found that the commissioners of the WCB failed to implement review board decisions and to pay benefits to injured workers in separate actions regarding Testa, Kohrian and Guadagni.

Mr. Speaker, that is not good government. What we have here is government that should be going into detention; government that should be spending a lot of time learning how democracy works: government that should be getting some remedial help, because that's the kind of help that is needed if this government is going to in any way be able to continue inflicting its convoluted understanding of democracy upon the people of this province. Through ill-advised court appearances, through petulant federal-government bashing in the throne speech, the Premier has brought B.C. to a new low, a low where this province is a laughing-stock and subject to ridicule across the country.

Mr. Speaker, we have a crisis of leadership in this government, because instead of being a builder of consensus, as I mentioned before on the abortion issue — an issue that requires wisdom and understanding — the Premier of this province chooses to confront and polarize. Instead of using effective diplomacy in dealings with the federal government, he chooses to violate the tradition of the throne speech by directing a childish, petulant and crude diatribe that descends to the mayhem of "us against them." That's inappropriate for a person who would lead a government. It's inappropriate and it's an embarrassment for the people of British Columbia.

Instead of being a planner who works with his cabinet — and we see many sad faces in the cabinet these days — to develop the teamwork that will inspire all sectors of our society to join in building a better B.C., he sows the wind of

bigotry and reaps the whirlwind of frustration that is being experienced by all the residents of this province. People didn't know what they were getting into when they voted for this man in 1986. They didn't know, but they're finding out now, and all I can say to them is: keep those cards and letters coming.

Mr. Speaker, it's a sad situation when we find the Premier leaving his confused and tormented ministers to defend programs they know little about and don't really seem to have the heart to want to defend all that vigorously. 1 can understand that. They've been enduring that lack of teamwork, that rule by whimsy, for well over a year, and I think it's a tribute to many members of the cabinet that they've been able to bear up — although I do wonder about blind loyalty when what is at stake is the future of the province.

A leader cannot be all things to all people, and the people of British Columbia don't expect that. We in the opposition don't expect that. But a leader knows whom to consult for wise counsel, when to move on a new initiative, how to work with the democratic system, and why complex issues need careful ethical reflection.

I'd like to turn to the area of social services and housing. It's an area that I'm very concerned about. I would have to say again that if we were to report on this government's action, the government has failed in its first year, and the throne speech, if you read between the lines — and that's pretty well where you have to read if you're going to find out anything at all about that throne speech, about what it's trying to say — indicates continued misery for low-income people in British Columbia and a real struggle for a lot of other people as well.

I think one of the scandals of this government is that in the area that perhaps requires more consultation than any other, we have, I believe — and I may have to stand corrected on this — the one select standing committee of this Legislature that has only met once. Why is that? We met to elect the chairperson.

MR. CASHORE: We met and elected the chairperson, and that select standing committee has not met since. The health, education and social issues that confront this province require that kind of consultation. If that kind of process could take place, it could avoid a great deal of the anxiety that's created on the floor of the House when it comes to dealing with those issues. It has not met once, other than to elect a chairperson, and that's because the government decides whether that committee shall have an agenda.

The abortion debate was a good case in point. That was an opportunity for the Premier to ask that select standing committee to sit down and deal with a very difficult issue which cuts across all party lines. That certainly would have been a more appropriate format for dealing with it.

Also, we could have dealt with the issue of hungry children in the select standing committee and worked out a way that would be worthwhile for all the people who are concerned about that. We could have done some work. We read in the throne speech about day care. I think there needs to be a lot of work done and that kind of process about developing a meaningful day care program. I think that, with regard to the adoption registry, a lot of people are not happy with the passive nature of the existing registry, and that is another issue that needs some discussion.

The point is that it is a rejection of the democratic process when a select standing committee of this Legislature is not allowed to meet for an entire year. I hope that the Premier of this province will see the importance of enabling that committee to meet before very long.

That is why we on this side of the House regret that there are no new initiatives, that there are continued reactionary policies, that there are discredited policies, and that all of this creates uncertainty and instability.

All we have to do is look at the inadequate references to social programs in this throne speech. One reference to a social program is where the Premier brags that there have been 90,000 new jobs created. I always find it interesting when I look at the ways in which the government establishes that kind of statistic. I know when it comes to job creation programs for people on welfare, quite often it will be said that so many jobs are created. But when you really go into it and analyze it, you'll find that some of those jobs lasted for one day.

Perhaps there were jobs created, but the fact still remains that there's been no significant reduction in the unemployment figures in British Columbia. Now there's a need for a social concern to be addressed. The lack of imagination of this government has failed to address that issue. Also, we noticed that from last summer until October of this year, there was some modest improvement in the number of people on GAIN. But from November to January the graph began to rise again, and the numbers are increasing. I think that's a very alarming trend. It's possible that the Minister of Social Services and Housing has more recent figures than I have, but the figures I have up to the end of January indicate that for three months in a row, the numbers of people on income assistance were once again increasing.

There may be some people in British Columbia rejoicing about ways they have had windfall profits, and ways things have gone well for them, but there isn't much rejoicing among people in this province who are really struggling in the inadequate programs that should be there to help them get back on their feet.

On page 3 of the throne speech, there's a reference to a draft White Paper outlining strategy in a broad range of areas ranging from fiscal policy and economic development to social issues, and that it will be completed in August. There's also a sentence there — and I think this is worthwhile — pointing out that there will be input from other people in our society. But I'm not too optimistic about that.

If this White Paper is going to deal with social programs, then I think we should have input from the unemployed. We don't need to have input just from people who are considered to be authorities in the field. We need to hear from the unemployed on this — not just the kind of input that we hear when we hear about the cabinet social affairs committee going around the province. We need real input that results in measures being taken that are going to do something about unemployment in this province. The same goes for working people, the disabled and those who live in inadequate housing, who live in cockroach-infested rooms, and who line up at food banks eating leftovers.

There's nothing in this throne speech to indicate any kind of an attempt to address issues of poverty in our society. It's still a band-aid approach. There's no recognition that poverty

causes stress on people, and that's a costly stress — costly in social terms and costly in economic terms. There's no recognition that poverty causes violence in society. Sometimes that's not a physical violence, but an emotional violence. Nevertheless, poverty causes that. There's no recognition that poverty causes limited educational opportunity and that children who are deprived of nutritious meals are not able to make the best use of those opportunities they should be able to use within the education system. There's no recognition that poverty should be tackled.

I find that when the minister is speaking about the issue of hungry children, he comes with his stock answer — which he's given so many times because this issue has been before the people to such a great extent — which is: "No, we won't feed the hungry kids through the school program, because it's a band-aid solution." Then he goes on to say that if you're going to help them, you have to do it at the front end. That is an expression of social theory that has some merit, but they're hollow, empty words, because there's nothing being done at the front end to help those families. When we talk about teachers sending in the names without really knowing what's going to happen to those kids.... Are they going to be rounded up? Just what kind of counselling is going to help somebody with such a limited income to be able to do better than they're already doing in putting nutritious meals on the table?

I think that we have to really call that for what it is: simply an inappropriate response to a widely recognized problem that the majority of the people in British Columbia would like to see dealt with, because the majority of the people in British Columbia are concerned about those kids. It's high time that this government decided to do the decent thing and put the sponsorship and the funding into the program in cooperation with the Vancouver School Board so that those federal dollars could be applied and we could get on to dealing with the issues that the minister says need to be dealt with, such as the generic issues.

Nobody is denying that programs such as food banks and feeding programs are band-aid programs and that there are much deeper issues that have to be dealt with, but you just don't walk away and leave people hungry and in that situation. A great deal of thought and a great deal of care and compassion is required if that is really going to take place.

We heard in the throne speech that seniors have special health care and social needs. You bet they have special health care and social needs, and the fact is that since the last budget those needs have been deepened. Those needs are greater for seniors in this province because of the actions of this government in targeting seniors as a source of revenue and reaching into their pockets. Of course, the throne speech is right that these people have special needs; and those special needs have been deepened by the actions of this government.

I was pleased to read in the throne speech that there will be programs to deal with substance abuse and alcohol abuse. But again I have to say that the funds that have been drawn out of programs like that, good programs that have been functioning within this province, really beg the question. You have to wonder what kind of a cat-and-mouse game is really going on, when during one period of time funding is drawn away from programs like that and then the government comes back like a knight on a white charger and says: "Now that you're hurting, I will save you."

In order for us to really deal with problems of substance abuse and alcohol abuse, it's important that we have consistent programs that are put in place, evaluated and continue to function, and that aren't losing the type of support they need depending on the electoral term in which a government is in power. I'm glad to see that this kind of support is going to be put into that program. I hope it's more than just a token gesture, when you consider the amount of money the government makes on the sale of alcohol and the amount of hardship that is caused by this problem.

One of things that bothers me very deeply about this throne speech is the way in which it has been co-opted by the Premier to try to justify a problem that he's been having for quite some time: that is, where he has tried to rationalize his position on the abortion issue by saying he's going to resolve that problem by helping families. That is really a very vacuous and inappropriate use of the throne speech or of the term family."

Families were not invented on January 22, after the Supreme Court decision. Families have been around for a long time, Mr. Speaker — different kinds of families: extended families, traditional families. single-parent families, and maybe there are other definitions of family that could be added to that. Families aren't anything new.

But one thing that's been going on for quite some time when we take a look at the policies of this government is that families have been losing support, and nothing really significant is being done to put anything in place of that support. For instance, if we consider the reorganization taking place right now within the Ministry of Social Services and Housing — something that we'll be talking about to a much greater extent during the estimates on the Ministry of Social Services and Housing — I would point out that the trend is away from there being front-line workers in the field to work with disadvantaged people and toward there being more top-heavy administrative procedures.

Now we see the minister shaking his head, but let me read something to him, because the annual report.... I won't say I could hear him shaking his head, because that's somebody else's line, but I can see him shaking his head. I know that he spends a lot of time in the evening reading annual reports. They are very interesting reading.

My reference here is the 1982-83 annual report of his ministry and the 1986-87 annual report. We had field service workers in '82-83 numbering 3,052. In 1986-87 they numbered 2, 466. That's a loss of 19 percent of family support workers, and yet this government touts that it's going to be supporting the family, What kind of support is that?

The minister will be able to argue that numbers are increasing in some ways — there are the people from Woodlands who are being taken into the ministry and that sort of thing — but even when you look at it, when all is said and done, the process is toward more people trying to organize themselves at an administrative level and fewer people available to work out in the field.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there's one more point I would like to make, and I'm going to be canvassing some of these at great length with the minister. I know he's going to speaking a little later this afternoon, and I would dearly love to have a rebuttal after he speaks, but I know I won't have that opportunity.

There's another problem, and that is that in British Columbia we have the worst record of every province in Canada in terms of having a multiplicity of ministries working with families and children. British Columbia has the Ministry of

Social Services and Housing, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Attorney-General, the Ministry of Education — and when we don't have the coordination that we need in those services to children, we have gaps. When we have gaps ' children fall between them, and that's why we are hearing about some really sad and tragic situations happening to children in this province. I will want to go on with that further.

In the last few seconds that I have, I would just like to say to the Minister of Social Services and Housing that we have a really good issue that we want you people to respond to, and that's the issue of your argument that the superintendent of child welfare is at arm's length. Remember Andrew Armitage.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have been looking at this amendment. I was actually thinking of supporting it, but it is argumentative, and I can't support anything that's argumentative.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I know, but it's argumentative, and it upsets me. So I would like to advise you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be voting against the amendment, which will be coming up shortly.

An interesting thing is that the amendment says in part that this House regrets that the throne speech contained no new initiatives for economic development. That's clearly not correct, and I'll be speaking to that later. But then the first two members for the opposition who spoke to this, the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) and later on the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), dealt with social issues. I have no problem with that, because that is their area of expertise and they genuinely are good critics in terms of that, but the motion does deal with economic development and not social issues. Nevertheless, I guess that's the latitude allowed in the throne speech, and they certainly took advantage of that latitude.

The amendment further says that there is uncertainty and instability in the province of British Columbia. That's really where I wish to begin with my constructive remarks, because that's clearly not the case. If we examine any association, any business interest or any of the people I have talked to in my community of Prince George — where, I think, we reflect the business of the province in a smaller way.... Not the large economy of the lower mainland, but certainly a reflection and a bit of a microcosm of the British Columbia economy can be seen in Prince George, it being based on the resource industry, the tourism industry, the transportation industry. Everything that does exist anywhere in the province will exist in some degree in Prince George. If we talk to the business groups, the trade sectors and the various people who represent industry and commerce in Prince George, they'll to a man and to a woman say: "This is one of the best years we've had in six years." That includes....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That was just the people who support your party. You didn't hear all the cheers. Actually, it kind of reminded me of all-star wrestling, in terms of what it sounded like. A lot of people were upset, but more people were happy. I'd say that at Prince George, two weeks ago, the Premier had about 65 to 70 percent of the people on his side, which is pretty good.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sure. And not only that, your party went out and advertised and said,"Come on. Bring people in and boo and hiss the Premier," and you didn't make it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've got a built-in applause meter. I've been around far too long.

Anyway, getting back to my Address in Reply to the throne speech, in all the sectors.... This came to my attention in about the first part of 1987, where I picked up a Cariboo Real Estate Board multiple-listings comment....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm getting to it, I'm getting to it. The Cariboo Real Estate Board has their January report of 1987, and they said clearly: "This is the best year we've had in our business in six years." Then they listed the value of home starts and the value of listings, both commercial and residential, and you could see that it was far and above the best economic activity that had existed in the real estate business for six years in Prince George, which I think is critical. Real estate, of course, is a very good barometer of what the community is doing. When a person invests in a home or in commercial real estate, they are making a commitment to that area, and to see that commitment to such a size and an increase indicates that there's a lot of faith and stability in the area, and that is encouraging, of course, for me to see.

Therefore I would strongly argue against this comment contained in the opposition motion that there is uncertainty and instability. It doesn't exist that way in my part of the province, and I'm sure — as a matter of fact, I know — that it doesn't exist in the rest of the province.

I've just mentioned one sector, the real estate market, but you'll find that in the other areas of economic activity common to the city of Prince George and to other areas of the province — the car sales, the heavy equipment sales, the fabricating shops, the secondary industry — everybody who is really interested in and doing business in trade and commerce has done well in the last year in Prince George. I'm

sure that's reflected throughout the province as well. So on the basis of that, I would strongly argue against what the opposition says.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It depends on who you want to compare it to. Newfoundland and northern Ontario — it's very good. As a matter of fact, the unemployment rate in Prince George is better than a lot of parts of British Columbia.

The other thing in the amendment that of course we have to take issue with, and that I will take issue with, is that the members opposite claim that the throne speech contains no new initiatives for economic development. Let's just begin by looking at what initiatives we have.

First of all, the business of encouraging closer ties with Washington, Oregon, California and Alaska. There's no secret, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to be seeing the passage of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States, and there's also no secret that probably the province that will benefit most from this agreement is British Columbia. One only has to....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Here's a number you probably haven't considered. There are as many people in California as there are in Canada — about 28 million — and therein lies that market. We are seeing that now.

I'll give you an example: clothing. The textile people in Quebec are concerned about free trade, but it's exactly the opposite here in British Columbia. The garment industry in British Columbia is very encouraged, because they know they can exist well in that market. The example I would use is Mr. Jax. I forget the principal's name, but he was interviewed on television a couple of months ago about free trade. The rest of the program dealt with an interview with a textile manufacturer from Quebec who was opposed to free trade; the Jax company, of course, is in favour of free trade.

They have enough faith in their own product, their own sportswear — it's ladies' sportswear — that they know they can exist very well in that California market. They will get in there with that high-quality clothing, which is doing very well in British Columbia, with the opening up of that 28 million-person market, particularly in California. That's an extremely positive thing for them, an extremely healthy market for them to get into, and they're not at all concerned about free trade. As a matter of fact, they're encouraging it. They see it as a great way to expand what they're doing. That's an opinion from someone in the industry.

MR. WILLIAMS: Are they going to become clothing manufacturers — the grape growers?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You'll have to get someone else to talk about the grape growers. What I'm doing is recounting an expert opinion of someone who has done extremely well in the textile business.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, if he feels he can succeed, 1 don't see why other people in the garment industry won't reckon that they can succeed as well in the California market. Good grief. 28 million people. having that market close to you....

In any event, getting back to Mr. Jax, they see free trade, they see encouraging trade with Washington, Oregon, California and Alaska — but particularly California, where the large population is — as an excellent opportunity for them. They're certainly not afraid of what free trade will bring them. They are encouraged, in fact. by the substantial market that they'll be able to tap into. I feel that anyone with a belief in their own product will welcome and embrace the Canada U.S. free trade agreement, and I don't see why they wouldn't.

I guess if you're afraid of your product, if in your own thinking your product is so inferior that you need protection, then you wouldn't support free trade, but I'm convinced that the entrepreneurial mind in British Columbia considers his product to be superior. Therefore he can exist in a free trade environment very well, competing and selling with the best.

That's why I see it as so encouraging that the throne speech does contain many initiatives for economic development. But this one to encourage closer ties with our sister states on the west coast is the first initiative that I wanted to speak about today.

Going on with the same page, page 5 — I'm not skipping any pages — I notice that we have a government initiative to spearhead the kaon development project. There was a lot of harrumphing the other day when we discussed kaon.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As a matter of fact, that can be done, along with another university project....

MR. WILLIAMS: That's what I claimed in the election. You finally picked up the idea.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, I've been working on that one for years. I come from that sector.

The blue-collar mentality opposite — that's the term you used, Mr. Member — is for some reason opposed to kaon. Yet if you examine economic activity — white-collar, blue-collar, any sector — you will find that probably one of the greatest instruments of economic activity will be post-secondary institutions, the best example being MIT in Massachusetts, where, we are advised, spinoff from its programs, studies and students is in the $30 billion range. It does bring

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They did it with high technology, and kaon is another example of high technology. As a matter of fact, MIT has, within its physics department, people who are quite encouraged with the kaon development, even as Americans are encouraging British Columbia to go ahead with it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, they are. In any event, I don't think you will find anyone who is clear-thinking who will argue that academic, high technology activity isn't an incredible instrument of economic development.

Just in my own small way to point out what we're doing in Prince George, there has been put together a university society that has become quite active, which I will be assisting with some study-funding from my minister-of-state budget. We have recognized that without question probably the best instrument of economic activity Prince George could ever have would be a degree-granting school — far better than another pulp mill, another sawmill, CTMP or steel factory or whatever could happen. Clearly a post-secondary institution, a degree-granting school in our area, is the best instrument of economic development that we could put in place. A lot of effort is being expended there, and I see kaon as fitting in — the same thing.

It is interesting that a couple of years ago I had the occasion, along with the former member for Mackenzie, the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) and the current Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid), to be on a parliamentary conference in New Orleans as a guest of the state legislators' association. One of the keynote speakers at that conference was T. Boone Pickens, who has been known among other things as the corporate sector raider and who has established a very interesting reputation in the boardrooms of the United States. He was being quizzed by these state legislators as to how he selected where he would go with his newly acquired companies, why he shut some plants down and why he opened others up.

He said: "Well, naturally when you're deciding on the site of a facility you look at the things you have to have for that particular industry, and there is an infrastructure that's required. It could be hydro, it could be natural gas, transportation, rail, air, highway to market, that type of thing. But those technical components that I look at account for only about 50 percent of my weighting. The other 50 percent are social amenities. Is there a good school system? Is there a university system? Are there churches? Is there good planning?" The member opposite is a planner; he'll know that. What I found most encouraging was the weighting that this industrial giant, T. Boone Pickens, who is thought by some to have no heart at all, would put on the social amenities of a community, and how much impact those amenities had on his weighting for a site. I found that encouraging.

That's why I maintain that the best instrument for economic development for Prince George will be a university, and I follow that through when I say that a good instrument of economic development for Vancouver and for the province of British Columbia will be kaon, as is mentioned in the throne speech. The economists tell us that it will do more for Vancouver than a dozen icebreakers. It will bring a lot of research money to UBC, to the kaon plant, and will be of remarkable economic benefit to that sector. I can't take issue with that at all. I fully believe....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, I mentioned icebreakers. They're different; they're on top of the water. Do you get that sinking feeling?

MR. ROSE: You've been reading some of my old speeches on the value of education.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, this is from T. Boone Pickens. Are you writing his stuff too?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I'm going to get to that. A couple of Ministry of Environment initiatives are in the throne speech, and we'll discuss them briefly. Then I'll get to clean air. I better write that down in case I forget.

Two items here in the throne speech do have economic impact: the river rafting regulations, with legislation that will be coming forward this spring, and also special wastes. I'll like to deal with those in my brief time before the division bells ring at 5:30.

Just to recap river rafting, you'll be aware that we had a very tragic summer in the river rafting industry in 1987. It occurred to us very quickly that the small amount of regulation that we had obtained from the federal government under the Shipping Act was really not appropriate to the problems that we were facing and to the need of that industry to further have statute authority to regulate themselves or to have government regulate them.

So in the fall of 1987, we put together a commercial river rafting committee composed of experts from the industry and chaired by Jim Millar, who had been in the industry as a lawyer and spent a lot of time on the water, both as a river rafter and as a kayaker. He has very good whitewater experience. His committee sat, interviewed the industry, discussed their problems — the fatalities that had occurred in the summer of 1987 — and came to us in late 1987 with recommendations. The report was very well done, recommending that regulations and a total safety program be put in place. From that will be stemming legislation this session that will allow us as a provincial government to regulate the commercial activity on river rafters; to put a fee in place; to put into regulation what the training component will be; to put into regulation how we're going to identify various classes of rivers, how people will be trained to handle the commercial river rafting activity on the rivers; and to ensure the public in general and all who come to British Columbia to undertake that activity that we do have a safe, regulated industry in the province.

The report has been so complete and so well accepted that just the other day I received through the ministry an acknowledgement from Lloyd's of London that they are looking at what we've done, and recognize that we are going to be putting together one of the best programs of regulation for this type of outdoor activity in the world — or at least of all of

those who Lloyd's are aware of, and of course they're international. They are really pleased and impressed with what we have done.

Where this has economic impact, Mr. Speaker, is that following the tragedies of last summer, a lot of our American friends who had booked for river rafting trips in 1987 and later on in 1988 cancelled when they heard of the tragedies. This, of course, is the type of hit that that industry just can't take. It's serious, and it's a tourism adventure that has to take place during a very short summer season in the province. To have any cancellations at all is serious for them.

So by putting this legislation in place, by having our river rafting committee send us their recommendations, by assuring all and sundry and the industry that we are going to put these recommendations into statute form with the authority of legislation, we have a sent a large signal out to the river rafting industry and all who partake in that activity that British Columbia is a safe place to visit. It's a safe place to book for commercial river rafting. You can come here and enjoy the beautiful scenery of British Columbia, the whitewater excitement, yet know you are with fully trained and competent operators who are using certified equipment that's been tested and meets all of the standards that should be in place. I see that as a great signal to the American tourist who is going to come to our province and undertake that activity, and it will be most effective. So that's one area of economic initiative that stems from the Ministry of Environment and Parks.

The second item in the throne speech that I want to speak to just briefly before my time ends is, again, on page 9, and that's the comprehensive management of special wastes in our province. I have to give full credit to the former minister, the second member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Rogers), who in 1986 put together the Special Waste Advisory Committee under the able chairmanship of Dr. David Boyes, formerly of the Cancer Control Agency. That committee was put in place to investigate the concerns with special wastes; to investigate how we could handle it as a province; and, in two stages, to come to us with a proponent company which had the technology to handle special wastes, and then to seek a community where this special waste treatment facility could be sited.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Is she? Oh, good. She's enlightened. I've always known that. My type of girl — Attila the Hen.

Seriously, we have now selected a proponent. It's a B.C. consortium called Envirochem, using B.C. engineering, a Quebec firm for stabilization of the chemicals, and an American firm which has the best off-the-shelf technology with respect to incineration of toxic wastes. They have a very comprehensive plant-building program in place, and they are now seeking siting.

Where this becomes such a good economic initiative is, number one, for the community where a special waste facility is going to be sited. From experience at Swan Hills, Alberta, and other such facilities, there will be an employment base of 60 to 70 people, all well trained....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's too wet there. I'll get into that later. The city doesn't want it, either. Actually they're very safe.

The economic benefit is immediate, because you have 60 to 70 people employed on a full-time basis in an industry that is not going to be cyclic in any way, such as pulp and paper and other resource industries. It's going to be in continual use. These 60 to 70 people are well paid, in all cases having either a diploma or a degree and therefore commanding a very good salary and injecting that salary into the community for now and forever, because I don't think special wastes are really going to go away. So that's the number one benefit.

But there's a larger one to the province, and that is that industry now.... There really isn't an industry that doesn't in one way or another generate special wastes. As a matter of fact, if we look at special waste, we're all contributors to it. If you have your clothes dry-cleaned, if you have film developed, if you change the crankcase oil in your car — really, just living in the 1980s — you are generating special wastes. Therefore we shouldn't try to hide and say it's someone else's problem, because it's a problem we've all created as consumers consuming the types of products we like to have nowadays. It's a problem we have to address.

Where it benefits the province is that industry knows that in just about any manufacturing process now they are going to be generating special wastes — there's just no question about it. One of the obvious ones is the high tech industry, the people who are making microchips and that type of material for the high tech industry. They use acids for etching, and other components in the manufacturing process that do become special wastes.

If they're going to site their operation, their high tech chip plant or whatever it is that they want to do, they're going to be looking for a jurisdiction that will accept their special wastes and has a treatment for processing them. They know that in Canada people don't like to ship this material any more. We have for some years now shipped our special wastes to Oregon. Now Oregon has stopped us from shipping PCBs, so we have to store them here until we get our own treatment facility. But industry in general will look at a jurisdiction, know that there's a transportation problem, especially across borders, and will locate where they can safely dispose of the special wastes that they are generating.

Therefore it's my 6im conclusion, and the conclusion of many who have looked at this, that by siting such a facility in the province of British Columbia, we are going to be encouraging industry to invest and to come to our province — industry that otherwise would not be here. Again, I see that as a very positive instrument of economic development, of initiative, and one which will benefit our province, not only the host community that has the special waste facility but the whole province, as industry will be attracted here.

I see my time is just about running out, which I'm sure is a relief to all of you who have been listening. I will advise you, Mr. Speaker, that 1 will be voting against the amendment to the motion. As I said, I was just about to go for it, but it is argumentative, and I don't like that type of motion. Also, I can't really accept any of the comments that we have discredited economic policies and ideological dogma which are causing uncertainty, instability....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't think so. I think our policies are pretty straightforward, sound in principle and practical, and ones which I endorse. On the basis of that, Mr. Speaker, I'll thank you and all members present for their indulgence, and advise you that I will be voting against this amendment and for the throne speech.

MS. EDWARDS: I want to support this amendment, because our party is asking for some substance. We think that the throne speech, to make a small joke, is an issue of substance abuse. We prefer that there be some substance in political announcements, in policy, that it go ahead, that it not be all charisma. If this throne speech depended on its charisma, it would fail there too. However, what we want is substance, and we want some consistency. In the amendment we have addressed the problem that the government has of compartmentalized thinking, which has led the government to ideologically pursue goals inconsistent with many of its actions, inconsistent with many of its members' requests — just see the list of proposed resolutions — and even inconsistent with some of its other ideologies.

The throne speech spends what little vigour it has on complaining about the federal government's poor provision of services to British Columbians. The interesting part is that while our government is busy dismantling the whole system of service delivery in British Columbia, it shakes its fingers at the federal government, presumes to assess how well the federal provides public services, and offers to take over federal government services as it passes its own responsibilities onto the private sector.

While opining the federal government's inability to understand British Columbia, its economy and its special circumstances, and while saying that the feds regularly treat us as the forgotten stepchild, this government somehow "welcomes and fully supports the free trade agreement with the United States." In order to do so, it ignores that the agreement fails to give key western export industries secure access to the U.S. market. It makes unwarranted concessions to American demands. It undermines policies which aim to diversify the resource economy and gives the U.S. guaranteed access to western resources. In sum, the agreement would leave British Columbia even more vulnerable to economic forces over which we have no control and, far worse, take away the tools we need to build a more stable and diversified economy. The whole free trade agreement fiasco, with British Columbia blindly following the federal government to ultimate loss of our national sovereignty while it whines a chorus about losing sovereignty over South Moresby Island, would be high farce if it were not the reality.

The provincial government says: "For too long, the federal vision failed to see beyond central Canada." Then it goes ahead. Does it offer us a better model that what it sees happening? Not by the experience in my constituency.

In Kootenay riding we have some ideas for the government — some serious suggestions about remembering the eastern part of British Columbia before the sun sets on us, as it is supposedly busy rising in the west. My constituents worry about their environment. As a resource-based area, we live off the avails of mining, forestry and tourism — even some agriculture. We have severe conflicts over the use of our natural resources, and we have some experience in managing those conflicts in the interests of preserving an economic base — the bottom line, if you like — and a way of life which we usually call our culture.

How is the British Columbia government protecting our concerns? Mr. Speaker, I see it is nearly 5:30. Would you prefer that I carry on with this oration and this berating later?

MS. EDWARDS: The question is: how is the B.C. government protecting our concerns? While it maintains a commitment to multiple resource use, we see it proposes and is now administratively stressing and pressing for a major transfer of forest land into tree-farm licence holdings, which is a virtual giveaway of Crown land for single-use purposes.

The essential rationale for the preponderance of Crown land in this province is that such a diverse and geographically difficult province gains through control by and for the people. Vast areas of the province have been managed for decades by the Crown, and it brought us an unparalleled forest industry. But other resource users in my constituency unreservedly reject a move to change huge tracts of land into TFL tenure for foreign-controlled companies and to abandon Crown control, which can further our efforts at conflict management and intelligent multiple use.

YEAS — 14
Barnes	Rose	Harcourt
Stupich	Gabelmann	Blencoe
Cashore,	Guno	Williams
Miller	A. Hagen	Jones
Clark		Edwards

NAYS — 38
Brummet	Savage	Rogers
L. Hanson	Dueck	Richmond
Parker	Pelton	Loenen
Crandall	De Jong	Rabbitt
Dirks	Mercier	Long
Veitch	McCarthy	S. Hagen
Strachan	Vander Zalm	B.R. Smith
Couvelier	Davis	Johnston
R. Fraser	Weisgerber	Jansen
Gran	Chalmers	Ree
Bruce	Serwa	Vant
Campbell	Peterson	Davidson
Jacobsen		S.D. Smith

MS. EDWARDS: I will adjust my remarks now to address the throne speech itself which, as I was just saying, had very little substance. In fact, it had very little charisma either, but we would have preferred to have some substance. We would have liked, from our constituency, to have some promise that the government is going to address some of the issues that affect resource industries, which, of course, are represented in my riding.

I was talking about the problem that the forest industry is up against. It's not always all clear sailing for it and the users

of resources other than the forest resource, who are not happy with having these huge tracts of land turned into a specific single-use tenure. What will the government do to deal with resource-use conflict from now on? We want to know that they have some plans to do this. We want to know how the government will promote the multiple use that it so embraces while it hands the major part of the land base over to the private, and often foreign, industry for a single use. When do we consult over this? Or are we simply seeking more foreign investors whose interest is the U.S. market, and who will come to exploit our resource so that they can sell more goods to the U.S. market under the terms of the proposed FTA?

With the coal-mining industry, we get more doubletalk. Are we as a province committed to selling coal to Ontario? "Sure," says the government,"that would stabilize our market to take the bounce out of the dips of the export market." What kind of commitment is it that says it's in favour while it blandly supports the FIA, the supposed free trade agreement, which not only discriminates against east West movement of goods but which also attacks our coal export position?

With the FIA comes, as it is already coming, a strengthening of the Canadian dollar. Three of the four coal-exporting companies in my riding have their contracts in U.S. dollars. Every cent that the Canadian dollar rises means hundreds of thousands of dollars more cost on the production side. The edge that our coal producers had in relation to competitors in the U.S. lessens. The edge that our producers have now in relation to competitors elsewhere also lessens in proportion to the strength of the Canadian dollar vis-à-vis their particular unit of currency measured against the U.S. dollar. When new contracts are written, every one of the producers for export in my riding will be facing the problem that comes with trying to export a product that went well when the Canadian dollar was low but that doesn't go well when it's higher. A province like B.C. that depends so heavily on exports, not only in coal but in other products, had better have some proposals on hand to deal with the obvious difficulties that we face. Where are they? Are they coming?

Another issue is water. It comes to mind when one thinks about the free trade agreement. Kootenay riding is water poor; it's a semi-arid zone. It's not yet totally arid, as it might be if it is ever declared a special economic zone. The users of our water resource have no easy access to the water that we have. Much of it is committed already. The control of the Kootenay River in Montana under the Columbia River Treaty is one example of the commitment and of the problems. The Kootenay River will likely be a river this summer above the U. S. border, but it will be a river with wide mud and dust flats on either side, with a record fishery in it of Kokanee, but a fishery that no fisherman can get at, and perhaps with domestic animals wandering uncontrolled up and down the flats and into the river.

The river is usually Koocanusa Lake; it has been since the dam was completed. Its benefits are usually exploited by 25,000 visitors into Kikomun Creek Park every year and some 18,000 campers and visitors who camp and recreate from the unmanaged areas around the lake, as well as local people who also fish and recreate at Koocanusa Lake. The B.C. government has justly promoted the recreational values of Koocanusa Lake, the benefits of this reservoir which came into the area against the wishes of a lot of people. They have rightly said this would be a recreational resort, and said: "Whatever is there we deserve." It is also right that they do so, since we lost the best agricultural land in the southeast in order to supply power benefits for all of B.C., mainly the rest of B.C. This year, no recreational benefit. Boat launches will be up to 400 feet away from water, perhaps separated by impossible mud or blinding dust. The dust storms already experienced around the Arrow reservoir near Revelstoke could be bettered here with the formerly productive Kootenay soil. The merchants who have stocked for a summer of tourists and visiting fisherpersons have their survival at stake, because they have stocked rods and flies and hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of product that will not move. They will pay a very high price for the decimation of the recreational resource on this river.

Marina operators will probably have to cancel bookings, unless we have unusually high precipitation between now and the summer. They have week-long bookings that they will lose income from. They are already booked into promotions, fairs and so on that they cannot get out of now. One operator who was encouraged into this business by the government of British Columbia said he has invested $100,000, which he will probably lose this summer.

Tourism will be chopped, tourist loyalty will be eroded, and unless someone finds some money — more than $50,000 — for additional fencing-. domestic animals cannot be contained for range management planning that has finally removed the threat of destruction of a range for both domestic and wild animals. The range is delicate; it's valuable. Is the government going to pay to save it?

What is the government doing in face of this probability? What has it done in the face of previous evidence that even in normal water years, a recreational resource that depends on the full ecosystem has been severely affected by treaty dams, affected without mitigation? My investigations show that the government policy is to ignore the environment and recreational consequences of maximum power generation strategies for B.C. and the U.S. northwest.

Is the electric power generation need so great that we make no attempt to address the other needs of British Columbians? How will this issue affect the people of B.C. when their government is promoting closer ties with Washington, Oregon, California and Alaska? Whose interests will have priority? If the government has addressed these issues, then it has clearly concluded that the quick buck has priority over environmental and recreational concerns.

If its actions do not reflect discussion of the issues, then it is time to address them. The throne speech makes no such commitment. In fact, the government's whole approach to environmental protection needed to be addressed in the throne speech if government expects to "diversify and expand our economic base," and if it expects to do this with support from a majority of British Columbians. This past year has indicated the sincere and basic concerns of British Columbians for the protection of their environment, for a healthy and safe ecosystem.

A particular concern in my riding besides land use itself, which is the very basis of the industries that give us our bread and gravy — if there is any — is a proposal for a plant to dispose of hazardous wastes. Four bodies in my area decided to investigate what the province, through the Boyes commission, was proposing. which the Minister of Environment and Parks (Hon. Mr. Strachan) discussed at length previous to

me. We have had a good look, however, at how the government goes about the crucial issues on the edge of environmental and health safety. The Boyes commission took submissions in Vancouver from groups and individuals throughout the province on this highly technical issue, without providing a single cent of advocacy support. They did this against the advice of some of our most highly regarded environmental specialists. So much for an attempt to see all sides of this issue that's brand-new to our world and crucial to our health, perhaps even to our survival in an industrial world.

Even so, environmental advocates clearly laid out the necessity for a fully thought out strategy for disposal of hazardous wastes. It became clear that the three Rs — reduction, reuse and recycling — have to be considered first, the economic implications have to be predicted, and fail-safe measures have to be proposed before we commit ourselves to a for-profit enterprise to control this whole process of getting rid of hazardous wastes, before we put ourselves into the hands of a consortium or even put that consortium into a marginally supportable position which works against the three Rs, where in fact the disposal plant depends on a volume that may not be there if industry recycles, reduces and reuses enough.

Where is the plan for resolving this problem? Where is the plan for getting hazardous wastes off our highways? Where is the incentive for industry to pay the cost of the three Rs when a disposal plant needs more waste in order to survive? Are there protections against the importation of this kind of waste, and can they be relied on? What can come right now, although the minister seems to say otherwise, is only an incomplete project, one that deals only with the trunk of the elephant, forgetting that the trunk depends on the head and the head on the body, and the body is supported by the legs, and so on.

Even though we have a promise for a hazardous waste disposal plan, our investigations in talking with the commission indicate that it's not all in place. The public consultation has not been done. What we have instead of this kind of plan is a comment in the throne speech that we will be carrying on with privatization. They do this in the face of broad public opposition, clearly defined opposition from experts, and obvious structural and legal problems. When does the consultation begin on this issue? We want to know.

We have also in the Speech from the Throne a hint that the government will extend "more powers to local and regional government." Continue what process? How can you continue what you haven't begun? What was promised with this so-called regionalization was a pipeline into cabinet, and any pipeline into cabinet, no matter how you calculate it, gives people an increased regional control. All the so-called decentralization program has done is put a score or more of committees into place for local activists to spend their time on, on the rationale — questionable from a government — that the existing bureaucracy doesn't work. If the bureaucracy doesn't work, why doesn't the government fix it?

These questions need to be addressed with positive proposals. What is the government proposing for small business, for example, in answer to a recent charge by John Bulloch that provincial governments will feather their nests with funds from the western diversification fund that should go to small business? Is that why the provincial government screams at the federal government: because it's getting better support than small business?

We in Kootenay constituency ask for positive and specific measures the government might propose to answer the concerns that we bring, and we expect consultation to result in true response. The issues are broad, but the answers must come from a fair treatment of people in hundreds of specific situations. The sooner the government is ready to put forward its responses, to take the ideas of the people of B.C. in, before it gives its answers, the stronger it will be. For the people of British Columbia, I implore the government to sincerely and truly consult, but to drop the pride that you show in the throne speech for acting swiftly, when speed simply interferes with providing a fair response.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 21, 1988
Afternoon Sitting

CONTENTS

1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.