Hansard — Wednesday, March 23, 1988, Afternoon Sitting — British Columbia Legislative Assembly

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to this House a man who leads the great state neighbouring our province, a man who's prepared and anxious to work with us in promoting the beauty and the attractiveness of our two regions to the world; a man who, with us, is anxious to see our two peoples work in a fair and competitive spirit, or together, to create more diverse opportunities for our citizens. Please welcome to the House the Governor of beautiful Washington State, Mr. Booth Gardner.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to pass on a welcome to our good friend from Washington State. I understand that he is a moderate, progressive Democrat who strikes the right tone.

I certainly enjoyed reading the speech by Governor Gardner about the education system and the initiatives being taken in Washington, the importance of education to the wellbeing of the state. I think I'll circulate it to our Minister of Education and others. It's a very well-written speech, sir.

I too would like to pay tribute to the tremendous friendship that exists between the people of British Columbia and the people of Washington. We're looking for a baseball team; maybe you are too, but I won't comment on that. Welcome to British Columbia, sir.

MR. VANT: Mr. Speaker, we have a very special guest up in your gallery who is no stranger to this House. I'm referring to Mr. Bill Speare, who was a member of this House for the great Cariboo constituency from 1957 to 1967 –– 1 want every member of the House to know that he was not defeated at the polls, but he stepped down to allow Robert Bonner to run in a by-election –– 1 know the House would like to give a very warm welcome to a former member of this House, Bill Speare.

HON. MR. DUECK: It is indeed a pleasure for me to introduce two fine people from the Central Fraser Valley, Helen and John Wittenberg. These people have contributed much to the area, to the community I come from. Helen Wittenberg is a retired R.N. John Wittenberg is an ex-high school English teacher — my children had the privilege of learning the English language in the proper form — and also a director of BCBC. They are here visiting this chamber with my wife Helen. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. REE: This is a day for politicians or former politicians visiting our Legislature and the city of Victoria. In the gallery today is Mr. Cal Glauser and his lovely wife Marjorie from Saskatoon. Mr. Glauser was the member for Saskatoon Mayfair for the Progressive Conservative Party for the years 1982-86. Like the former member for Cariboo, he did not lose in the polls either; he stepped down. He was also parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health in Saskatchewan and with the Royal Bank in that great province. I'd ask this House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Glauser to our chamber, to Victoria and to British Columbia.

MR. PELTON: With the indulgence of hon. members, I would like to make three introductions for you, Mr. Speaker: Mona and Hesham Nabih of West Vancouver; Cal Briscoe and Laura Kernel from Coquitlam; Mr. Gerry Laliberte and Mr. Ray Wells of Victoria. Would you make them all welcome, please.

MR. BLENCOE: In the gallery is Dr. Bill Ross of the University of Victoria geography department, an old friend who of late has been doing a great deal of analysis of boundaries in British Columbia and has put together some good studies for the Fisher commission. Would the House please welcome Dr. Bill Ross.

MR. LOENEN: In the member's gallery from the great riding of Richmond is a constituent of mine, Mr. John Jansen. Would the House please welcome him.

MS. A. HAGEN: In the gallery opposite is one of the most respected and widely known gerontologists in our province, Gloria Levi, a woman who in 1972 began to do some excellent work for seniors in this city, the legacy of which is still with us. I know that members on both sides of the House will welcome Miss Levy this afternoon.

MR. HUBERTS: In the gallery today is a good friend of mine, John de Jong, whose wife works as a librarian in the parliament buildings. I'd like the House to welcome John.

MR. BRUCE: You all know I've been doing the best I can to introduce to the House every one of my constituents from Cowichan-Malahat, but today I would like to do something a little different. I don't want you to think that there isn't anybody left in the Cowichan-Malahat for me to introduce, but today in the gallery are 26 students, grades 9 to 12, from Souris, Prince Edward Island. They are taking part in an exchange program with some Lake Cowichan students, and they are here under the direction of a Lake Cowichan Secondary School teacher, Mr. Simkins. They are with their chaperone, Catherine MacDonald, and their teacher, Mr. Gregory MacNevin. Would you please welcome these people from Prince Edward Island to our chambers.

MR. SKELLY: I hope the House will welcome Don McCann from Parksville, British Columbia, formerly an Alberni constituent.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would move Motion 52 on the order paper which strikes the special Select Standing Committee and authorizes them to investigate the Builders Lien Act, so that that committee can meet today. (See appendix. ]

MS. EDWARDS: My question is to the Minister of Environment and Parks. Once again, Mr. Minister, British

Columbians hear about the government's plans for privatization through leaked documents. Now B.C.'s park campgrounds are being privatized, despite no mention of it in the Premier's announcements last fall or in last week's throne speech. Washington, Oregon and California embarked on a similar program of parks privatization, and in every case they have either bought back or are buying back the services that were removed from public control. How can the minister reconcile his proceeding on this scheme, given the experience of neighbouring states and their decision to abandon the privatization of their parks?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As the member indicated in her preamble to the question, she is dealing with a leaked document. Therefore any comment I would make would be dealing with future policy. There is no decision yet to be made on that issue.

MS. EDWARDS: Would the minister tell us what research he might have which would show that the security, safety and comfort of the nearly two million people who use the campgrounds each year would be maintained if, in fact, private operators would be forced to put private profit before the public service?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Again, the question was posed with the word "if" in it; so if that comes to pass, the answer is yes, I will provide that information.

MS. EDWARDS: I would like to ask the minister if he has decided to reject the proposal to privatize campgrounds in British Columbia.

MS. EDWARDS:, I'd like to give a supplementary to the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture. I'd like to know whether this minister has done any research which shows that privatizing park campgrounds and risking a decline in the quality of park services would not affect B.C.'s tourism industry — particularly family vacations by tourists.

HON. MR. REID: In answer to the member, our research tells us that the interest in the parks in the province of British Columbia accelerated in 1987 over 1986, and we see any move to increase tourism into the parks as a positive move.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in response to a question I raised about American-Canadian Systems Inc., the minister said, and I'm quoting from the Blues: " . he has hit on one that is presently under examination." Calls yesterday to the superintendent of brokers' office did not indicate that they were investigating insider trading on this matter with Canarim. Could the minister tell this House who is doing that investigation, and when that investigation commenced?

HON.MR.COUVELIER: The regulatory mechanisms in this province dealing with the securities industry consists of two sections. The first one is a securities commission which reports directly to me and, as you know, has had extensive work done in terms of its regulations and its staffing levels and has had the budget increased considerably. As a consequence, its performance and effectiveness has dramatically improved.

The second vehicle to regulate this important element in our financial community is the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Insofar as the Stock Exchange is connected, regulated and monitored by the Securities Commission, I necessarily have an interest in the operations of both. As I pointed out in my reply to the hon. member yesterday, I find myself unable to deal with specific allegations about specific instances, given the fact that, in an abundance of fairness, we have to wait until examinations are completed before any action, if necessary, is considered or taken. As a consequence, I find myself unable to provide any further specific detail to this specific question on this specific instance. The member, being a member of the legal profession, should understand that and acknowledge it. He persists, of course, in making these kinds of comments, which I find myself unable to deal with in a specific sense.

I have a choice. I can rise and say yes or no, and that will put the issue to bed. If he persists in this line of questioning, that's all I'll be able to do.

MR. SIHOTA: In light of that non-answer, is the minister willing to concede that he was less than forthright when he said yesterday that the matter was presently under examination?

MR. SIHOTA: The minister said during the course of his first response that the VSE is performing more effectively and its performance is dramatically improved. Yesterday the former superintendent of brokers said the Vancouver Stock Exchange is failing because of its lax regulations. We have argued that those regulations have been lax for some time. He said that stocks are too easily manipulated on the Vancouver Stock Exchange and that the last thing that many of the companies are interested in is running a business — and I'm quoting. Is the minister now prepared to concede that the Securities Act and its regulations are not working?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm tempted to be a little bit more thorough in my response, but I'll just get by with "no."

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Premier. Last July the Premier and I met in his office, and I think we had a good meeting on the Songhees. The issue we discussed was local ownership, local control and the ability of local developers to participate to a maximum. We have now heard that BCEC is to be sold off as a package, and therefore the discussions that the Premier and I had — that Songhees would be owned and developed locally — seem to be thwarted.

Will the Premier again today reinforce that Songhees, the greatest development this city has seen in many years, will be locally owned and controlled, and that small entrepreneurs in Victoria and British Columbia will be the major players?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Speaker, if we mean what we say when we say that it potentially could do a great deal for the city of Victoria and be one of its finest areas; if we mean what we say when we look at the opportunities for creating not only accommodation but job opportunities for people in the building of it and hopefully after, on an ongoing basis, then we shouldn't constrain the process by saying that it must be local and must be all of what the NDP would like it to be. Rather, the only criteria ought to be that we want the best deal for British Columbians, that we want the best deal for the city of Victoria, that we want the finest development possible. That's what we're saying: the finest development for the city and the province — not a whole lot of constraint based on NDP philosophy only.

MR. BLENCOE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the Premier agree that in Victoria and the province of British Columbia, small entrepreneurs — British Columbia entrepreneurs — are the future of this great province and that they should be afforded the ability to participate equally in developing this great site just to the north of us? Does the Premier agree that Songhees should be foreign-owned at the expense of local entrepreneurs?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:, Mr. Speaker, if this hon. member means what he says about being supportive of small entrepreneurs, of entrepreneurism, of people doing things with their capabilities and capacities, why is he so opposed to privatization?

MR. LOVICK: Given that thunderous response, Mr. Speaker, one can't help but make the observation that we on this side always mean what we say — unlike some others.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I ask the minister if he could confirm for this House that there has been a directive issued to district highways managers advising that as of April 1, there will be no more daily or hourly contracts let. Rather, all work now has to be tendered on a minimum two-month basis. Is that indeed the case?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The answer to the question.... If you could read the Blues, you'd find the answer is no.

MR. LOVICK: I would now like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis), who I understand is currently in charge of the privatization initiatives. In view of the fact that the government has now spent some $30 million by special warrant for their early retirement plan, will the minister please tell the House how many employees have taken or will be taking advantage of that early retirement provision, and what is the revised estimated cost?

MR. LOVICK: I'm going to direct a third question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. the minister in charge of the Workers' Compensation Board. The Harmac mill in Nanaimo is now using TCMTB,2- (thiocyanomethylthio) benzothiazole — I assure the House that my question to the minister isn't. "Will he pronounce that for us? " — instead of PCP to treat lumber. In view of the fact that there have now been some 27 reported injuries to workers using TCMTB — sore throats, sinus infections, nausea, nose bleeds and other such stuff — will the Minister of Labour approach the Workers' Compensation Board with instructions for them to hold, as quickly as possible, public hearings in order to set a permissible level for TCMTB?

HON. L. HANSON: I will take that question on notice and talk to the WCB to see what their knowledge is of that particular procedure. and their position, and I'll report back to the House at a later date.

MR. LOVICK: I think it's fair to say — surely all of us would agree — that that's not good enough. This is a problem that has been coming for some time.

MR. LOVICK: Don't worry. For those whose attention span is limited, I'll get to the question very quickly. The question is: will you not ensure. Mr. Minister, that the WCB will be instructed forthwith to establish what acceptable permissible levels are" We're talking about workers' health and safety. It's not the kind of thing that should be taken on notice; there should be an answer now, I submit, Mr. Minister.

HON. L. HANSON: Again, I will take the question on notice, and I will report back to the House at a future date. In fairness to the WCB, I think I should have the opportunity of learning what their position is with it, and what they have done to this point. So with that, I will take it on notice and return with the answer to the House at a later date.

MR. LOVICK: Could the Minister of Environment and Parks inform us whether his department has conducted studies, and whether that department will be making recommendations to the Workers' Compensation Board regarding permissible levels?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will advise the member and the Legislative Assembly that it was the initiative of the Ministry of Environment last September 1987 to eliminate PCBs as a sapstain material. and other chemicals are recommended. So I can advise the member that I will investigate within my own ministry what studies have been done with respect to this new chemical, its use and the impact and effect on employees using it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on Address in Reply. I adjourned, and I will defer my position to the hon. Attorney-General.

HON. B.R. SMITH: It is a pleasure to rise in my place and support the throne speech and also to endorse the very

buoyant economic forecasts contained in that speech and which will be contained tomorrow, I am sure, in the budget address. There is no doubt that 1987 was a very good year in British Columbia, that we have an excellent record of creating new jobs — one of the best records in Canada — and that our growth rate is the envy of the country.

What I think is needed in this place is a more robust and buoyant attitude towards the economy — a more optimistic attitude. We seem to have reflected in this chamber a kind of negative attitude. I have noticed from question period — maybe it's just one or two questions — a kind of negative feeling towards the private sector at every level.

There is almost a suggestion here that the private sector can't run anything, whether it's a service station, a campground or a correction program, and that somehow if it's done in the private sector, it's not going to be done properly or honestly. I think that's a regrettable point of view, and I wish that members opposite would have a little more buoyancy and confidence in the economy and in the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important features of our program in the past year has been the support that we and the Premier have given to free trade. There is no policy in Canada that affects British Columbia more vitally than free trade. Free trade has been alluded to in Canada for over a hundred years — really for 125 years — since the reciprocity pacts of the nineteenth century. It was the dream of the great Laurier to bring about free trade. Free trade is now very close to realization. There is every indication that the American Congress is going to adopt free trade this summer.

We in Canada — Canada being a trading nation, an export nation, a nation that can now manufacture and compete with its manufacturing in world markets — not only have absolutely nothing to lose, but we have everything to gain by embracing a free trade arrangement, which will protect our markets with the United States. Markets so vital to us for softwood lumber, shakes and shingles — we saw in the past couple of years how terribly vulnerable we are to those markets if anything goes wrong with our trading relations with the United States and how serious it is for the threat of countervailing duties.

Under this trading arrangement, there is going to be, I believe, a much more stable trading relationship with the United States. It is going to mean in this province, I believe, additional jobs and additional growth. I know that some members opposite have problems with this and that one of their problems is that they want to remain consistent with their national leader in the year of a federal election. But 1 would hope that they would try to look at this question as British Columbians and Canadians, not as New Democrats; to look at the whole trade question, to listen not to Bob White but to Jack Munro. Listen to people in British Columbia who are producing the wealth and working in those industries, and see if this trading arrangement isn't needed and if it isn't absolutely vital to our salvation.

Please don't be so skeptical, and don't be negative. I know that there's skepticism in Canada whenever trading arrangements with the United States are discussed. There are nationalist groups, public sector media and members of the cultural community who say that we're going to be swallowed up by Big Brother. But if you look at these arrangements, you'll find that those groups and their interests in the cultural community — the magazine industry and so on — are well protected under this arrangement. They are not going to be swallowed up by American domination. Expanded trade is absolutely vital to British Columbia.

I want to speak very briefly about something else in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker: Meech Lake. This government has supported Meech Lake right from the very beginning, a year ago. We didn't support Meech Lake because we thought it was the last word in constitutional negotiations in the country or that it was going to produce the finest constitution we ever had. We supported it because it was something that could be done by ten provinces and the federal government sitting down together and finally working out an arrangement in Ottawa that wasn't the kind of arrangement that we got in 1980 and 1981, where centrist agendas were rammed down our throats, where we were told to like it or leave it or we'd have geese flying in a referendum and have these things crammed down our craw. We got this by ten provinces sitting down with the federal government and working out an arrangement that is basically pretty defensible — not the arrangement perhaps that if we had written it we would like, or the arrangement that Quebec would have written if it had had its own way, but one in which you can hold your head up.

First of all, what does it do? It reconciles Quebec to the modern constitutional conferences and participation. It doesn't give them everything they want; it doesn't give them a sole veto. That's what Levesque wanted: a veto for his province. He has the same veto as British Columbia has now. We each have a veto on certain central core things in the constitution. It also recognizes Quebec as a distinctive society, but it doesn't recognize it as having special status. It gives special recognition but no special status.

You can actually, for the first time, talk about some constitutional compromise that has been reached in Canada, without going around British Columbia, hiding under potted palms, and having people say: "Oh, yes. We know what you've done. You've sold out to the province of Quebec." We haven't sold out. We've allowed Quebec to buy in and be part of Confederation and not to be alienated as they were in 1980 after the referendum; in November 1981, when they didn't sign; and in 1982, when on that day in Ottawa the heavens opened, when the proclamation was signed by Her Majesty, and the rain came down from those clouds that came over the Ottawa River from Quebec and almost blotted out the signatures. They were not part of that, and now they are –– 1 think it's a good arrangement.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Sure, I agree: it could be a lot better. I'd like to have seen the Senate reform in there. Not the promise to have it in the future — I'd like to have seen it there. I wouldn't like to see the triple-E Senate, or other weird ideas that come in from the great west. I'd like to have seen a Senate that was efficient and effective, not one that was elected, and not one that had only six senators from this province and ten from Nova Scotia and ten from New Brunswick — an absolutely ridiculous representation formula. I'd like to have seen more senators here, more power, more responsibility, shorter term. Those are the things I'll be working for in the years ahead.

HON. B.R. SMITH: The amending formula is a unanimous formula for those absolutely protected core things,

like Parliament, the language, the Senate and so on. The Senate is number one on the agenda for reform, so we're going to have to address it. It's true that the provinces now will submit the list of senators from which they will be approved. That's an interim measure only.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I don't know about that. They say that Manitoba may do the same thing after their election. But I think it's going to be very hard for a Premier who is also a good Canadian, sitting out there in New Brunswick, a dual language province, a province that has always participated in Confederation and has never opted out.... It's going to be very, very difficult for that government, in the final analysis, to be the one that sinks this accord. I hope they won't do so.

I think that Meech Lake has other things to commend it as well. I'm not going to debate Meech Lake today, because we're going to debate the resolution next month.

I'm very happy with the provision that allows this province to opt out of national social service schemes that are solely in provincial jurisdiction. I say solely, because those are the only schemes we're talking about. We can opt out of those schemes provided we run a scheme of our own that is compatible with the national objectives. I see that as very good. For instance, a national day care scheme, and we in this province could say if we wish to: "No, we're not going to run that kind of scheme. We're going to run a different scheme. But your national objectives we can meet, and our scheme will be tailored to it." If we do that, then we will get that federal money and we'll be able to earmark it for our scheme, instead of our taxpayers paying for the schemes in all the other provinces.

HON. B.R. SMITH: What we do with universities is not only to return all of the EPF moneys to higher education, but we put a darn sight more of our own in as well, despite the self-serving federal figures that the members opposite like to quote. EPF moneys are global moneys for health and education, as they know.

I also would like to praise the Meech Lake accord for another feature of it, which hasn't had very much attention in the country: the provision that allows the province to enter into an immigration agreement with the federal government, to have an immigration agreement for British Columbia in which we target our immigration to certain categories. I can see that as being of enormous advantage to us in increasing our trading relations with various regions of the world. We could enter into an immigration agreement to bring immigration from a particular part of the world, say the Common Market, or to bring in people with certain skills that are needed in Canada and which we have not been able to keep pace with. We can have skilled immigration, we can have trading block immigration, and of course we can have immigration to attract capital.

1 see that as very important, because those immigration agreements can become constitutionalized, and the federal government that follows and the provincial government that follows will not be able to change them. They have to meet, of course, the requirements of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I also like the statement in the throne speech that pledges a start on the Vancouver Island Highway. I know that the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) shares that feeling with me. I can see a warm glow arising as he looks at me when I'm saying this. He's saying: "I agree with that member." That highway is our priority. We want to see it built not in ten years but in five if we can. We want to see a start being made down here, and a start made at the north end of the Island. We want to see the Nanaimo bypass organized. I'm totally in favour of that.

I also would be remiss if I didn't praise His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor for his wisdom in mentioning the assistance and the enhancement to the racing industry. One of the great industries in British Columbia, the horse-race industry....

The horse-race industry employs roughly 10,000 people. That includes breeding. It is one of the finest and most promising in the country, and it should be second to none in North America north of California. It should be every bit as good as Woodbine and Upper Canada. I'll tell you, we've got the climate, we've got the people, we've got the soil, and we can do it. All we need is a world-class track, and a little bit of support. Our horse-race task force has been set up, and this task force is chaired by Mohan Jawl, who's well-known in racing circles and is also a very distinguished lawyer who articled for Chief Justice Laskin and was a gold medallist in his class. He's an owner of world-class race horses. I know the member over there followed the career of the late Bedside Promise, record-holder of six-furlongs at Hollywood Park, who ran the fastest ten furlongs of his life at Hollywood Park and then dropped dead and missed the chance to run in the million dollar sprint of the Breeders' Cup in November 1987.

There are a few of my justice hobby-horses in this throne speech that I want to commend. First of all is the statement that we're going to provide a statutory base for programs and services designed to help victims of crime. How long overdue that help is. We have built a justice system which has done a tremendous job to safeguard the rights of people who are accused of crimes but has done very little to provide any support for those innocent people who get in the way of criminals — who are beaten up, mugged and robbed. Now at last we have a program, a two-year commitment to start it up, and quite a bit of success with it already. We put $1.7 million out this year in community grants....

HON. B.R. SMITH: Well, much of that was volunteer time. I qualify for that; so does the Premier, and so did the

dulcet doomsday tones of Raymond Burr, which came gratis to us. Raymond didn't submit any bills. And the advertising budget of the victims program was amazingly light, and much of the time was donated by broadcasters to get that message across. But we will have another program this year — an approximately $2 million program — and we're doing it by involving communities and getting community organizations to do most of the core work, together with the police forces. That's the approach. All over this province our members have been involved in this, and I have to commend the MLAs in this chamber on both sides. Their enthusiasm for the victims program in their communities has, I think, got it off to a very good start.

We also have a toll-free number, the first one in Canada. Dialing 1-800-VICTIMS anywhere in this province will get you some counselling and get you in touch with a local resource. That's a first.

What we need now is a legislative framework for some basic victims' rights, some basic support and some statutory funding in the future. That will be my objective with legislation following up on the throne speech.

I also want to mention the Justice Reform Committee, which is referred to in the throne speech, and the attempt to try to make the justice system more efficient and less costly. That's a very tall order, as those of you know who have come in contact with the justice system and have tackled it either as lawyers or clients, or whatever. This system does need some fine tuning, because whether you're dealing with the civil or the criminal courts, they're bogging down under their own weight. Caseloads are too heavy; they proceed too slowly through the courts; the chance for delay is too great. The judges have identified this; the bar has identified it. What is needed, I think, are some very tough rules and some procedures that will cut through some of this red tape and get this system moving.

So under my able deputy, Mr. Ted Hughes, I have a committee of lawyers and laymen and one judge who are traveling the province and holding public meetings and who are going to make recommendations to us before summer. We intend to move on those, and we intend to pass some very radical changes in legislation to enable the justice system to move a little more smartly than it does.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Well, I should also say that part of their mandate is to look at criminal procedure. Although we can't pass criminal law in this chamber, we can change and streamline some of the criminal procedure. I happen to believe that the criminal trial has become far too complicated and lengthy. Too much time is spent on technical matters, on the rules of evidence; not enough time is being spent on the merits; there's too much time spent on charter arguments. All of these things, I believe, don't have to be done at a jury trial, with the jury going in and out like a yo-yo. They should be done with some kind of pre-trial motion, where everything is dealt with, the judge rules, the rulings bind and then the trial goes ahead.

1 also believe that what is needed is better and earlier Crown disclosure — full disclosure — and less time spent on preliminary inquiries and at trial. The trade-off should be more Crown disclosure and full disclosure for less procedural wrangling later. If we can bring that about, we will have achieved something very worthwhile.

The last issue I'm going to touch upon in the throne speech is the issue of parole reform. This government will be shortly bringing in a Green Paper on parole reform and will be passing a new provincial parole bill. Most parole in British Columbia is not provincial parole. Most parole deals with people who are in for more than two years, and they are under the National Parole Board. So a lot of the things we're going to say are going to touch upon national parole policies and how they are administered. We are going to try to recommend some basic changes in the approach. We are not going to take the position of the Archambault commission: that is, that most paroles should be eliminated and the judge should make all the decisions; that we should get rid of parole boards because we don't like some of the decisions they've made.

We're going to say that paroles should be structured a little differently; that we've got some very dangerous people out there who shouldn't be eligible for parole at an early stage and maybe some who shouldn't be eligible at all because they are very dangerous; that we've got a lot of other people at the lower end of the system who are incarcerated for crimes that are not crimes of violence, not crimes in which the public is at risk, and some other way of punishing them and making sure they don't commit other crimes could be found rather than having them sit in institutions.

We're going to say to those in the middle who have received sentences: you should have to serve a reasonable portion of your sentence before you're eligible for parole, and parole should be something that you earn, not something that happens after you're there one-sixth or one-third. And when you get out, you only stay out because every day you're earning the right to be out. What do I mean by earning? I don't mean getting a job selling newspapers. What I mean is that you either give some indication by your conduct that you're prepared to change, prepared to grow, prepared to upgrade yourself, learn some skills, get educated, and that when you go out you're prepared to get a job if you can. Some are unemployable; we shouldn't deny them parole. They should do community work. But if you're employable, you should be paying a portion of what you earn for the duration of your parole to the victim of your crime, if there is a victim. That's the sort of approach this government is going to take. It's going to be a positive, supportive approach to parole, but a better structuring and a more pay-your-dues approach.

I commend His Honour for the buoyant, upbeat tone of the throne speech, and I am happy to associate myself with it.

MR. GABELMANN: I think members of the House should give a vote of thanks to Patrick Kinsella. The speeches of the Attorney-General are far livelier, more interesting and more animated than they used to be. Not to be critical of the old days, but the Attorney-General's speeches are now easy to listen to; in fact, the content is for the most part worth listening to, and much of it content with which we agree.

MR. GABELMANN: Oh, there is always a "however." If there weren't, I might be over there somewhere.

I regret that the Attorney-General did not deal in his comments with the question of jails and the program of incarceration in this province. I think we need to spend some considerable time looking at the whole question of who we put in jail and why we put so many people in jail, at great cost to society. I suspect that if we looked at it carefully we would discover that easily three-quarters of the people who are in jail do not need to be there and in fact could be paying their debt to society in a more effective manner than by costing us the fortune that they do now. I hope the Attorney-General is interested in that topic, and that his failure to discuss it is not an indication that it's not on his agenda.

While looking at that whole question I trust we'll look carefully at the juvenile jails in this province. I'm appalled and more than concerned when I see what happens in some of the juvenile institutions; I'm referring to a couple in my riding in particular. The lack of programs, the lack of ability by staff to really deliver the kind of program that will ensure these kids don't go into Oakalla next time and the federal pen the time after that — I don't think we're doing a very good job of making sure these kids don't go back into the system. It's going to cost some money, and I accept that; that's one of the realities. But let's use some of the money we save in keeping some adults out of jail on programs in the juvenile institutions, which I think now are considerably lacking.

The Attorney-General in his comments referred to the Island Highway and his wish that it be done in five years, not ten. It's now nine, I guess, or eight and a half since the promise was made for a ten-year program. I wish I felt some confidence that it would happen in five years, but when you read and reread, as I have done, the words in the throne speech,"Initial funding will be made available for preliminary work," it sounds like a small portion of the funding for the preliminary work might be made available this year. If that's the case, we're going to be ten years before we get this fool road built.

Those of us who have to navigate that road every week take our lives in our hands. I don't say that with any degree of exaggeration. It is a dangerous highway; it is bumper to bumper. There is far more traffic on it than on the Coquihalla. It's not just the volume of traffic, but the design and the nature of the road. I don't know how many traffic lights there are. There are many, but even worse, there are intersections or access roads, in many cases, every 100 feet all the way up and down what should be the major transportation route on the Island.

I think it's hampering economic activity on Vancouver Island. I think that Mount Washington and the Comox Valley tourist industry suffers as a result of that highway. I think that the economic development of the north end of the Island suffers as a result of not having an adequate transportation link up and down the Island.

The other day when one of the members was referring to the Island Highway, the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) interjected: "Well, you have to make up your mind where to build it." For the most part, everybody on this Island knows where the road should be built. There are one or two problems. I think that, with all due respect to the members for Nanaimo, the clear choice there is to bypass Nanaimo. There's no alternative to that to anybody who looks at it in a reasonable way. We've got a problem in Campbell River as to where to cross the river, because it's a difficult environmental question. But those are questions that have to be dealt with, and let's just deal with them.

The study commissioned by the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) when he was the Minister of Highways and completed in 1980 is a sound basis for getting on with the road. That should happen immediately, if not sooner.

It is just not good enough to do a mile here and there, as is being done now with the start on the Malahat. The real difficult areas are Nanaimo and the area between Parksville and Campbell River. When I drive that every week, once I get to Parksville coming down, apart from trying to get through Nanaimo,1 feel I've made it for the most part because the rest of the road has lots of four-lane and of 90 kph stretches. But that section between Parksville and Campbell River is just treacherous — absolutely treacherous. The sooner we get on with that, the better we will all be.

I appreciate the indication from the Attorney-General. I don't think there is any longer a question of whether this road should be built. It is now a question of whether we have the money to get on with it in Highways budgets, and I hope that tomorrow afternoon we'll see a significant amount of money allocated for real preliminary work which includes acquisition of land and going through all of the ALR issues that need to be gone through.

I intend to use most of my time dealing with Workers' Compensation Board issues, but first I want to mention Strathcona Park. I realize that the Minister of Environment and Parks isn't here at the moment, and I realize that he has belatedly appointed a committee. as recommended by the Wilderness Advisory Committee in its report, to study the park, the boundary question, the way mining claims should be dealt with in that park, and all of the related issues.

I just have to say that people in Campbell River, North Island and the rest of the Island that I hear from are overwhelmingly of the view that there should be no mining in the park, and that the park should be maintained not as an industrial reservoir, but as a park. If you don't make that basic decision that parks are different from the rest of the land in this province for development purposes, then you really don't have a park, and you don't have a park system.

Those of us in Campbell River who get our drinking water from the Campbell River system, which has its headwaters in the heart of Strathcona Park, in fact at Cream Lake coming through Buttle Lake, are puzzled sometimes by residents of the lower mainland who will not even allow citizens of the lower mainland to hike in their water reservoir area. In the North Shore mountains in the lower mainland, the issue of preserving the water quality for the lower mainland is of such fundamental importance that roads are not constructed, that selective logging — when it takes place — is of a very limited kind, that hiking and other recreational activities are not allowed. I wonder what people in the city of Vancouver and in the lower mainland would think if a proposal were made to build a metal mine employing 400 to 500 people in the middle of the Capilano or Seymour watersheds, the water supply area for the lower mainland.

MR. GABELMANN: Or, for that matter, in the greater Victoria watershed, as the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) points out.

There isn't a politician in this House who would stand up in a meeting in Vancouver and support the construction of

that kind of metal mine in the watershed surrounding the North Shore. Yet those of us who live in Campbell River have to drink water that comes from a system which has a metal mine in the middle of it. It used to pour its effluent directly into Buttle Lake, which supplies us with our drinking water. Now since that activity of pouring the tailings directly into the lake is not happening, the mine attempts to curtail the leakage of this heavy metal waste material into the lake, but unsuccessfully. It used to be a great lake to catch trout in; Buttle Lake was once a great fishing lake. You can't catch a fish there anymore. There aren't any; they're dead. And we drink that water.

Now the government is allowing exploration so that the potential of yet another mine, right at the end of Buttle Lake, faces us. Apart from all of the recreational and park value issues, the government is prepared to have the citizens of Campbell River face the reality of not just one but maybe two or more heavy metal mines in the middle of our water reservoir area. No one else in the major urban areas of this province would put up with it. Yet somehow we are expected to. And we are told that it's progress, it's jobs — all of those things. Nobody in the lower mainland would argue the same thing for the Capilano watershed, I can assure you.

Both the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) and I will have a lot more to say during the rest of this session on the question of Strathcona Park. At this point I just want to register some very real concerns about the policy of the government in respect of that mineral exploration.

Mr. Speaker, workers' compensation issues have not received the kind of attention in this Legislature in the last few years that I think they should receive. I had intended and hoped that during the course of last year's legislative session we'd be able to deal with workers' compensation issues in a thorough and systematic way. But of course, we got diverted by Bill 19 and other labour legislation, which I think occupied not only members of this House but all citizens in the province, and a lot of the really very important issues relating to workers' compensation got lost. This session I intend to try to do my best to persuade the Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) and his government that we have in this province a very serious situation in respect of how the Workers' Compensation Board functions.

In its response to attacks on various things that happen in the Workers' Compensation Board, the government will often trot out statistics talking about how many claims are resolved and what a great proportion are resolved without difficulty. I want to acknowledge right off the top that an overwhelming majority of claims are settled without serious difficulty. The adjudication process is carried out expertly by local adjudicators and claims are settled, in- many cases quickly, with dispatch and with no discomfort to the injured worker.

That having been said, there are too many workers in this province who have had absolutely disastrous experiences with the Workers' Compensation Board. Claims drag on for years, during which time people lose their homes, during which time — I know from personal experience in terms of constituents of mine — people lose their marriages because of the trauma and the difficulty of not only not being able to work any longer, but fighting this monstrous board which seemingly has no compassion for these individual whose injuries dominate their lives. The trauma and difficulty that these injured workers have in dealing with the board often creates a situation which for many leads them to become almost incoherent and almost irrational — I use those words carefully — in their attempts to explain their case and articulate their cause, because of the absolute inability of the system to deal with these people as human beings rather than just as further drains on the coffer of the employer, as the attitude at the board now has it. Every member in this House who does his or her own casework can cite dozens of cases, I'm sure, of injured workers who have been really badly dealt with by the Workers' Compensation Board over the years. We don't need to have a debate about how bad it is for a lot of people; I think that's a fact. What we have to talk about is how we're going to fix it.

The problem at the present time, in my view, is that the board is run by commissioners who no longer reflect what they were designed to reflect when the positions were first created. We should remember that workers' compensation was developed in British Columbia after the Pineo royal commission in 1915, and the principle adopted was that workers would no longer have the right to access to the courts; that the tort system for redress was abolished in exchange for another system. If workers today had the right to go to court — which I'm not advocating; I don't think it would be a good system — the settlements produced by the court system would cost the employers ten times what the Workers' Compensation Board system is costing. You compare comparable settlements from a private suit — a judgment in court on an automobile accident, or in some other kind of accident where negligence can be demonstrated.... You compare the monetary benefit to that individual with what the same individual would receive if the injury or accident were work-related, and you'll find that the injured worker gets very little indeed.

That's not an argument for returning to the courts; I'm not advocating that. But when workers gave up the right to go to court for redress, they also expected that there would be a system that would recognize their needs for financial compensation when they weren't working, for rehabilitation programs, and also, very importantly, for a program of workplace health and safety, inspection and the like.

The rehabilitation side of what the WCB does is not a great issue. I think they do good work for those people who participate in the rehabilitation programs. What is at issue is the approach of the board to try to find every reason to deny an individual's claim. Without going through all the details of how they do that, I just think we in this society need to relax a little bit about our attitudes toward workplace injuries in respect of what percentage of the injury might have been caused at work. What goes on is that as you get older, your back gets weaker and other parts of your body deteriorate, and as that happens, the board increasingly says: "Well, if your back hadn't deteriorated, you wouldn't have had this injury which is now preventing you from going back to work. So we'll give you a partial disability pension." The fact is, if the worker hadn't been at work and hadn't had that injury, his back wouldn't have prevented him from working. He would have been able to continue to work and earn an income for the rest of his working days, even though his back might have weakened and deteriorated over the years. But it was the injury which caused the inability to go back to work; the board won't accept that, and I think they should. There should be no question about that kind of issue.

In its absolute desire to save the employers' money at every stage, the board gets itself into some ridiculous positions. We have now had four court decisions in the last year ordering the board to implement board of review decisions. Yet the Workers' Compensation Board continues to refuse to obey the court decisions. In October 1986, in the Testa case, Justice Macdonell gave a clear order that the board had to implement board of review decisions, start paying the claims, start doing whatever it was that the appeal board had decided. If the board wanted to reopen the question, then they had to go through the proper process after an appeal was made; they had to follow the legislation. I don't have time to go through the details of the judgment, but the judge very clearly said in October 1986 that the board had to implement the board of review decision and start making payments. They did in that one case; they continued in dozens of other cases not to do so. So in 1987 came the Kolman judgment. Justice Lloyd McKenzie made it very clear that on this case the board had failed to live up to the law as written, as passed by this Legislature. Those amendments were presented here and passed unanimously, if my memory is correct, in 1986. Yet the board still continued throughout all of this year to refuse to obey the orders of the court.

Without reading any of Justice McKenzie's comments — that was in October 1987 — here we have to have another court decision in March 1988, last week. In this case, the Guadagni case, Justice Macdonald is talking about how the board continues to refuse to obey the law. The law is clear. The law has been explained by other justices of the Supreme Court over the preceding year or so. The board continues to refuse to obey the particular law.

And it goes on. It's an arrogance that should not be allowed in this province, an arrogance that is really summarized by the kind of frustration that comes from letters like this from the director of appeals administration at the Workers' Compensation Board. This is in a letter to a lawyer who is trying to figure out how to best represent his injured worker. Mr. Attewell, director of appeals administration, says in his letter: "The basic rule is" — I've left some words out but they don't change the meaning — "that the board is not bound by its own policies." Just think about that in the context of administrative fairness in the context of running a society where people have the right to appeal, where people have the right to due process, with the Workers' Compensation Board's director of appeals administration saying that the board is not bound by its own policies. How in the world can you organize an approach to try to bring justice for an injured worker if you don't know how the board is going to respond to particular cases?

Just in case the minister has some doubt about this particular letter, I should give you more information about it. It's a letter to the claimant, and it's dated December 10, 1987. This is as recent as just before Christmas and signed by Mr. Attewell. The board is not bound by its own policies. Well, why does it have policies then, and what are policies for if the board isn't bound by them?

In the four minutes I have left, I just want to say in a quiet way — because the tone of my voice does not reflect at all the depth of anger I feel about what's going on at the Workers' Compensation Board, but it's not my style to rant and rave and to yell and scream about it.... If I did, perhaps maybe the media would pay more attention to this issue, but I don't intend to do that for those purposes. I want to say in these few minutes that without starting from scratch with the senior administration of the compensation board, we will not be able to rectify the problems. I think it's required that every one of the commissioners be let go, even though it may be that some of them are entirely competent to do the job. I think it is required that every one of them be let go and that new commissioners be appointed.

Those commissioners must be chosen following extensive consultation with trade unions, labour and employers in this province, and that if it's a five-person commission, two must reflect the employer's interests and two reflect the trade union's interest. And those four people, while selected by government — I would never argue that the government doesn't have the final say — must have the support or at least acquiescence of the labour movement and the business community for their appointment.

The chairperson, whoever that is, cannot be a retiring politician who retires in exchange for a perk, which is what happened in this case. The chairperson of that commission must be a person who both the trade union movement and the employers in this province have some confidence in. They may not like the person particularly; they may not feel that that person is the first choice or whatever. but that person must have the confidence of those interest groups in this province.

On one hand you have the people who are suffering the injury, and on the other hand you have the people who are paying for the cost of it, and they must feel that they are having their fair day in court. It does not happen, and it cannot happen, under the current system. The debacle with Vic Stusiak's appointment where somebody gets suggested for an appointment because he'd like one, with no consultation with the business community.... It's just a typical example of what happens when you don't consult properly.

Erik Wood, an old friend of mine from his days in the Haney local of the IWA.... I'm sure that Mr. Speaker would know Erik Wood, a fine guy and a fine CCFer in the old days too. But he shouldn't be appointed if it doesn't come from discussion and consultation with the labour movement, and in this case it's my understanding that none of that happened. People in the trade union movement will not have confidence, for the most part, in people who do not reflect their views or do not come from among them, unless they have had some consultation about that choice.

But changing the commissioners is not the only thing that has to happen. There are a whole variety of administrative and other questions that are essential to be dealt with as well.

We have advocated. and not flippantly, that a royal commission be established to look into the Workers' Compensation Board. I referred to the Pineo commission; that was in 1915. Then in 1942, and again in 1952, Justice Sloan did a royal commission into the Workers' Compensation Board. The last one done was in 1966 by Justice Tysoe. That's 22 years ago now, and there were ten years between '42 and '52, and there were 14 between '52 and '66. We are now long overdue for a thorough look at the way the compensation board operates.

I want to refer the minister — I acknowledge that he's in the House and listening; I appreciate it, and Hansard should show it — to a letter sent to his predecessor, Terry Segarty, on February 10,1986, which will be in the ministry files. The letter comes from the Confederation of Canadian Unions, signed by Cathy Walker, who was involved in.... She's

vice-president of the CCU and involved in worker compensation issues. In this letter she outlines 14 pages of questions that need to be considered by a royal commission or by a commission of inquiry into workers' compensation. Every one of these questions — I'd love to be able to read them into the record, but it would take longer than I have — revolves around an important area of principle in respect of workers' compensation and is today without an answer. We haven't looked at these questions. We don't know what the right answers are.

It goes from simple questions like whether farmers and fishermen should be included in workers' compensation in a full way rather than in the way they are now; inspections on fish boats; the question of whether the mining industry should be regulated by itself rather than by the Workers' Compensation Board — I raised this question the other day; whether the mining industry, which is now going to be partially privatized, according to the Minister of Energy, should have the right to continue to do its own safety enforcement. There is a whole series of questions which we'll get a chance to talk about in more detail during the Minister of Labour estimates.

MR. HUBERTS: May I say it's my pleasure to be back in British Columbia, having been in the South Pacific for three weeks. I still think we have so much to be grateful for. 1 know my colleagues wish they had been there with me, so I would update them a little bit as to the trip.

At the same time I want to point out that I am very supportive of the throne speech, and particularly the item that deals with the Commonwealth Games: "My government will support and assist the effort to bring the 1994 Commonwealth Games to Victoria." I'm impressed by a government which is so supportive, and I want the people of Victoria to recognize that this government is taking care of the interests of Victoria.

Four weeks ago I spoke a little about the history of the Commonwealth Games, and I spoke about the fact that it was the friendly games. I have to say that as I represented this country, this province, and this city in the South Pacific, we could not have been received in a more friendly way than we have by all the South Pacific countries. There was a red carpet treatment for both Rob Wallace and me as we visited that area.

As we were there we talked a little about the reasons why we felt Victoria should host the 1994 Commonwealth Games. We talked somewhat about the Inner Harbour, the unique and innovative and exciting opening ceremonies, which would be second to none that the Commonwealth Games have ever put forward. To show you the support that some of the South Pacific countries had, I remember the sports member from Western Samoa saying to me: "I'm not sure how you guys are going to put those barges together, but I've got great confidence in you Canadians that you'll do a very good job."

We also talked a little about the athletic village at the University of Victoria, and we talked about the many strengths we have there. We talked about the fact that there will be 35 beds for the athletes, that there would only be two athletes per room. There was a concern also expressed to us that there might be a room for each individual country where they could meet with their athletes, and it's something that we will also address.

MR. HUBERTS: Sure. We talked about the fact that 60 percent of these athletes are going to be able to walk to their venues. That's something unheard of in past Commonwealth Games experience. The furthest venue is only a 20-minute drive, where in past experience some of these venues were as much as a two-hour drive. In our case, Heal's range is only a 20-minute ride away, and that's our most distant venue.

We also talked about the rock- solid budget that we had for these Commonwealth Games. We paid tribute to the federal government and certainly to the provincial government, that has given us $36 million, with an inflation factor. We also paid tribute to the municipal and the corporate sponsorship that was there.

I personally want to commend the Premier for his adamant support for the Commonwealth Games. 1 want to also mention the hon. Minister of Tourism, Mr. Reid, for his support for these games in Victoria, as well as my colleagues Mel Couvelier and Brian Smith.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry, I must remind you that we do not use names of hon. members.

MR. HUBERTS: All right, sit. Thank you. I want to also make mention of those that are on the Commonwealth Games committee. I was with one of them on this trip and I was very impressed about the fact of how they realize what needs to be achieved to win these Commonwealth Games. They recognized the fact that we needed to go abroad to present our case. There has been some discussion on whether these trips were necessary; at the same time we've found that they were very necessary. Some of the individuals that we had met in London were not the same people that will be voting on this issue in Seoul, Korea. We met with all the sports people that would be in Seoul, Korea voting on this issue so that they were well apprised of our bid for the Commonwealth Games.

I also want to mention the fact that the members of the Commonwealth Games committee, and particularly the one that was with me, were very, very cognizant of spending the money very wisely. I couldn't see how one individual — and I'm sure he represents the whole committee — could be more conscious of the fact that we spent the money wisely that the Commonwealth Games had entrusted to it.

We also talked a little bit about the national competition that we had, and how we were proud of the fact that out of nine cities we had won the national bid. I think that stood well for us internationally and added to our bid.

When we gave our pitch, we also asked for their input and we said: "Are we going in a direction that you're happy with? Is there something that you would like us to be cognizant of as well?" We were open to their suggestions because we want it to be the best Commonwealth Games ever, but we don't want it just for Victoria; we want all the Commonwealth countries to feel that this was one of the best games they had ever been to.

Let me speak a little bit about their response. The response was a very positive response. They liked Victoria. They liked Canada. They had a high appreciation of Canada's stand against apartheid. They had a high appreciation of the government of British Columbia for its role in hosting the Commonwealth nations in Vancouver last year. And they had a high regard for the Premier of British Columbia.

They also recognized that we have a proven record in hosting Commonwealth Games — in 1930 we hosted the first set of Commonwealth Games, in 1978 in Edmonton and 1954 in Vancouver — and also the fact that we hosted the successful Olympic Games, which some of these members of the IOC, the International Olympic Committee, had attended. They knew that Canadians could host an excellent set of games.

They also knew, and we stressed the fact, that this is a city that makes its business out of pleasing people. They understood that not only would there be a good set of games but the people of Victoria would come out and make them feel very much welcome in this city. We stressed the fact that there had been 30,000 people supporting the national bid and that 7,000 of these people were eager to volunteer their time to make this a very successful Commonwealth Games bid.

Some countries said to us: "We are honoured that you have come to see us. In many cases they pass us by." It's true that those countries are far apart and it's quite a distance to go to them, but I know the fact that we visited them is a real plum in our situation where we recognize that they are important and where we appreciated their input as well.

When we talked about some of the other nations and some of the issues came up about Cardiff, Wales, they personally had nothing against Cardiff, except that cost was so important and that Victoria seemed to be much closer to them. That was certainly a positive thing for Victoria. They also recognized that Great Britain had the games in Edinburgh in 1986, and because of the fact that New Zealand has them in 1990, of those three countries it would appear to be Canada's turn. They were cognizant of that.

One of the factors that is most important to South Pacific countries is the money question — or the lack of money. They would like to send as many athletes as possible. In 1978, Ivor Dent was able to coordinate a charter flight, and that's something that we might want to look at for the South Pacific. According to federation rules, we are not allowed to pay for their flights, but certainly we could assist them in lessening the cost of that flight, so that more athletes are able to participate in these games.

India also has many strong points, but at the same time, some of the issues that came up were questions of economics and political and social issues.

In conclusion, I think the future is bright for us in Victoria. At the same time, I don't think we should ever take anything for granted, and we should continue to cultivate our friendship with these nations. I'm sure that the hon. member for Victoria, who went to Africa, would feel the same way. I believe that there is a great opportunity here for Victoria. The spinoffs and the legacy that we will leave behind for the high performance athletes will be a very clean and exciting industry for this city, which is renowned for its tourism. I personally will do everything I can to support the 1994 Commonwealth Games bid, and I appreciate the government's support as well.

MR. DE JONG: It's indeed a pleasure for me to comment this afternoon on the throne speech. There has been much said about it, and I may be somewhat repetitive of some statements that have already been made.

I realize that this is not a throne speech loaded with big megaprojects, but it is loaded with initiatives — some 40, indeed. The initiatives are all-encompassing and embracing.

Mandatory inspections for automobiles. Certainly when this was first talked about, there was some concern that another government bureaucracy would be established. I'm happy to note that it is another private enterprise initiative Of government services, and I think that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) ought to be commended for his initiative in that regard.

The Provincial — Municipal Committee on Decentralization will recommend and enact additional transfer of controls to various local governments. Local governments have always wanted greater autonomy, and so they should have it.

I'm very encouraged by the participation of management and the development of British Columbia's mineral, petroleum and gas resources. I'm sure that this is going to reap great benefits for this province.

I'm also pleased to see that private sector trading activity will be encouraged. I believe it will greatly assist in the sale of our resource materials as well as our agricultural products.

I'm also very pleased to see that a program will be brought about regarding management of special wastes. I'm sure that this is welcome to industry and also to municipal governments, because waste is really one of our biggest problems at the local government level.

I'm pleased to see that legislation will be introduced to provide a statutory basis for programs and services designed to aid victims of crime. It's a welcome step. I'm also happy to note that this has the support of both sides of the House.

Our agriculture sectors economic viability, as it says in the speech, will be enhanced by a long-term strategy to develop new markets and products. I would hope — and I agree with the intent of the statement — that it would also tie in with the financial undertaking of this province in terms of long-term lending, because the farmer in many instances has to borrow money on too short a term and therefore is always up against too high a payment in order to do a proper job.

We have to realize that most agriculture industries are land-based. They need a lot of real estate in order to operate and therefore are always up against big mortgages, particularly for younger farmers who wish to start out. I truly hope that this will be tied in with the financial arrangements between the federal and provincial governments, and also through the private lending institutions.

I'm also very pleased to see that legislation will be provided to protect farmers from frivolous, nuisance legal actions. We all know there are certain parts of operations in the agricultural industry that may not be too attractive to the local community; but most farmers are quite willing to abide by reasonable rules, and in many areas the farming industry has taken upon itself to do self-policing, which has really worked well. I would encourage the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) to also look at that aspect, so that it can be further enhanced and expanded.

Many of the initiatives in the throne speech are designed to strengthen and flesh out the blueprint of last year. It's designed to strengthen and place renewed confidence in this government. The speech again emphasizes that that which can best be done through the private sector should be done through the private sector and not the government. I believe that with the 40 initiatives contained in this throne speech, we can call this a mega-undertaking in total.

We haven't had an awful lot of criticism from the other side on the actual throne speech, although a lot of negative comments have been made. It was rather interesting to read in Hansard a line of the Leader of the Opposition about a third of the way into his speech: " British Columbians are ready for more democracy and for a government that listens to their concerns, respects their differences and offers them fair, open and honest representation." Now this is exactly what we have been doing and are continuing to do — if the opposition had read the throne speech correctly. We are to consult and negotiate and represent in all areas. In fact, the entire speech is built on what has already been started last year. The government's role is not really to rule over private enterprise, but to be the facilitator. This government knows that in order to achieve its goal, to build a strong economy, we need the people of this great province for ideas, initiatives and the desire to achieve. That's exactly the reason for decentralization, through the ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries, who are busy assembling ideas, ambitions and initiatives. This government will be the facilitator to establish the proper climate in British Columbia, which, we have already noted, has improved tremendously over the last year on all fronts.

We can look at the employment picture. We've got more people employed now than ever before — investment, housing, industry, agriculture. B.C. is really on the move, and so is this government. It is on the move towards a balanced budget, at the same time enhancing and improving the local social structure in this province, which is really no different from a government that wishes to remain in power and be a good guardian over the purse of the people. We can't continue deficit budgeting; we must, as is said in the throne speech, work towards a balanced budget.

I just want to relate a few success stories which have happened in our own community. I want to read a short item here on a company in our little village of Matsqui, Loewen Welding and Manufacturing Ltd. Mr. Loewen started his business in 1967 in an 800-square-foot frame building, doing mainly the repair and welding of farm machinery and the likes. The building soon became obsolete, and in 1975 Mr. Loewen expanded into a 7,000-square-foot concrete building with another 5,000 square feet added this year. Mr. Loewen has manufactured over 1,000 manure and sludge tankers over a ten-year span. They've had sales to Washington, Oregon, Alberta, Saskatchewan, to Vermont and New Hampshire on the east coast, and of course throughout British Columbia. Loewen Welding and Manufacturing employs 15 full-time people. He's a man with courage, but also with determination.

Another real success story is Brookside Farms, located in Clearbrook. Brookside Farms, now a multinational corporation, originally started as a family operation processing eggs and egg byproducts. Brookside Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Brookside International, is composed of three divisions: petrochemical, biochemical and environmental. Each of these is involved in research, development and production. Research in the environmental division has produced a unique product that has the capacity for a complete breakdown of organic solvents and waste oils. Also in the development stages is a nontoxic preservative that does not contain the PCBs normally present in ordinary wood preservatives. I'm sure our Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) will be interested in those items because they will really have an impact on what we have known as dangerous to our environment.

Another success story is that of Mr. Les Kerr, manager and owner of Conair Aviation Ltd. One of the main activities of Conair is to produce firefighting planes. He has been converting many older type planes, and these are used around the world. In fact, Conair has contracts for firefighting all around the world. Conair Aviation is one of the largest payrolls in private enterprise in our constituency.

It's quite evident that the people of British Columbia do have a vision. They have the courage, the determination to succeed, and I have no doubt that through our privatization program we will achieve great gains for all British Columbians.

There has been a lot of comment by the opposition about the parliamentary secretary and minister of state system: that it would not work, that our province should not be divided into eight regions. We had a very successful visit from the parliamentary secretary in our riding; the reception at the school board and council level was just tremendous. We had really good communication with them, and it was the unanimous consent of all those parties that we met with that day.... This involved two municipal councils, by the way — Abbotsford and Matsqui. It's quite often noted by the news media that they do not get along, but in this case they totally agreed that the Abbotsford Airport, which has been somewhat of a white elephant for many years, is the area where business should be expanded upon. Every effort will be made in consultation with the minister of state and the direct line ministers, to improve the access to it via Mount Lehman interchange and also to attract more high tech industries to the area — which has already started. By the way, our school board has, with the assistance of the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen), initiated a very successful job oriented high tech teacher-training program where many people have been successfully trained and are now working in high tech industry and high tech jobs — well-paid jobs, a real boost for our community. The intent, of course, for the eight regions is to spread the wealth throughout the province, which can only be beneficial to all of us.

This government's motto is: "Opportunity for all British Columbians; no special privileges for any." I'm happy to note that this is working, through our social services programs as well as through our privatization of government services. Even though the opposition and the B.C. Government Employees' Union are somewhat concerned, I think their concern really is that people who used to be union members may now become private sector individuals doing similar jobs, but perhaps doing a better job, and undoubtedly making more money.

We have upheld the motto of opportunity for all British Columbians, and no special privileges for any, and I firmly believe — even though there appears to be somewhat of a doubt in some people's minds on the other side — that this government will also prove that through its disposal program of government or Crown corporation assets. This government has, by its privatization program, reinforced the foundation of free enterprise laid by the people of this province.

As I said at the beginning of my speech today, Mr. Speaker, we have an all-encompassing speech here, a speech which also embraces all of the people of British Columbia. We all know that our Premier is known as a successful

gardener. He has been very successful in private business, and he's known as a first-class gardener. His intent has always been to bring plants to bloom and flourish. During the process from planting to flowering time, there are from time to time weather or other conditions that may hamper such growth, and some plants become victims of nature, be it wind, hail or even the hot sun. And so are the people of British Columbia: even though most of them are well-rooted and protected, there are also people that get caught with the winds, through no fault of their own, and they become victims of life's storms. I believe our social programs contained in the new initiatives in our throne speech speak very clearly not only of the need for such programs, but also that they will be introduced and they will in fact help the people who are victims of the storms of life.

We have a number of initiatives — and I'm not going to go through all of them; I'm sure we've all read them — but some of the most important are the ones that deal with the support of the unwanted pregnancies or unexpected pregnancies, whatever you want to call them, and the help that will be forwarded by this government in order to bring such pregnancies to a good completion.

In the area of education, I'm very happy to note that there will be increased funding for the increased enrolment in all of our schools, including the private school system. I'm also very happy to see that we will increase our post-secondary support and make major improvements in financial assistance to students. This will be a welcome step, particularly for students from the outlying areas.

The Premier of this province is, without a doubt, a strong and perhaps hard-nosed businessman, but he is also a man of compassion and love for people.

As I have said before, this throne speech is all-embracing. It provides for enthusiasm and security for those in business, but it also provides for hope and relief and assistance where needed. I am fully in support of the initiatives contained in this throne speech, and I am anxious and willing to assist this great team on the government side of the House to continue cultivating the soil and caring for the flowers, the people of this great province called British Columbia.

MR. MESSMER: It's an honour to be able to speak today in support of the Speech from the Throne. It carries a positive message of long-term planning and positive economic and social programs for our province. Boundary-Similkameen stands to benefit from the many initiatives outlined in the Speech from the Throne.

I am especially proud of our government's foresight to develop a long-term plan for the government of British Columbia and for the development of our province. I welcome this move and look forward to contributing to this process on behalf of my constituents. I am honoured to have been selected to serve on the special committee on long-term planning. This special committee will play a major role in determining the future direction for economic and social planning. Far too often governments plan only from year to year with no consideration as to the effect which temporary and seemingly isolationist measures can have on long-term development of a region. Our government believes in the future development of British Columbia. Developing a long-term planning process will help to reduce the amount of disruption to people's lives in the future. Long-term planning will help to provide a stable economy and a climate for the private sector in which they can make sound investment and marketing decisions for their future.

I am looking forward to the release of the White Paper in August, and I'm pleased that labour, business and interested individuals will be given an opportunity to evaluate the proposed plan. It is the people out there in every part of this great province who best understand the problems of their own communities. They are also the ones in the best position to find the solutions. I encourage them to get involved in the process.

I am a firm believer in increased decision-making at the community level. Encouraging decision-making at the local level is the best way to tailor economic development and the delivery of programs and services to local needs. Community involvement is what government's regionalization initiative is all about. So I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why are the members of the opposition opposed to our regionalization initiative? Have they not been claiming to support decentralization? 1 can tell you that our government is committed to giving more powers to local government, The throne speech reinforces our government's commitment to a program of regional development and to increased decision-making at the community level.

In my role as parliamentary secretary for the Thompson Okanagan, I have been meeting with local councils, chambers of commerce, economic development commissions and officers throughout the whole region. Their response to decentralization is positive. They are looking forward to participating in the development of a long-term plan for their areas, as well as economic development, which means jobs, their number one priority. With the cooperation of local government, the business sector, labour and all of the people in region 3 and particularly my constituency of Boundary Similkameen, we can develop a positive program for economic growth, and together we are now doing just that.

Boundary-Similkameen has a tremendous potential for growth in both population and industry. We have one of the best climates in Canada, with close-knit, small communities and a talented, skilled workforce. We realize the importance of diversifying our economic base. Currently we have tourism, agriculture, mining and forestry as the largest employers in the area. We not only need to support these industries but also to develop more value-added products and to find new markets for existing products.

I strongly support our government's initiative to enhance our valuable trade ties with the Pacific Rim nations. Our apple growers and our mining industry can benefit greatly from expanded sales to this market. The free trade initiative will also have major implications for my constituency, as many communities in my constituency are located near and next to the United States border. Oroville and Osoyoos are less than ten miles apart, and even though they are on opposite sides of the border, they have very close ties. They will go to each other with an emergency such as a fire, and they hold many joint community events. The north-south exchange is taken for granted in these two communities, and free trade will enable us to expand this natural relationship.

The free trade agreement which was signed by Prime Minister Mulroney and President Ronald Reagan this January can become one of the largest and most lucrative two-way trade partnerships in the world. 1 believe that overall this agreement is good for our province. Consumers and manufacturers will benefit, and producers and exporters will have greater access to the United States market.

In Boundary-Similkameen our mining industry, forestry sector and beef industry stand to gain from free trade. I was pleased to see in the throne speech that our government will be reviewing taxes on profits in the mineral industry to ensure that our province remains competitive. This initiative will make sure that our mining industry will be in a position to take advantage of the free trade agreement. Mr. Speaker, this action could open up the potential for future mines to become operational in Boundary-Similkameen, and to Boundary Similkameen that means jobs.

Although 1 agree that most sectors will be winners in the free trade agreement, there certainly will be losers. The losers in the free trade agreement in British Columbia are no doubt in my constituency: the wine industry and the grape growers. Since the free trade agreement was announced, I've been meeting on a regular basis with the grape growers in my constituency. I have joined them in meeting with the provincial agricultural people who have been dealing with the federal government. Mr. Alan Brock of the grape growers' association and his people have presented a brief to the provincial government. This brief will be reviewed by the provincial government and hopefully with the cooperation of the federal government an arrangement will be made to ensure some assistance for the grape growers in British Columbia.

I am also pleased to be one of the MLAs who met with the Premier to ask the Premier to take action, not to react. and to assist the grape growers in the Okanagan Valley to ensure that they would be given the assurance that the 1988 grape crop would be bought at the 1987 level. That assurance has been given to them through the Premier's office.

However, the legislation will help British Columbia businesses and industries to take full advantage of the free trade agreement with the United States and provide assistance where appropriate to help businesses or sectors adjust to the free trade agreement, and certainly we all know....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member, for your courtesy. The second member for Richmond would like to make an introduction.

MR. LOENEN: I want to thank the member and the House for their courtesy in allowing me to make this introduction.

We have very many excellent schools in my constituency of Richmond, and we're pleased to have 48 grade 6 and 7 students of the Mitchell Elementary School with us this afternoon, together with their principal, Mr. Corrigan. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

MR. MESSMER: Ending that note on the grape industry, I believe that through an adequate assistance program and by increasing our emphasis on marketing and promotion, our grape industry will be able to survive and minimize the potential negative impact of the free trade agreement. They will need help to adjust to a change in the economic conditions; but the free trade deal will result in a new era of economic growth and prosperity for all British Columbians.

The throne speech also promises a long-term strategy to develop new markets and products in our agricultural sector. This approach is essential to the economic survival of agriculture in the Okanagan. Last fall our apple growers lost a major market when Taiwan suddenly stopped accepting shipments of apples from Canada in favour of apples from the United States. This export market was worth nearly $6 million annually to our province's fruit growers. The Taiwanese imported about 30 percent of our Red Delicious apple crop last year. B.C. Tree Fruits, their marketing agent, is now forced to find new markets for our fruit. If new markets are not found, it is our farmers who will suffer. This is only one example of why the long-term strategy to develop new markets and products in our agricultural sector is so important. With the free trade agreement, a U.S. market ten times larger than the Canadian market will be opened up. Effective marketing will be the key to penetrating that market.

There are several other initiatives mentioned in the throne speech that could directly benefit farmers and businesses in my constituency. One of our government's plans is to negotiate a restructuring of the economic and regional development agreement with the federal government. Another initiative is our government's commitment to consider loan guarantees or equity investments. All of these initiatives I have mentioned, including long-term planning, free trade and assistance with marketing, have a potential to help develop a more diversified economy.

Although Boundary-Similkameen already has some industries producing value-added products, such as Canwood and Greenwood Forest Products, there is tremendous potential for growth in this area. I would like to see value-added industries developed in conjunction with our agricultural industry. I believe that together with the forest industries we must find ways to make fibre available to this growth industry.

I am pleased to see that the throne speech referred to new programs that will encourage investment in and transfer technology to the agriculture and greenhouse sectors in order to increase production and markets. Boundary-Similkameen, with its hot summers and mild winters, is an ideal location for both greenhouse production and silviculture. We once had a substantial greenhouse industry, which could become a large industry once again with new technology and new markets. I'm pleased to say that there is a plan being proposed in the corporation of Summerland to drill a deep well that would use geothermal water to reduce energy costs and heat the greenhouses within that area.

So there are some possibilities. In Oliver there's already a very successful silviculture nursery that has potential for expansion. I'm looking forward to working closely with local councils, the private sector and individuals to pursue these and other ideas for economic diversification of Boundary Similkameen.

Boundary-Similkameen is an ideal place to live and to work. Thousands of people each year also make it their vacation destination. They come for skiing in the winter, to enjoy blossom time in the spring and to enjoy the warm water, hot sun and tree-ripened fruit in the summer and fall. Many come to hold their conventions in what we now refer to as the largest convention centre in British Columbia. We once had that, but because of decisions that were made in British Columbia, Victoria's was almost the same size as ours. So Penticton decided, with the cooperation of the provincial government, to double the size. So the challenge is out to

Victoria. If they want to be in the same league, then unfortunately they'll have to double the size of the convention centre they're building right now. They also come for the hospitality because of our business people. The hospitality industry and the local residents know how to make visitors feel at home.

The tourism industry has a tremendous potential for expansion. Promoting our heritage is one way to generate increased interest in our area. That is why I'm pleased that the throne speech mentions the new legislation that will be introduced to encourage the preservation and enhancement of historic and heritage sites in the province. Along with the rest of the constituencies within British Columbia, Boundary Similkameen has a very long and interesting history and some very noteworthy heritage sites.

There are also many interesting back-country recreational opportunities in my area, and I look forward to the introduction of new policies to open up the back country so that more of us can enjoy these areas.

It is the people who chose to live and work in Boundary Similkameen who make it such a special place to live. I was pleased to see some initiatives in the throne speech which will benefit both the young and the old.

Boundary-Similkameen is a favourite retirement destination for people throughout Canada. This is reflected in the high proportion of senior citizens living in our communities. Approximately 25 percent of the population in my constituency are age 60 and older, compared to the province's average of 15 percent. The throne speech referred to the special health care and special needs of senior citizens. I look forward to seeing the results of the senior care centre to be established in Victoria and trust that what we learn in Victoria's test program will be incorporated throughout our province.

The government has made a commitment to major improvements in the funding system for schools through the increase in school district shareable operating budgets of about $175 million. A quality education system will ensure that our young people have the skills to compete in a changing society, and I applaud the efforts to place more computers in classrooms, particularly in the smaller rural schools.

Our government will also provide increased post-secondary support in making improvements in the financial assistance to students. This will make it easier for students from rural constituencies such as ours to attend the post-secondary institution of their choice.

While we are on the topic of young people, I would like to commend the many volunteer organizations throughout British Columbia which are working closely with our young people, and I hope that our government's plans to enhance and strengthen programs to deal with substance abuse, including alcohol and drugs, will help these volunteer organizations to better serve our youth.

I strongly support our government's decision to open up new doors and avenues so that the disabled can take their full place in our society.

In conclusion,1 look forward to the introduction of the many initiatives outlined in the throne speech, and I will work hard on behalf of my constituents to ensure that their views are represented in Victoria.

MS. SMALLWOOD: As I sit in the House today and listen to some of the government's comments on the throne speech,1 wonder if we're reading the same document. I've had to check a couple of times.

Some of the previous speakers — one in particular — talked about the throne speech building on what has already been started in the last year. I look at the throne speech, and if that is the case. I would say that this throne speech fails and the government fails.

In the throne speech, the government talks about several different key factors of the economy. It talks about stability; it talks about predictability. And on those two fundamental counts. this government fails. The history of this government in the past year has been abysmal, and this throne speech indicates that the government is committed full steam ahead to put in place more of the same policies. When the government identifies the fact that the private sector is looking for a climate of predictability and security, it in no way has shown that it can fulfil the requirements of the private sector.

There are so many different things I'd like to comment on, and I'm restricted because of time, so I think what I'll do is touch on two major things of importance to my critic areas and certainly to the people of B.C., in hopes that once I have outlined those issues, perhaps we can go back to some of the other very important points that either are in the throne speech or are purposely left out.

The government talks about the issue of women facing unwanted pregnancy. It indicates that the government will provide information and direct support, including the provision of shelters. What this government is doing is going back to the bad old days of homes for unwed mothers. I never thought that in my generation I would see those days in this province again, and I certainly do not want my children and my community to face those days again. I think that is a retrograde step and an abysmal reflection on the vision that this government has for B.C.

Rather than moving forward and providing the kinds of support for women in this province so that there will not be as many unwanted pregnancies, this government continues to be single-focused and looks only to providing shelters for women with unwanted pregnancies and for women to be moved out of their community and to bring to term a pregnancy that is not wanted. The government talks about support for those women, and we see nothing in the way of indications that the government is seriously looking at programs that will provide the kind of stability for women's lives, both economically and socially, that will allow them to support their families in a way that surely we all want to see.

The government's opposition has worked very hard in the last year, not only to deal with the damage this government has created, and the havoc this government has brought on the people of B.C., but to put together programs that will provide alternatives to the havoc that the government constantly and judiciously seems to want to wreak on the province.

We have recently identified an issue of economic importance to women, and that is pay equity. I was quite disappointed to hear the comments of one of the early speakers on the government side on pay equity. In his speech he said that pay equity, or work for equal value, is a wonderful concept. "It's motherhood," he said. "We all love it." Then he goes on with that great big "but" that we hear so often when we talk about the needs of the people of this province. "But how will it be implemented?" he said. "We recognize that women make 60 cents on the dollar, but that's only because women work in lesser-paid jobs."

The depth of understanding is so profound that I can't even begin to take it seriously. Yes, women make less money than men in this province. It is for that very reason that it is difficult for women and those single-parent families which that same member talked about to feed, clothe and house those children. It is for those very serious reasons that women make decisions about their future and the future of their children, and whether or not they should bring children into this world.

If the government is seriously in support of families and women in this province, this government would listen to what the women of this province are saying and begin to introduce programs that will help alleviate the inequality and the harsh realities that women face in this province.

Pay equity, yes — only because it is one step in a package of economic equality for half the population in this province. It's not a particularly innovative step. It's a step that has been recognized in other jurisdictions across Canada; it is a step that has been recognized in other provinces: Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba. It's a step that has been recognized in other countries around this world. It's a step that has been agreed upon and sanctioned by Canada, in cooperation with all of the first ministers. Yet this government refuses to do the honourable thing and bring legislation to this House that will assure women the opportunity of being paid equitably for the work they do.

This government talks about other programs. It talks about reorganizing the delivery of income assistance and social programs in the coming year — more instability, more threats, and more confrontation. The people of this province want to get on with the job. They want to get on with the job of raising and feeding their children. They want to get on with the job of providing opportunities for their children, and all this government can do is shuffle, change, and bring about instability and confrontation. This government, in the throne speech, does not provide anything that will alleviate the suffering of the people of this province.

It brings me to the whole issue of environment. I believe, as I have said time and time again in this House, that the Environment ministry should be a fundamental ministry of planning. In the estimates of last year we used the first section of the debate talking to the minister about some of the work being done internationally and in our country on the issue of economic development and the environment. We encouraged the minister to look at that work, to become a part of that work that is being done, and use the studies that came out of the Brundtland commission as a foundation for the economic development that is so sorely needed in this province. But again, instead of looking at those studies, instead of doing the work that is necessary to bring B.C. into the future, this government and the Ministry of Environment take a step back. This government is a regressive government; it is a government that is only interested in confrontation, and not interested in getting on with the job.

When the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) gets up and talks about the work that his ministry has engaged in in the last year, he talks about the amount of land that has been put into the parks system. I'd like to remind the House and the Minister of Environment of some statistics that indicate where B.C. stands in the scheme of park allocation. B.C. at present has 4.8 percent of its land in provincial parks. It's tremendous to talk in hectares; it sounds like there's a lot of land there. But when you look at the ratio of parks to the amount of land available, we're not doing very well. Ontario, by comparison, has 7 percent of its land in provincial parks. Alaska has 25 percent, Kenya 17 percent, Indonesia 9 percent. If Third World countries can do better than B.C., then I would suggest that the minister doesn't have a reputation that I would like to brag about.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I could have 25 percent tomorrow, but it would all be vertical.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister says he could have 25 percent tomorrow, but it would all be vertical. I don't think the minister understands his responsibility to the people of this province, and I want to remind him — back to the work that the Brundtland commission did with the United Nations — of some of the tremendous things that have been spinoffs from that.

There was a report out of the National Task Force on Environment and Economy. This report was submitted by the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers. Some of the participants in that report were Environment ministers from Nova Scotia, Alberta, Quebec, Manitoba and Ontario, the chairman and president of the Ontario Waste Management Corp., the chairman of Noranda Forest Inc., the executive vice-president of Inco, the Canadian Minister of the Environment, the president of the Canadian Petroleum Association, the president and chief operating officer of Alcan, the Minister of Renewable Resources in the Yukon, and the chairman of the board of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. My question is: where were you, Mr. Minister?

MS. SMALLWOOD: That's great, because the minister says that he was there and participated in this task force.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Okay, so the minister was there when the task force reported, and I'm hoping that the minister supports this task force.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Tremendous! The minister says he supports this task force. In addition to that, at the first ministers' conference the Premier endorsed this report. Great stuff; terrific. So where is your commitment to this tremendous work, the foundation for the future of this province, of Canada, of this planet? Where is your commitment in the throne speech? Where is your commitment to the fundamental restructuring of the Environment ministry, of government planning and ... ?

MS. SMALLWOOD: We'll go back to the report. The minister says that this does not affect the way the Ministry of Environment is organized. Let's talk about some of the recommendations that come out of this report. The minister was there; he says he supports it, and so does the Premier. It seems to slip by the whole process of the throne speech and isn't mentioned as a commitment by this government: saving the

MS. SMALLWOOD: Did the Minister of Environment really say that he was going to save the planet by retiring?

I think it's really important that some of the recommendations of this report be put on the public record, because the government has not seen fit to recognize the importance of the work that is being done both nationally and internationally on the environment and economic development. Number one: it says that the whole way governments think should be to anticipate and prevent problems.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister says they do that now. One question: why are you continuing to bring on line mines that you know are acid-generating when you don't have a program in place? That is only one example where the minister has recognized that there is a very serious problem. There are several different mines and exploration projects underway in this province,15 to 20 of which the minister has not, to date, indicated that they would halt the development or exploration of until such time....

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think the minister should explain to the Premier that this province has a very serious problem that puts at risk not only the mining industry, because of their liability, but also the water quality and the fish.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister agrees. So yes, Mr. Premier, until we know the answer, you should not responsibly be bringing further mines known to be acid generating....

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd love to. The exploration presently underway in Strathcona is known to be acid-generating.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Well, I suggest to the Premier that you have a responsibility to the people of this province, to their health and safety. I suggest to you that you have a responsibility to the corporations that in good faith explore for minerals when this government has not fulfilled its responsibility to put programs in place, to do the research that is necessary to be able to deal with environmental problems.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You've been reading Bruce Wood too much. There is a program in place; it's called the mine development review process — since 1979.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Well, since 1979 there have been mines that have come on line in this province that are now generating acid and toxic waste to the extent where some of those mines are paying $1.5 million every year just to try to control the problem.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for drawing that to my attention. I wouldn't for a moment want to ignore your office. I'll go on further. It's just that the conversation was so stimulating

Back to the report. The report goes on to recommend how governments, how the first ministers, how the Minister of Environment can provide leadership. It talks fundamentally about the kinds of involvement that community groups should have. It talks about establishing formal mechanisms to hold ministers and departments accountable for promoting environmentally sound economic development and developing an environmental code of ethics and principles, including principles of prior notification and consultation, which all provide guidance on the management and environmental matters among governments in Canada.

This is the same government that seems to have ignored or underestimated the value of the work that has been done. It eliminated any reference in the throne speech to this fundamentally important work. This is the same government that time after time in this province chooses confrontation rather than consultation on environmental community health and safety issues.

This is the same government that promised time after time about the Strathcona Park issue. In August 1986 one minister said there would be public hearings; in September '86 the next minister said it; in November '86 the third Minister of Environment again promised that there would be public hearings — a fundamental component of the work that needs to be done to save this province, to get on with economic prosperity and to assure the next generations that there will be resources left for them. The same government that says that they are committed to the report time and time again runs against the very fundamental recommendations of the report for providing prior notification and consultation.

It brings me to the whole question of whether or not people in this province — and perhaps the Minister of Environment will care to let the people know in advance — have to have more people arrested to protect the heritage of this province. More people arrested to be heard, to have their opinion registered....

MS. SMALLWOOD: What the Minister of Environment is engaging in is a bit of public imagery, because the Minister

of Environment has completely and totally disregarded any request from the people who are fighting to save Strathcona — who have their very health in jeopardy — to have their questions answered and to have the kind of public inquiry necessary to find out who it is the Minister of Environment and this government represents: industry, or the interests and health and safety of the people of this province and the heritage of our future generations.

What we have is a minister and a government spending taxpayers' dollars to assay, to analyze, the mineral values in our parks system. We have the minister of mines and petroleum who brags to reporters, to the press, that he is engaging in geological surveys in the parks, with taxpayers' money, to help industry find commercial qualities of minerals, and that searches are going inside and outside the park as well as in recreational areas. The minister says that areas with obvious mineral potentials were excluded from parks in the last year and that areas with mineral potentials of little consequence were included in parks. Is it the role of government to spend taxpayers' dollars to erode the park system? Is that how you make all of your decisions: on a short-term balance sheet that in no way reflects the needs or the aspirations of the people of this province? You do not have a mandate to erode the parks system in our province, and you will see more and more people confronting your policies, because you do not have the support of the people to do what you're doing.

I stress again, the minister and the Premier indicate that they are supportive of the work that is being done. I say: do more than support it verbally. Put it into practice. Put the committees in place that will bring government and industry and community groups together around a round table, to be able to do the kind of planning that is necessary for a sustainable future.

I say to you, Mr. Minister of Environment, come out of the Dark Ages. Your policies of promoting the kind of plundering, the kind of unaccountable resource extraction, will do nothing but bring increased cost to the people of this province and leave our children with nothing to sustain their future.

There is a statement in this report from the task force that governments increasingly recognize that they hold resources in trust for both present and future generations. For a national task force to make a statement like that is a breath of fresh air, after having spent a year dealing with a government that not only does not recognize its responsibility but sees those kinds of phrases as absolutely foreign to their way of thinking. The Minister of Environment during the estimates readily admitted that the work he has done has been more akin to the industry than to the preservation and enhancement of the environment, his mandate as a minister.

1 think it's important that the work that is being done here, the bringing together of key industrialists, the government and community groups, has to be undertaken by this government, and I think the sooner the better. There has been too much time already lost while this ministry has put forward its own particular view of the world.

One of the final reports was a recommendation that these committees that the task force recommends functioning should design an action plan for sustainability of the environment and put together a program of education for high school and junior high levels. I think it's important that the kind of integration that this report is talking about take place. When the Premier is talking about his advisory committee on economic development, I would have hoped that the Minister of Environment by now would have shown some leadership in insisting that community groups be represented on that Economic Development Committee, because without it you don't have the total picture. Without it we can't move into the future. Without recognizing native land claims in this province, without recognizing the communities' interests, we can't hope to begin to move this province into the kind of sustainable economic development that is necessary.

I am proud to be able to take my place in the debate around the throne speech. I say that the government has failed sorely in the work it has done in the past year. The throne speech indicates that we are in for more of the same — more confrontation, more instability — and that is a sad, sad thing.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm very pleased to participate in this debate. The throne speech gives us all an opportunity to comment on the very positive proposals put forth and also on the accomplishments of government which are generally mentioned in the throne speech. I think our members have done well in that respect. We've certainly covered all the issues; and so we should, because this is our opportunity.

But it is similarly an opportunity for members of the opposition. It's an opportunity for them to comment on the record of government. It's an opportunity for them to comment on that which we propose to do during the year ahead. And it's an opportunity for the opposition to make some constructive suggestions as to what alternatives might be adopted by government or what they would propose to do, given the opportunity to govern. But what has happened during all those days of debate? We've heard from the opposition; they've wailed, they've whined, they've been negative. We have not heard a positive thing. Are we disappointed? Yes, we are disappointed. Are the people out there disappointed? Are they ever disappointed! Wailing, whining, negativism; not one positive suggestion, not one alternative, not one comment with respect to what they might do. Nothing at all. Just opposition and negativism.

During the last number of weeks we've seen the real NDP mentality at work. The best example I might draw from immediately is the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), who sits straight across here.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Oh, is he the first member? It's hard to tell which is first. It's the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). His contribution was a vicious, underhanded and unwarranted attack on an individual who is not even a British Columbian, an attack on someone in another country thousands of miles away who is not here to defend himself — not in the province to defend himself, not in the country to defend himself. That member spent his time attacking an individual who lives in another country, who gave of his own time with no cost to give us the benefit of his contacts, his connections, so that British Columbians might benefit from the investment that our German people would bring to British Columbia and create jobs. Jobs!

It doesn't really matter as far as the opposition is concerned. It's NDP politics. It's that old socialist philosophy.

Do you care about jobs? Do you care about investment? The answer is no, and we hear it time and time again. That first member for Vancouver East could only use smears and innuendo, guilt implied where none exists, because someone resident in West Germany who is serving our people has worked and does work as a director for the Krupp organization. The first member for Vancouver East has damned this person publicly because he is a director of that organization, an organization which yes,40 or 50 years ago was involved in things that today, as we look back, we regret. Do you know there are thousands of German people living in this country, great British Columbians, super people in that member's constituency, in our constituencies, who might have been employed with this large organization? Are they to be damned? Are they to be damned by the NDP because they are of German heritage? Are you damning all of the tens of thousands of people involved with the Krupp organization today? Or have you selectively picked one person because it suits the NDP socialist, negative politics? Which is it?

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we're concerned about the Premier's health here. He's getting a little upset. I would remind him of standing order 43, irrelevance and repetition in debate — total irrelevance to the people and the issues of the province of British Columbia today. Come back to the people of the province of British Columbia, and follow standing order 43 — the people's issues, not phony Premier's issues.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member for his point of order, but it is not a point of order. The member knows full well that the throne speech is an open debate, and there can be no irrelevancy in the speeches. The Premier will continue.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the attack we've seen in this House by the first member for Vancouver East is sad and bad news for all British Columbians. On behalf of all British Columbians, I apologize for that ridiculous, unwarranted act to all the people of German heritage, to all of the people in West Germany and to the gentleman who has been so viciously attacked.

Mr. Speaker, we also had some very negative comments during the whole of the debate. If I may use another example, the second member for Vancouver East thought he should take this opportunity to attack Lillian and the business that she has and that I'm involved with. "Somehow," says the second member for Vancouver East,"we'll get the Premier. We can't argue with all of the great things happening in this province. We can't argue with the progress we're making. We can't argue with the fact that we've got more people employed than ever before. We can't argue with the fact that industry is thriving. But let's go on another personal attack."

That wouldn't be so bad. Frankly, I don't mind. And Lillian — hey, she's great; she can take all of this. But what about the 22-odd businesses located there, and the 200 people employed at those premises? Did the NDP care about that? Do they care about those little businesses that are affected by such falsehoods and by such innuendo and by such garbage-peddling? Do the NDP care that there are 200-odd people employed that weren't previously employed but will somehow be affected by all this? Not at all. Jobs don't matter. Little businesses don't matter. It's that old negative socialist NDP philosophy that they want to preach.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We've had a great debate over the last few days, and I think it's getting just a little rowdy. If members would just allow the Premier to conclude his speech. I know it's difficult at times.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, did the second member for Vancouver East care about the facts? Not at all. I can assure the member, since I should, in all fairness, for all of the people employed at that place of business in Richmond.... Let me assure the members that no bylaws were ever broken. Let me assure the member that on March 7, 1986, a memo went forth from the Richmond municipal planning department urging Richmond municipal council that they should encourage the redesignation of those lands, that they should support an application to the Agricultural Land Commission, and that they should look to the rezoning of those lands. You know why, hon. member? Because if they could....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: All of the uses being proposed were permitted under the zoning as it then was, but it was argued by the municipality that they could obtain greater tax revenue by redesignating. So they've got it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Four million dollars, he says. He forgets that $2.6 million out of the $4 million of assessment that he refers to was for new buildings that were built. Does it matter to the member? It doesn't matter. Facts don't matter as long as they can smear, use innuendo and falsehoods, put people down. try to frustrate business and go against the workers. That's negative socialism.

Mr. Speaker, our throne speech speaks about free trade between the two greatest nations in the whole world, the United States and Canada — free trade that says we in British Columbia, like Broadbent's constituency of Oshawa, will also have some diversification. We hear the NDP opposing free trade. They say: "The Americans will come in and invest and buy up and take over businesses." Have they no confidence? Don't you believe in British Columbians and Canadians? Or do you think there ought to be two standards: one for Oshawa and Mr. Broadbent and one for the rest of Canada? That's the NDP mentality. Maybe, in all fairness, it's this way: if Ed says it's bad, Mikey won't even try it.

Free trade offers us — and that is all of the people in this great province, regardless of where they are — an opportunity to diversify. I appreciate that many members here can't relate to the great north of this country, can't relate to central British Columbia, but let's give all British Columbians an opportunity to see diversification. Why must all our youngsters living in great places like Prince George, Smithers or Cranbrook always have to come to Vancouver or go to Toronto or someplace in the States if they want something other than what a resource job might provide them? We want diversification in all parts of the province, and free trade will provide that opportunity.

The opposition are also very much afraid of any criticism that could be directed towards Ottawa. Heaven forbid we should somehow criticize Ottawa! Ed might get upset. It's

terrible — Oshawa and Ottawa are awfully close, after all. So there's all of this opposition to any criticism of Ottawa. The people of this province expect strong leadership from this government and they're going to get it from this government. And the people of this province are entitled to an opposition that makes a sensible contribution. But when are they going to get a sensible contribution from that NDP opposition across the way? When, we ask, and when, they're asking out there, will that NDP opposition finally start making some positive contribution? We need a fair share in Confederation, and we deserve a fair share.

We've got a documented case: the Prince Edward Island causeway. But where, I ask you, is the help for the Vancouver Island gas pipeline? This government is going to work for this Island in order to provide it with diversity, and in order to provide the people here greater opportunity, and that means a gas pipeline. We're committed to that gas pipeline, and we're going to work on that gas pipeline. We're going to create jobs on Vancouver Island, and we're not going to listen to that opposition fighting any criticism or attempt that we make towards Ottawa to make sure that the pipeline happens.

We've paid hundreds of millions of dollars to Ottawa through the national energy program. They have collected here on every gallon of gas. For a long time they've built up a big potful of money in Ottawa. They gave a billion dollars to Alberta. They helped build the Diefenbaker Lake project and Gardiner Dam in Saskatchewan. They assisted with nuclear energy development in NDP Manitoba; they did. They provided a billion dollars for pipelines in Ontario. They provided a billion dollars for pipelines in Quebec. They spent hundreds of millions in the Maritimes. British Columbia hasn't yet received anything, and we're saying: "British Columbians deserve a fair share.."

South Moresby. We're told the cheque is in the mail. We've cooperated with the federal government on South Moresby, and I suspect if it were an island in eastern Canada or someplace there and declared a national park, it would have been couriered over. It's in the mail; we're waiting.

We've had lukewarm support for a great project: TRIUMF kaon at UBC. We're going to keep working for that project. It's a great project for this province, but we need the federal government to participate because it serves all Canadians. As to the comments made by some of the business people in and around Toronto — "If it's so good, why isn't it here?" — that's not good enough. We as a government say we're going to go after that fair share.

We're going to work for the people in Victoria to make sure that we get more than a just a design for Polar 8. We want that project; we want jobs in Victoria; we want jobs in Vancouver; we want our ship workers to be employed. We're going to fight for it; we're going to present a good case, as we've done. We're going to continue to go after Ottawa, and we're not going to capitulate like the socialists across the way.

Federal resources are still targeted to central Canada. B.C. still has little representation on national boards and other commissions. Ottawa collects hundreds of millions of dollars annually in fuel taxes. We get back $40 million to work largely on the Alaska Highway. B.C. represents 12 percent of the population; we get 3.7 percent for industrial milk production. Our percentage of return within Confederation, as far as we're concerned as a government, is not enough. We're going to seek a fair share regardless of what the socialists say and regardless of your capitulation.

The throne speech is a very positive document. It tells it like it is; it lays out a blueprint for the future. It says that this government is developing a responsible thrust, and though we're enjoying growth and prosperity in 1988, and though this government produced more than any other province in 1987, and though we know that 1989 will again be a great year, we as a government must also responsibly plan for future years, if economic conditions unfortunately would be otherwise.

This government has embarked on a program of regionalization, of providing opportunities out in the large regions of this province, of saying to people — whether in local government, school boards, chambers of commerce, grass roots, those interested in working in the community — to tell us what we ought to do to assist them in creating economic activity. Tell us what you believe the social priorities with respect to programming or facilities ought to be. Be involved in the process.

We as a government are getting people across this province involved in the process, getting government to the people, and already the results are phenomenal. We should ask the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) how the people of the Kootenay feel about the decentralization process. They love it. The opposition from the member for Kootenay to the decentralization process.... The approach by the NDP member from the Kootenays for big government as opposed to decentralization — that alone is enough to ensure her absolute defeat. There's no question about it.

Again we invite that member to become involved in getting services to people. Again we invite that member and other members to get involved in representing and caring for people, and forgetting about philosophical and political hang-ups that say: "We can't work it with government. We don't care about the people. We're only interested in getting elected." There's more to this than just getting elected.

I am pleased that today I heard from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) about his concern. That's the first time I've heard from the NDP about entrepreneurism; they're finally beginning to know the word. Maybe they'll learn how to spell it, and hopefully they'll get behind it. I'm hearing about entrepreneurism, but while he talks about entrepreneurism — and that's a welcome start — why are they opposing privatization? Why are they opposed to small entrepreneurs, to people becoming involved in doing things for themselves as opposed to depending on government? Why? Why, I ask the member for Victoria? Why are you opposed to small businesses, to people becoming involved in those activities? Why must it all continue to be government? Why, we ask? He doesn't have an answer.

Mr. Speaker, we're committed to encouraging increased productivity. We're committed to a more diversified economy. We're committed to increased investment, for others to invest and have confidence in this province and to be a part of creating new opportunities for our children and our children's children. We're committed. We'll meet the needs of people in an affordable and fair fashion. We're developing a long-term plan which will make government more affordable and more efficient. We'll provide investment and planning certainty for the private sector, and that's really where the opposition should provide us with some comment. We've heard nothing about it.

We are providing additional help — increasing the aid — to education. We made tremendous progress in '87, and we're continuing with that very positive program. We've

provided more funding for independent schools — and I notice that the member for Nanaimo took off, for fear we might talk about independent schools, because we had all that negative comment about independent schools. We've provided more assistance to students, and we've provided a new program, the Passport to Education, a program that really says to our young people: "We want to reward you for that little extra effort." Working with the educational system and assisting our students, without a doubt we can lead the world. We will certainly show again and again that no province, no state, no country will equal what we can do and intend to do for our students at all levels.

We're providing a new approach to keep our health care system healthy. Special attention to seniors' needs through senior care centres, a great new program which will be piloted initially in Victoria, where our seniors will have a place to go in order to be provided with all types of information that will provide them with better health.

We as a government are saying we've got to provide opportunities for people to be healthier, to have more preventative opportunities available to the people of our province. We are going to develop a community-based health concept, making sure we get the best value for health care dollars, which make up one third of the total budget.

We're making great progress in the area of health care, and it doesn't matter where you go in the world, health care tends to make the front page. Whether it's Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, whether it is a state in the U.S.A. or a country in Europe, health care certainly tends to be that which they are all having some struggle with. Obviously, with new technologies and ageing populations and greater demands, it becomes ever more a challenge. I know that the NDP position is or must be that we simply throw more money and that this will somehow cure all things. We're saying we've got to be innovative and develop new approaches. It's going to work.

Whether I visit a hospital or health care facility anywhere in any other province of this country or in the U.S.A. or some European country — I think we could all agree to that — the thing that becomes obvious every time is that there's no health care system anywhere that surpasses the health care system that we have in British Columbia. This government is going to keep it that way. We're not going to run from it. We're going to keep the greatest health care system in the world. We're going to continue to lead the country and the continent. We're going to continue to be the best system anywhere in the world, and we're making decisions to that end.

Mr. Speaker, we're looking to increased Pacific Rim trade, and we've already made a number of moves to ensure that we will get a greater share of the trade opportunities developing in China, Japan, Singapore and all of those Pacific Rim countries.

Last week I met with the Governor of Alaska, and we talked about working cooperatively — Alaska, the Yukon and ourselves — to ensure that we identify future energy sources and can work together in developing a security of energy that will allow industry to establish in our respective areas. We're working with Alaska to promote tourism, ensuring that we identify the whole of this Pacific area in North America as a place for people to travel to. We have great cooperation and a willingness to continue those discussions in order to bring about fruitful and productive conclusions.

Mr. Speaker, today I similarly met with the Governor of Washington State, and we agreed that we're going to continue and develop still further that same process with Washington State. Already we have an informal commitment which we intend to pursue further, to bring in Oregon and to bring in California. We're going to work with those Pacific states to develop opportunities for our people to be involved in more diverse manufacturing opportunities; to see electronic businesses established here; to see people from Europe and Asia investing in British Columbia because they now have a vast market through the opportunities provided them through free trade. We're going to work to that end, and we're going to see an economy in this province second to none anywhere in the world.

We're going to develop opportunities to add value to the products we already have, and we're going to provide a tax climate and a climate of government which will encourage the private sector to look to British Columbia as the place of opportunity. But we're not committing to all of that activity in Vancouver or Victoria. We are committed to the whole of British Columbia. We're going to make opportunities available throughout the province: in the central part, in the east, in the west and in the north, and on Vancouver Island.

As a government also, I believe, very encouraged by the responses we've had thus far for our program to strengthen families. I'm tremendously impressed and encouraged when I meet people in the communities who view our government as being courageous, speaking out for families and on behalf of families, and for recognizing that the future of our people, the future of this province, depends on strong families. We're not going to run from this. We've made the commitment, and we're going to make the resources available to ensure that children and families in this province get every opportunity that we might make available to them of living and prospering and being happy in the most beautiful province in the whole of this country.

We will announce very quickly the details of a program to assist women facing unwanted pregnancies. We will provide a program for marriage counselling. We will provide increased opportunities for adoptions. We will provide more child support and maintenance programs. We will provide more foster homes. We will provide more day care opportunities and more day care funding, because we care about the families and the children of this province. There's no government or political party anywhere in this country, and no political party on this continent, more committed to children and families. Nowhere is there one more committed than Social Credit.

We're going to do all this, and we're still going to move towards ending the deficit, All this from a government that's not even in the mid-point of its mandate. We've just begun; we're just beginning.

Look at housing starts. We're up 43 percent in housing starts. Hey, look at that growth; look what's happening. People are moving to this great province because they know we've got a government that's courageous and a government of action. They're coming here. We've got leadership. They are leaving Manitoba; they're coming here. There's no province in this whole country that can equal the increase in housing starts that we've provided in British Columbia. That's a pretty good indicator. It means people have the confidence to come here to live.

We created over 90,000 new jobs from January 1987 to January 1988. That's an increase of 7.3 percent. Compare it

with the national average of 4.2 percent; compare it with Ontario, with all of its favours, at 4.5 percent, and you know that we've got the best government in the country. You know that we're creating more jobs than any government.

We've had a growth rate in investment in this country of 17.4 percent. All the experts said a year ago that it couldn't be done; all the experts said it wasn't possible in British Columbia — maybe Ontario, maybe Quebec, but not British Columbia. We did it; we outshone the rest of the country. We outdid the rest of the country; we outdid them in spades.

Manufacturing. Compare British Columbia with the rest of this country. When it comes to new opportunities in manufacturing, we've outdone Ontario; we've outdone Quebec; we've left Manitoba in the dust. We've won again; we've led the country in manufacturing growth.

Retail sales in 1987 — the highest we've seen them. Retail sales went way up. Consumer confidence in this province is like we've never seen it before. They can feel it happening, and they know that the people of this province won't let the socialists interfere by somehow getting a foothold. They know the value of good free enterprise government, and they are going to stay with and behind free enterprise.

The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) right behind me has done a super job. Everybody said: "You know, Expo was so great; Expo was so wonderful." Oh, let's just go back a minute. I do recall that the NDP said: "Expo can't be done. Oh no, it's a loser. We can't have Expo in this province. In no way can we do it." Where is he now? The leader of the NDP has been gone. They said Expo was like SkyTrain and the stadium and so many other things they've been opposed to. They said: "Expo? It can't be done. We can't do Expo. British Columbians aren't up to that. They can't compete with the rest of the world." Well, we did it. We had the greatest Expo that ever was anywhere in the world. British Columbians did it because good, free-enterprising British Columbians are above all a confident people. We know we can do it.

That's why we're not afraid of free trade: because we know British Columbians are a confident people and can do it. We can stand up against all of them. We can outdo them all. We can create opportunities like no other people, because British Columbians are an enterprising, confident people. You NDP socialists read them wrong. British Columbians aren't downers. They're not negatives. They have confidence.

So Expo was a great success. Expo was an enormous success. People came from all over the world to visit Expo. And again the NDP and so many others said: "Ali, but now it's all over, and 1987 will be a very down year. Those people aren't going to come back. We're not going to see tourists visit here, Expo killed it all." What happened? Well, 1987 was one of the greatest tourist years we've ever experienced. We did it again.

What's more, those tourists didn't simply stay in Vancouver. They went to the Okanagan, to the Cariboo, to central British Columbia, to the great Peace River country, to the Kootenays — they went to the whole of this beautiful province, and they participated in activities and saw what this great province has to offer. They're going to go back and tell friends, and we're going to get more tourism, because our ministry and our government is promoting it like no other place in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it's really great to be part of this government. It's great to be part of such a positive throne speech. It's great to know that we have ministers in government who work hard and long to make the good things happen. It's great to know that they're happening. It's great to know that British Columbians have a confidence such as we've not seen in a long time. They're building. They're expanding. They're creating jobs. They're consuming. We have a confident people. It's great to know that things are looking up for our province such as we've never seen it. The opportunities are great. Tomorrow we have the budget speech. We're going to hear from the greatest Minister of Finance in the country tomorrow, who is going to show the rest of this country that we not only have a goal but have a game plan.

This province is moving ahead. Mr. Speaker, we heard presented to this House one of the greatest throne speeches that's ever been presented anywhere in this country. We heard tell of accomplishments in one year by a new government such as we've not seen before in this country. We've seen presented to this province, to the people in this House, challenges such as we've not seen before in this country. British Columbia is great, and it's going to be greater and greater and greater. We've only just begun.

MR. SPEAKER: Seeing no further speakers, I will put the motion. The motion is: "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session."

YEAS — 37
Savage	Rogers	L. Hanson
Reid	Dueck	Richmond
Parker	Michael	Pelton
Loenen	Crandall	De Jong
Rabbitt	Dirks	Mercier
Long	Veitch	McCarthy
S. Hagen	Strachan	Vander Zalm
B.R. Smith	Couvelier	Davis
Johnston	Weisgerber	Jansen
Gran	Mowat	Ree
Bruce	Serwa	Vant
Peterson	Huberts	Messmer
Davidson

NAYS — 19
Barnes	Marzari	Harcourt
Stupich	Skelly	Boone
D'Arcy	Gabelmann	Blencoe
Cashore	Guno	Smallwood
Lovick	Sihota	Miller
A. Hagen	Jones	Clark
	Edwards

That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on the matter of the Builders Lien Act with particular reference to the following:

1. The purposes of and the continuing relevance of the legislation in today's society;

3. The desirability of repeal or reform to any or all of the provisions within the Act; and

4. The policy directions which would guide any reform; and to report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the said Committee by the House, the Committee shall have the following additional powers, namely:

(a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(i) during any period in which the House is adjourned, is prorogued, and during any sitting of the House, and

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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 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.