[ Page 5603 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

David Poole's pension. Mr. Harcourt –– 5603

Every woman’s Health Centre funding. Mrs. Boone –– 5604

Royal commission on forestry. Mr. Harcourt –– 5604

Export of raw logs. Mr. Miller –– 5604

Mr. Bruce

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Harcourt –– 5605

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 5608

Mr. G. Janssen –– 5611

Mr. Loenen –– 5614

Mr. Clark –– 5616

Hon. Mr. Vant –– 5620

Mr. Rose –– 5622

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 5627

Mrs. Boone –– 5631

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID: I rise today to bring to the attention of all Members of the Legislative Assembly the reason for the yellow daffodil in front of them — in contrast to the red rose worn by some people. The daffodil is from British Columbia, and today is the first day of spring. Over the past decade radio station CKNW has celebrated the arrival of spring by handing out B.C.-grown daffodils. Despite the bitter cold of February this year on the whole Pacific coast, as far south as southern California, these daffodils in the Legislature today are a symbol that spring opens the door to a new season of tourism in British Columbia.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Last Thursday I said that I would mention a particular birthday; unfortunately it was not possible at that time. I'd like to extend a belated birthday greeting to Donna Sitter, CKO Radio, Canada's national FM network.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would like to ask members in the House to please join me in welcoming the Chinese cultural consul, Mr. Yan Shixun, and his wife, Mme. Yan, who is also a cultural consul.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I would first like to ask the House to help me congratulate the Prime Minister on his birthday today.

I would also like the House to welcome my wife, Florence, and my son, Réjean, who are here today.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the members' gallery today are Mr. and Mrs. Paul and Julie Reynolds, our Speaker's brother and sister-in-law, along with their two children, Laura and John. They are accompanied by Mr. Speaker's wife Yvonne. I would ask you to make them all very welcome.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the Legislature to welcome a visitor from Prince George who I met at the Prince George Exhibition a while ago. He's a well-known native artist, Robert Sebastian.

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce two people in the gallery today. The first is Josephine Wearing, the sister of the executive assistant to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), and she's also on the executive in our Burnaby-Edmonds riding. Her friend and cousin, Marianne Sanchez, is visiting here from Spain. Would the House make them both welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a dairy farmer from the Central Fraser Valley — a very successful dairy farmer. Would the House please welcome John Van Dongen.

Oral Questions

DAVID POOLE'S PENSION

MR. HARCOURT: Can the Premier confirm that the cost to B.C. taxpayers to top up David Poole's pension by order-in-council was $75,000?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, all matters related to pensions are for the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mr. Michael), and I defer the question to him.

MR. HARCOURT: We'd like to hear from the Minister of Government Management Services, but he's not here, Mr. Speaker. The issue of Mr. Poole's pension, by way of a letter from Mr. Justice Nemetz is: "The focus of my referred work is future policy." We're talking about a past decision, and because of the confusion surrounding this, I'd like to ask the Premier if he is prepared to table the terms of reference of the Nemetz inquiry into severance and pension arrangements.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Hopefully Justice Nemetz will provide all sorts of information, also with respect to how this information, and what information, might be made public. I am sure he will be looking at the policy as it existed in the city of Vancouver when the Leader of the Opposition was mayor, and possibly using that for guidance. We look forward to the report. In the meantime, all matters will certainly be dealt with by the Minister of Government Management Services, who will take it on notice.

MR. HARCOURT: As the Premier was one of the two people involved, can the he tell this House whether Mr. Poole resigned voluntarily, was fired with cause or was fired without cause?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I was not involved, but certainly I will pass that on to the minister responsible as a personnel matter.

HON. MR. VEITCH: As the acting minister, I will take it on notice for the Minister of Government Management Services.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT: Can the Premier then inform the House why David Poole's pension by order-in-Council was not approved by the superannuation commissioner?

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition can persist in the line of questioning, but the Premier and the minister have taken the question on notice. Does the Premier want to answer?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will take that question on notice for the Minister of Government Management Services.

[ Page 5604 ]

EVERYWOMAN'S HEALTH CENTRE FUNDING

MRS. BOONE: Question to the Premier. With respect to the Premier's announcement of a new minister of state for women's issues, can the Premier inform the House whether one of the responsibilities of this minister will be to pursue full funding for the Everywoman's Health Centre?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No. The terms of reference will certainly be drafted by the Premier when the announcement is made.

MRS. BOONE: Question to the Minister of Health. Has the Minister of Health decided to provide full funding for the Everywoman's Health Centre?

HON. MR. DUECK: It has been reported many times in the paper, and I will reiterate the remarks that I made and the position of this government: if we are looking for a diagnostic and treatment centre, it certainly wouldn't be in the city of Vancouver.

MRS. BOONE: A supplementary. It's clear that the minister is basing policies on his own personal opinions, rather than meeting the needs of the majority of British Columbians. How can the minister justify the discriminatory policy that funds abortion in some health care facilities, such as regular hospitals, and not in others?

HON. MR. DUECK: Any doctor or physician can open a clinic, do procedures, get paid for the procedures; however, they cannot open a hospital and expect to get funding for the operations of a diagnostic centre or hospital per se. So it's very clear in my mind, and it has nothing to do with personal opinions if I have other....

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK: Now just a minute. I have other requests for diagnostic and treatment centres, and we say no, we are not going to open one because it is not required. That's exactly the same for this particular clinic that you're speaking of.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON FORESTRY

MR. HARCOURT: To the Premier, Mr. Speaker. In response to calls from New Democrats and other groups throughout this province, has the Premier finally decided to overrule his Minister of Forests and to establish a royal commission on forestry?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm not exactly sure what the procedure was when the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) was the minister responsible for forestry, but the procedure here is that the minister reports to cabinet and cabinet makes the decision.

MR. HARCOURT: I take that as basically a no.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: I don't know why the Premier is trying to hide the state of the forests in this province. What's he trying to hide? Maybe some sweet deals for friends of Social Credit. Manufacturers, aboriginal people, municipal leaders, loggers, even the previous Minister of Forests, have all called for a royal commission on forestry. How can the Premier reconcile his failure to act with a near unanimous call for a royal commission?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I take this opportunity to clarify. I didn't say no; I said it would be a matter for cabinet, although I should say I'm not surprised that the Leader of the Opposition would take it as no, because it was no to the stadium, no to the trade and convention centre, no to SkyTrain, no to Coquihalla, no to the Alex Fraser Bridge. It's always no with the Leader of the Opposition.

EXPORT OF RAW LOGS

MR. MILLER: I have a question to the Minister of Forests, who, by the way, is quoted as saying he's indifferent on the subject of a royal commission, and in his press conference said the public was all over the map. I don't know whether the Premier agrees with that or not. However, the minister, in announcing a new policy to deal with the important issue of raw log exports, indicated that the policy had to be reviewed in light of the free trade agreement. Clearly the inference was that there was some impediment in that agreement to imposing a total ban on log exports. Could the minister advise the House whether it is the case that the free trade agreement provides an impediment to British Columbia's putting in place a total ban on log exports?

HON. MR. PARKER: The matter of export policy is one that comes under scrutiny by both the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the free trade agreement. If we're going to have restriction on trade, we can expect a certain amount of examination by our trading partners the world over, because we happen to be a country that relies heavily on external trade. So yes, whatever we do from the standpoint of export policy will be examined by our trading partners.

MR. MILLER: The minister, after eight public sessions around the province, has learned the word "obfuscation."

Mr. Minister, would you clarify your statement? Would you advise this House whether the free trade agreement prohibits British Columbia from imposing a total ban on log exports?

HON. MR. PARKER: I'll be happy to speak with my colleagues who are well versed in the free trade agreement. The advice I have at this time is that whatever we do, as far as export policy in this country is concerned, we can expect to be examined by our trading partners.

[ Page 5605 ]

MR. MILLER: We will have more to say. It's going to come as some surprise to the people of this province that the government didn't advise them, at the time they embraced the free trade agreement, that that was the case.

Moving on more specifically on an issue of log exports, the minister, by ministerial order, allowed a forest company on Vancouver Island to export 5,500 cubic metres of raw fir logs. The minister at his news conference today advised the press that the new policy would go far in terms of sustaining production and processing jobs in this province. The minister was also aware...

MR. SPEAKER: Could the member get to his question.

MR. MILLER: ... of the Fletcher Challenge layoffs. He had been previously advised. Given that he was advised, why did the minister allow the export of 5,500 cubic metres of raw logs from Vancouver Island if he knew that the impact of the Fletcher Challenge layoffs was coming?

HON. MR. PARKER: The advice we had from Fletcher Challenge on pending layoffs came long after the episode that the member opposite alluded to on 5,000 metres of fir logs. That particular issue was one of an economic and a job-protection nature in that particular community. The advice I had at the time to protect those jobs was that that particular transaction should be allowed to transpire.

What we talked about today in our press release and at our press conference was a means to put a lid on export of surplus logs. We have done that by increasing the fee in lieu of manufacture in the province from 40 percent to 100 percent of the difference between domestic price and export price. We haven't stopped log exports, so our trading partners won't have to become alarmed.

We have set up a situation where there are surplus logs in the system and where it is as much an advantage to sell them domestically as to export. There is no reason to see an increase in export. What we will see is a substantial decrease in export and, I might caution, a subsequent decrease in revenues.

MR. BRUCE: As one knows, I have been involved in this issue most recently in my community, and the aspect of log exports is very near and dear to my heart. The opposition has for some time been calling for an immediate and total ban on all log exports, Mr. Minister, as you well know, citing, of course, job security as their principal reason. Can the minister please advise this House as to the percentage of that annual allowable cut that is accounted for by raw log exports? More importantly, what would be the economic impact if a total ban was imposed immediately on the industry?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take as notice the total economic impact, and I will report that to the House. The province is a very diverse province. There are areas that depend upon log export as very much a part of the local economy, and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) knows that full well because his constituency is one of those that are impacted to the greatest extent in this line of work. There are a number of people in his constituency whose jobs depend on being able to sell some logs offshore, up to Alaska or south to Washington State.

I'd also like to share with the House the fact that log sales from the Cassiar timber supply area into the southern Yukon and into the neighbouring province of Alberta are considered log export, and they are all part of the picture throughout the province. It is a very diverse resource and a very diverse province. The matter of log export is part of the commerce of the province.

Last year we were able to reduce log exports by a million cubic metres from the 1987 figures, and we did that with policy that was introduced in July. That policy is serving to further reduce what the policy we announced today will further reduce. But remember, it's a two-way street. Not only have we been exporting logs but we've been importing logs too, because it's the nature of commerce.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Could I ask leave to make an introduction, please.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It is indeed a pleasure for me to rise in the assembly today to introduce Mrs. Anne Thomas, president of the Delta Hospital Board; Ross Nursey, a member of the board; Bob Hutmacher, executive director; and Dr. David Martin, chief of medical staff. Would this House please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate
(continued)

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, this government's throne speech is about the past, not the future; a lot more study and review, not much action; more to do with politics than with people.

Let's look at the throne speech reviews. The Province says it's a "confession of sins." The Times-Colonist says it's "recanting without actually accepting blame for past failures, bowing earnestly in all directions and spending or promising to spend its way to popularity."

Most observers are fascinated by this government's newfound interest in the environment and health care. The Times-Colonist says: "One can only marvel at a government which, even while provincial mills are being condemned as gross polluters and forestry policy is being assailed on all sides, has the gall to claim in public that" the environment is one of its "most fundamental values." The Sun says this government's "pledge to introduce a new medical services act... raises the spectre of one more attack on universality." The Province also says

[ Page 5606 ]

most of this government's throne speech is "talk and study."

[2:30]

Two and a half years into its mandate this government's action on a clean environment is to study it. Two and a half years into its mandate this government's solution for unemployment is a task force. Two and a half years into its mandate its program for child care is to review it. To be fair, BCTV did say the government's priorities are actually "warm and cuddly." Or was that "fuzzy and fluffy"?

This government's throne speech is not a vision for the future but an admission of failure. It offers no imagination, no innovation, no fresh solutions to real problems. This government doesn't grab hold of the future in a bold way. This is not how B.C. was built. We didn't forge thriving cities or open up the interior by waiting for someone else to solve problems for us. It's clear that this government's throne speech has more to do with correcting the failures of the past than providing leadership for the future. And it's clear that the people of British Columbia are way out ahead of this government.

After everyone else in B.C. knows about pollution, they've just learned how to spell the word "environment." Then again, they've just started putting the "u" back in education.

The Socreds seem to think that politics is a promising career, and the throne speech proves it — it's filled with promises. But we're surprised at some of the promises that were left out. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) wanted a tax on good ideas. He knew he'd never have to pay. The Minister Responsible for Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) wanted to get ready for the next oil spill; he wanted to double the supply of paper towels. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) wanted to have nurses declared an endangered species, but then that would mean he'd have to recognize their value to health care in the first place. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid) wanted a new B.C. lottery. The first prize is a new home in Vancouver; the second prize is a million dollars. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) wanted to rename his department McForests and serve up another billion logs for export.

Mr. Speaker, freely spending money raised on the backs of working people is not leadership, nor is addressing important concerns like the environment or education for our kids or women's equality only when it suits the government politically. Our children and our future are too important to be suddenly dusted off just before an election.

This afternoon I'm going to speak about B.C.'s future, about a growing future, one that we can build through sustainable development of B.C.'s renewable resources, the protection of our environment and the diversification of our economy — a growing economy that is managed not just for a few government friends and insiders, their idea of free enterprise, but for working people, our children and our parents. Not growth for growth's sake but growth that provides good jobs for men and women, new opportunities for B.C.'s businesses, economic equality for women, income security for the poor, services for families and seniors, educational opportunities for our youth, and justice for aboriginal people.

The people of British Columbia are way out ahead of this government. Their horizons reach beyond today. They've seen the future and it is our province, a commonwealth of rich resources, strong, innovative people building livable communities, a province that can meet the challenges of global competition and change. British Columbians want to know that the resources we've been blessed with in B.C. will still be there for their children.

While this government studies the environment New Democrats have been putting forward concrete solutions to create new jobs without harming the environment. Whether British Columbians live in resource-based communities whose future is directly threatened by natural resource depletion or in cities where deterioration of the quality of the air, water and land has increased, sustainable development is the key to our growing future.

British Columbians want to make sustainable development a reality — not just another Socred slogan. The government was asking where the ideas were. All you have to do is to look at the 21 specific legislative initiatives we've introduced to stop Socred mismanagement of B.C.'s resources and to immediately protect our environment.

You asked the question, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith). If you had checked the Orders of the Day this morning, you would have seen the bills we'll be introducing in the coming weeks. I want to quickly touch on those initiatives. Each contributes to the immediate stewardship of our renewable resources, as well as starting right now to clean up our environment to minimize future degradation. They are:

1. An Act to Ban Log Exports.

2. A Tree-Farm Licence Moratorium Act — until we have a royal commission on forestry.

3. An Act to Increase Pollution Penalties and Create an Environmental Protection Fund.

4. An Act to Phase Out Pulp Mill Pollution.

5. An act to ban CFCs — chlorofluorocarbons, for those of you who may not know the term.

6. An environmental protection act to assess the environmental impact of all major industrial and commercial development.

7. An Act Providing for Effective Monitoring of Pollution and Toxic Spills.

8. A Whistle Blower's Protection Act, to protect workers who report polluters.

9. An Act to Ensure Environmentally Sensitive Public Spending.

10. Forestry Value Added Act, which ties new job creation directly to industrial access to our forests.

11. Community Reforestation Act.

12. Forest Waste Reduction Act.

13. Forest Practices Act.

14. Forest Inventory Update Act.

15. An Act to Establish an Environment and Land Use Secretariat.

16. An Act to Protect Parks and Wilderness Areas.

[ Page 5607 ]

17. An Act to Restore the Integrity of the Agricultural Land Commission.

18. An Act to Reduce Lead Levels in Drinking Water.

19. An Act to Phase Out the Use of Apartment and Commercial Incinerators.

20. An Act to Continue the Moratorium on Offshore Oil Drilling and Exploration.

21. Freedom of Information Act.

I have been asked: what if this government won't accept our initiatives? Frankly, I have no doubt that they are prepared to do so. After all, it was the Environment minister who said: "We're ready to follow; just tell us what to do."

These New Democrat initiatives are just the beginning. In the coming months we will be introducing further measures and other key sustainable development areas, including agriculture, fisheries, energy and tourism.

One month ago we put our sustainable development program before the people of British Columbia. We identified five long-term priorities for our province, and I want to put these priorities on record: (1) we must maintain our natural resources to provide sustainable economic opportunities for working people; (2) we must resolve resource and land use conflicts while respecting the aspirations of all British Columbia citizens and regions; (3) we must generate new jobs and economic benefits from our resources by increasing the level of value-added opportunities — that means getting more manufactured products from our raw resources; (4) we must protect the quality of our environment for our family and our children; and (5) we must preserve our unique scenic and wilderness resources for future generations.

I want to expand on just one of these priorities: the new value-added manufacturing opportunities from our forests. B.C. must diversify its economy to protect people from all the regions of British Columbia from the boom-and-bust future. In the immediate future, our forests will remain the backbone of our economy. B.C.'s forest industry has relied on the mass production of low-cost products like pulp, newsprint and dimension lumber and fought to maintain B.C.'s share of a very competitive world market, but unless this government musters every resource at its disposal and moves with the utmost urgency to work with B.C.'s forest industry to produce new wood products, thousands of British Columbians will find themselves on the unemployment lines over the next decade — just like the 425 workers at Fletcher Challenge.

The shift from home building to home renovation in the U.S., which is our largest market, has cut our timber production but increased the demand for specialty wood products. In the future, Europe and Japan — our other most important export markets — will only be buyers for value-added products. But the loss of our traditional markets for B.C. timber also brings along many new opportunities. B.C. has the chance to produce a wide range of new products for Canadian and world markets.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Name a few.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd be glad to name a few if you'll listen for a second. I'd like to tell you the products we could have: wood windows, doors, frames, panels, mouldings, shelving, flooring, siding, prefabricated building components and furniture, just to name a few.

In addition to exporting pulp and paper, we could also be producing a wider range of printing and specialty papers. As a matter of fact, last year's federal-provincial study on value-added opportunities says there's a billion-dollar market and thousands of new B.C. jobs there for the taking if we're bold in our thinking and quick on our feet.

This government and our forest industry must move on research and development. This afternoon I am announcing another New Democrat sustainable development initiative: a forestry research and development act. This will establish a joint industry and government forestry research and development program for the development of new markets for B.C.'s value-added forest products, new harvesting, processing and manufacturing equipment, and new environmentally sensitive production technologies.

There is a direct relationship between forestry R and D and selling new B.C. wood products on our world markets, and that means new jobs for B.C. workers. Our competitors have shown they can do it. They showed how it can be done. Our markets are telling us it must be done. You want to know where you can look? Sweden has doubled their value-added manufacturing by spending three times what we do on R and D.

[2:45]

We can't rely on our forests alone to produce new jobs for British Columbians. Like sustainable development, diversification of our economy is critical if we're to have a growing rather than a shrinking economic pie. If we don't produce more advanced and complex goods and services in every region, our children will forever be vulnerable to a boom-and bust economy.

It's time for this government to get serious about diversification. There is no shortage of bold ideas for economic development in every region of this province. B.C. has a great potential to create jobs, not just in forestry and other resource industries, including agriculture, food, mining and aquaculture, but also in information technology, including microelectronics, computers and telecommunications; in biotechnology, including disease control, environmental protection and health care; and in high tech, for energy, ocean sciences, marine subsea, aerospace and transportation.

As I said last year, the challenge of diversifying through home-grown industries is harder than reaching for the quick fix of foreign-owned multinationals. But that's the job that British Columbians want done.

New Democrats want to encourage and support new B.C. enterprises that are locally owned and job intensive. We want public tax dollars to be targeted to long-term job creation for our children, not just to

[ Page 5608 ]

short-term special deals for the government's friends and insiders.

Next week's budget is a marvelous opportunity for this government to catch up to British Columbians. Instead of using indiscriminate tax breaks, the budget must target investments specifically to those enterprises which make the greatest contribution to diversification. Instead of thoughtlessly handing out grants to new industries the budget must ensure that British Columbians get a fair return on their investment: in new jobs, repayment, reinvestment or even equity in successful enterprises.

In addition to these tax incentives, this government can do more: first, with sustainable development — high access to our renewable resources for B.C. enterprises, directly to new initiatives and diversification. Second, support R and D in these growth industries. Third, make the necessary public investment in our universities and colleges to provide our young men and women with the skills to help build B.C.'s sunshine industries.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old Chinese proverb: "If you wish to plan for a year, sow seeds; if you wish to plan for ten years, plant trees; if you wish to plan for a lifetime, develop people." We're planning for the next generation.

Our challenge today is to manage our growing future for the greater economic and social benefit of all British Columbians — not just for a few government friends and insiders.

Last year in the throne speech, this government made a public commitment to encourage planned and organized growth, so that development does not bring pressures, problems and costs to threaten the quality of life we enjoy. Mr. Speaker, ask the Vancouver seniors who are losing their homes if this government has been managing growth for them. Ask the young families looking for an apartment or looking to buy their first home if this government has been managing growth in their interest.

This government tells us they've got a housing action plan. Where's the tax on flipping to cool off an overheated housing market? Where's the property purchase tax exemption for first-time home buyers? And where's the protection for tenants through the rentalsman? Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you where these initiatives are coming from. They're coming from this side of the House — from New Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, ask the workers from Surrey and Coquitlam, who travel to and from work taking hours each day, if this government has been managing growth for them. And ask the families, teachers and health care workers in those same communities, whose schools and hospitals are bursting at the seams, if this government has been managing growth. Here is the leadership British Columbians are looking for — here in the New Democratic Party.

Give communities the right to work together through regional planning and to build livable communities. Get off your duffs and upgrade our highways and roads and build our public transit so it won't unfairly burden property tax payers. Stop paving our farmland and preserve the ALR. Introduce our environmental protection act to ensure that industrial, commercial and residential properties don't damage the environment.

Mr. Speaker, it's time to stop beating the drums of the past and start pushing open the doors to the future. It's time for this government to look ahead. British Columbians know what the challenges are: to create new jobs from our renewable resources without harming the environment, to diversify our provincial and regional economies for our children and to manage our growing future for the social and economic benefit of all British Columbians.

This government is going to have to be dragged along by the people of British Columbia. Our kids' future, jobs for working people, equality for women and justice for aboriginal people are important 365 days of the year — not just when it suits the government politically. Our children and our future are too important just to be dusted off months before the election.

This government hopes that the people of British Columbia forget who this government shamelessly has come to represent over the past few years: a few friends and insiders. People are a lot smarter than that. We do have memories, we care about our kids, and we care about the future.

Mr. Speaker, this throne speech is filled with study and review and review and study. British Columbians know what the challenges are. We don't want another study; we want solutions. We want legislative action to protect the environment and create jobs. We want to know that the resources we've been blessed with here in B.C. will still be there for our children. While this government studies the problem, New Democrats are putting forward concrete solutions. While they're thinking about it, we're taking legislative action. As the throne speech shows, British Columbians are way ahead of this government.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, it's always nice to follow the me-too member, and we'll get to that in a minute.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I lost a couple of things. I lost 20 pounds too. Did you guys notice?

I would like at the outset in my address to the throne speech to do as all members like to do in this time of the year and in this period: to speak about the riding. It's about the only time we get to do it. It gives you, other members and your colleagues on both sides of the House a chance to hear how you feel about the place you represent and what's happening there. I think it's important.

This was announced on the weekend, but I want to make comment first to all of you that Prince George has been awarded the 1990 British Columbia Summer Games. I am very pleased with that. I think it underscores the tremendous ability our community has in hosting these types of events. Pursuing this issue of the awarding of the 1990 summer games for Prince George, it was easy for me to point out the

[ Page 5609 ]

remarkable record that our community had in hosting the 1981 British Columbia Winter Games and the 1986 Festival of the Arts. When you have a community such as Prince George that has the capacity to bring 5,000 or 6,000 people into town to put together the variety of infrastructure that has to be put in place — food, lodging, transportation, organization, facilities — it makes you feel good to know that your community can respond in a first-class fashion. I am happy to see that we have had this award of these magnificent games to our community. I can assure all of you that Prince George will respond in an outstanding manner as host to those games.

We have also had some success economically in our community over the last year. As you know, the forest and resource industry did go through some doldrums from 1981 on, but things have changed considerably in the last couple of years. Of course, the pulp and paper industry market has strengthened. So has the lumber market. We were pleased last year to note the selection of Prince George as the site for the FMC hydrogen peroxide plant. That was intriguing to me as Minister of Environment and as MLA for the area. As you know, hydrogen peroxide is the coming chemical with respect to clean pulp and paper processing. To have such a facility in my community is indeed delightful from an economic point of view as well as from an environmental point of view.

In Prince George we have British Columbia's highest per capita income. I think that speaks well for the industry that does locate there.

I might add parenthetically to the Leader of the Opposition, whose research is really abysmal, that we have in Prince George value-added sash and door and window manufacturers, furniture manufacturers and much other value-added industry. It's all there. I am amazed that he would put that in a speech and say we don't have it, when in fact just a casual look at a Prince George phone book would tell him that. If his research doesn't carry past that, I don't see how he can ask the people of British Columbia to acknowledge him as leader of a major party, or even anticipate the thought of his being Premier — if he can't do some telephone book research in the third-largest community in the province.

I would like to discuss the issues of the environment and perhaps respond in part with some factual information about some of the charges that have been laid in this last speech.

First of all, the Leader of the Opposition began his comments — which he had to read — by going through the reviews of the various newspapers and how they felt about the throne speech. I think it's obvious that you are going to find critical press — I don't have any problem with this — looking at ways of finding holes in the throne speech or other government documents. That's what the critical press is supposed to do, and I think they have a responsibility to do that.

In terms of the Times-Colonist speaking on environment, though, there is a major deficit there. The Times-Colonist really has no basis to speak on environment. I recall that they made no mention of the Dr. David Strangway task force that we put in place on the environment, economy and sustainable resources. As a matter of fact, in other issues such as the oil spill the editorial writers had to fabricate information to arrive at an opinion. That has been pointed out to them, but they don't seem to recognize that. Nevertheless, the point remains that the Times-Colonist is really not an authority if you are dealing with environmental issues.

In terms of the government record, there are a few other things I would like to put on record right now for the benefit of the Legislative Assembly, in response to some of the NDP accusations,

The Social Credit government in 1971 by statute had the first Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet. To say that we have not acknowledged environmental concerns is incorrect, and any casual look at the statutes and our record will demonstrate it. The Social Credit government in 1977 had the first Ministry of Environment, with a Minister of Environment sitting on ELUC....

AN HON. MEMBER: Seventy-six.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I stand corrected by my historian friend here.

A Minister of Environment chaired the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet and was always a member of any cabinet committee, on economic development in those days — regional development today.

First of all, the me-too leader seems to take great delight in talking about our common future, sustainable development and what he's going to do if elected to govern the province. I should point out to him that in September 1987— and I was minister at the time — the province of British Columbia endorsed the Prime Minister's task force on the economy and the environment, and indicated that we would also endorse this concept and begin our own task force. That's some two years ago, so for the Leader of the Opposition to all of a sudden find this acknowledgment of what the United Nations has said on our common future and to embrace the concept of sustainable development is laughable indeed. This has been a feature and a characteristic of our government for two years now.

[3:00]

In the July 6, 1988 cabinet restructuring it was clear that we would be embarking upon a task force. You will recall, Mr. Speaker and members, that in December my colleague, the Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch), and I had the good fortune to announce Dr. David Strangway as the chairman of our task force on the environment and the economy. In January we announced the further membership of that task force. For the Leader of the Opposition to say that he is reacting first to this issue is total nonsense and indicates, if anything, very skimpy research.

The other comment I would like to make — and a question I should ask — is that when we talk about

[ Page 5610 ]

proposals from the opposition, I don't see one. Interestingly enough, the Leader of the Opposition asked about Votes and Proceedings and all the issues they were going to put on the order paper, yet I notice there's not one question in Votes and Proceedings dealing with the environment. So any concern they have or are trying to demonstrate for the environment is I think sadly lacking.

Further, the Leader of the Opposition spoke at some length about his 12 or 13 concerns about the environment. They deal with log exports, royal commissions, waste management. We have had the most comprehensive waste management legislation in Canada, Mr. Speaker — and you will know this from a former movie. We've had it amended as needed, and quite stringently. I recall that in 1987 amendments to the Waste Management Act dealing with the handling of special wastes were voted against by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Why they would take a position and vote down improvements to the Waste Management Act is beyond me; nevertheless, they did it. It does indicate they really don't have that concern for the environment when we see them voting against tougher legislation, which the record will show they did in 1987.

In terms of pulp mill regulation, you are all aware that in December of this year there was evidence from the federal government, doing very sophisticated testing on edible fish tissues, that dioxins in trace parts were in the shellfish fishery. Later on there was more evidence that we had dioxins in fish tissue in the finfish of our province. Immediately, I and the federal minister, who came into this a little late because he had just come out of an election and was newly appointed, put into place an agenda which indicated to the pulping industry that by January 30, 1989 they would have to present to both the federal and provincial governments an agenda for stepping away from the chlorine bleaching process, begin to do their own testing and submit these plans to the government. That was done; the plans are in place and are being reviewed now. I would suspect — as a matter of fact, I know — that British Columbia and the pulp and paper industry will be the first in Canada to have the most toxic-free pulp and paper process. I think that's commendable; it speaks well for our industry and for the government commitment to a clean environment. This does include extensive monitoring, as I indicated earlier. Our legislation will introduce changes to the Environment Management Act.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It's interesting that the Leader of the Opposition talked about all the things he was going to do in his discussion paper that he issued about a month ago. I was in Prince George, but I reviewed by telephone with Glen Bohn, the environment writer of the Vancouver Sun, everything the Leader of the Opposition had said, and neither Glen Bohn nor myself could find anything new. In other words, everything that the Leader of the Opposition was promoting and that was contained in his issue paper was in fact legislation or regulation which was already in place. I did find that curious, and so did the environment writer for the Vancouver Sun. However, I guess there's nothing wrong in finding a good bandwagon and finding a good parade and running to the front of it. It never hurts.

There really isn't anything there, Mr. Speaker. Just casual investigation will show that there is really nothing in what the Leader of the Opposition has put forward that isn't already in place, put in place by our government. I do thank him for his acknowledgement of our policy, but that's pretty well all he's done.

In terms of the Ministry of Environment and the comments made about us by His Honour in the throne speech, needless to say I was pleased to see the ministry get, as we characterize it, a full ministry recognition again. You will recall that in July 1988 there was a restructuring of the cabinet, and ministers of state, of which I am one, were combined as sort of mini-ministers of regional development into the Ministry of Regional Development. I think this is a very good mechanism in terms of being responsible from an economic point of view for the geographic area that you represent. But it did cause some problems with the portfolio that I brought along, which was the Ministry of Environment — to those working in the ministry. To see that ministry back to full status again is a good thing and recognizes this government's ability to look at what they've done, look at management practices, and if there are ways we can improve upon them, we'll certainly do that.

You'll also know, Mr. Speaker, that I've been commenting for some time now about strengthening environmental enforcement. That will become more apparent when we see the budget, but I think it's appropriate that I comment briefly on that feature now.

As you know, a study done in 1987 by Prof. Murray Rankin of UVic indicated that we didn't really have the best prosecution record in terms of a ministry; there were many violators who were escaping our attention, or who we just hadn't been able to take to court and be successful with. That report concluded in May 1987, but did indicate some rather damaging lack of ability on the part of the Ministry of Environment to pursue what it ought to be pursuing.

We have since looked at what we have to do in terms of beefing up the ministry resources and staff, and also beefing up the training of our waste management officials, so we can take good evidence to court and, when we get to court, we can win. We'll be saying a lot more about that after the budget is done, when we will be able to describe fully how we intend to carry that process out.

The point remains that a lot more has to be done. There's a great public expectation that waste management enforcement is not what it could be. We have to clearly lead the way in ensuring that we have a clean and healthy environment in the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 5611 ]

The other thing I'd like to talk about briefly is the environmental youth services program, as articulated in the throne speech. Members of the Legislative Assembly will recall that in years past we had a good program for youth throughout many ministries, entitled JobTrac. It did a superb job in supplying work for our young people. The Ministry of Environment and Parks, as it was called in those days, was a benefactor two years running of about $2 million for environmental action by our job corps portion. It was very successful.

We intend to use the mechanism we used with the JobTrac program, and the environmental youth services program will no doubt be using the same contractor, which was the Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia, to manage the program for us. They really do a superb job. As a matter of fact, they are also managing the river rafting legislation that I brought in last year. This is a new and welcome initiative that will involve a lot of young people in environment enhancement, fish and wildlife, stream clearing and being able to react to environmental problems as they come around. I think it will be of general benefit to all of us. I'm looking forward to that program being put in place. As we flesh out the details, of course, they will become known to all of you and, I think, most appreciated.

Getting back to enforcement, there's no question that we have to increase the ability to handle enforcement. The Leader of the Opposition spoke of heavier fines, again reacting to a comment I made on December 8, 1988. He was about six weeks late on that one, but that's not bad, because he's actually later on other ones. On December 8 we indicated that, as well as enforcing far tougher dioxin standards and far tougher management standards with respect to the pulp and paper industry, we would in fact be seeking equivalency with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, commonly referred to as CEPA. This was introduced in July by the former minister, Tom McMillan. It's a very comprehensive piece of legislation and is the major piece of federal government environmental protection legislation. It said, among other things, that provincial governments across Canada could do one of two things: be equivalent to CEPA or just let CEPA prevail in their province. Since we already have a number of bills or statutes in British Columbia — the Waste Management Act and the Environment Management Act — that deal with this type of regulation and legislation, we felt it appropriate that we just beef up all of that legislation and make it equivalent to CEPA in any way that we have to, and we will be doing that.

I want to reiterate for your benefit, Mr. Speaker, and for those of you in the House and the press and everybody else listening, that what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to say and has said sometime in the middle of February we had announced in December of last year. There's really nothing new there, as well.

I'm going to take my place. I understand our new member for Alberni is going to be speaking to us, and I look forward to his comments.

One more thing, thinking of Alberni.... It causes me to make some comment about the oil spill, because I know that is probably going to be a matter of some discussion in the Legislative Assembly. I note that the only question on the environment they have on the order paper is to do with the oil spill, and although it does not deal with my ministry, it does deal with the issue.

To set the record straight in terms of the record of events: on December 22 in Grays Harbor on the Olympic Peninsula — the main town there is Aberdeen — a barge had an accident. It was carrying bunker C oil and was towed out to sea by the American Coast Guard. The presumption was made that the bunker C oil would dissipate on the high seas and be gone forever. That was a bad assumption, as we all know, because on New Year's Eve at about 6:30 in the evening the lighthouse keeper at Carmanah Point noted that there was serious oil pollution coming in on the beach. They did some investigation for about an hour, because quite often bilge oil is pumped. Within an hour the lighthouse keeper had verified the amount of oil, and the significance of it indicated that it must be from the Grays Harbor spill.

At that point, all forces were brought into play as quickly as they could — the provincial emergency program and the Ministry of Environment. It should be pointed out that in events like this the Canadian Coast Guard, which has the resources, really is the lead agency. They deal with all the events, and we take our instructions from them. That was the way it happened; that's the way it has happened before. There was a spill in the 1960s, I might add, in the same area— the Long Beach area. So they are the management agency. They have the boats, the helicopters, the trained people, and they guide every other agency in determining what should be done. They had staff in place immediately and contracted people who are still there.

[3:15]

1 think the best way to characterize the events was done by the mayor of Ucluelet, Eric Larsen, who indicated that there was more media hysteria to this than there was real damage. I've been to the site twice, and I think his opinion, which is shared by many people, is the opinion that prevails. The site is clean now, and again, I think the media hysteria was the most outstanding feature of that spill as opposed to any damage that was done to the environment. We'll let Mayor Larsen's statements stand because they are correct.

In saying that, I will take my seat. We will welcome the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) to the House. I'm sure he will do well in his maiden speech.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the minister ended his speech with the oil spill in Alberni, which I will be mentioning later, as well as some of the misquotes that he brought forward.

First, I would like to familiarize the other members of the House with the constituency of Alberni. Alberni is named after Don Pedro de Alberni, who

[ Page 5612 ]

was the highest ranking military officer on the west coast at the time. Don Pedro was governor of Nootka from 1790 to 1792. During his tour of duty, he taught the natives their cultivation, recorded 633 Nootka words and provided their Spanish definitions.

Surprisingly, the only reference made to Don Pedro — despite his illustrious career — is the city of Port Alberni and the Alberni Canal, which was later changed by the Canadian Hydrographic Service in 1931 to the Alberni Inlet. Don Pedro died in Monterey in 1802.

The Alberni riding is made up of many diverse and ethnic groups. Its original inhabitants, the natives, consist of 14 bands: the Opitsat, the Ahousaht, the Ohiet, the Clayoquot, the Nitinaht, the Ehattesaht, the Hesquiat, the Kyuquot, the Nonchalant, the Hashanah, the Sheshaht, the Uchucklesaht and the Ucluelet — which operate under the Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council — and I don't think I'll ever be repeating that again. Also, there are Italian, Croatian, East Indian, German, Ukrainian and, of course, Dutch communities among the many ethnic groups. The first European that appeared in Alberni was Adam Horne, whom Horne Lake was named after. Although Horne was the first white man to walk into the Alberni Valley, he didn't stay there. The first known settlers were families: the Merrifields, Grandys, McKenzies, Hills, Taylors and Drinkwaters, who settled in the Alberni Valley primarily to take advantage of its excellent farmland. However, they soon started harvesting the abundant forest, and logging and production plants sprang up. Over the years fishing and whaling augmented the original settlers.

The constituency I represent not only consists of Alberni but stretches down the Alberni Inlet to the Pacific Ocean. It includes Nitinat, Bamfield, Ucluelet, Tofino, Ahousaht, Kyuquot, Ceepeecee and Kildonan. It has a population of 30,341, of which 18,771 are voters — mostly New Democrats, obviously.

I would like also to pay tribute to past members who served the Alberni riding in this House. John Squire represented the riding from 1952 to 1966. As a teenager I helped erect campaign signs for John Squire. Little did I know then that I would someday take his place in this House. Ironically, November 19, the day for which the Premier finally called the election, was a special day in Alberni, not only because it returned a New Democrat MLA to the House one more time but because it was also John Squire's birthday. I think there was a message in there somewhere for the members opposite.

Howard McDiarmid, the Social Credit member — yes, Alberni did elect a Socred member at one time — served Alberni from 1966 until 1972. At that time the road to Long Beach was paved. But without the ability to openly criticize the government he was handcuffed in trying to provide major initiatives to the Alberni area. So in 1972 the most recent, longest serving and probably most notable MLA for Alberni was elected. I speak, of course, of Bob Skelly.

Bob represented the riding from 1972 to 1988. During those 16 years he was part of a government that in three years did more for the Alberni riding than the previous government had done in the preceding 20 years. Work was started on four-laning the Island Highway — something we hope will continue one day. Electric power was brought to Ahousaht, where native housing had been built complete with plug-ins and electrical services, but unfortunately nobody had ever provided power to Flores Island, where Ahousaht is located. Bob also helped get power service to communities such as Nitinat and Bamfield, to replace the old diesel generators that were so unreliable. Port Alberni built the Harbour Quay, while Bob Skelly was in office, to celebrate its maritime heritage. Port Alberni also put in the Clutesi Haven and China Creek marinas. While Bob Skelly was the member for Alberni, Alberni moved ahead significantly. I hope that I can fill his shoes.

Today's cities of Alberni, Ucluelet and Tofino, and some of the smaller communities that make up my riding, are involved in the same harvesting and manufacturing industries set up by the original inhabitants. But we are quickly becoming leaders in aquaculture and value-added lumber products and paper production. MacMillan Bloedel's plants in the Alberni Valley are among the most modern in the world. The fishing industry also contributes greatly to the economic well-being of our communities, with a large fleet harvesting salmon, cod, halibut, tuna, herring, crab, geoduck and shellfish. Processing plants in the Ucluelet and Tofino area are continually expanding.

This rosy picture I have just painted for the members does have its downside, however. I would like to point out some disturbing facts that face us in Alberni today. MacMillan Bloedel's annual report for 1988 states that the Alberni Pacific mill, with a capacity of 250 million board-foot measure, produced only 179 million board-foot measure. Similarly, the Somass division, with a capacity of 140 million, produced only 97 million.

Plywood. The production plant in Alberni has a capacity of 175 million board-foot measure but produced only 117 million.

The Alpulp mill in Alberni fared much better. It has a capacity of 80K tonnes and produced actually 78K tonnes.

Newsprint and ground wood had a 350K-tonne capacity level, and produced 353K tonnes.

Shipping showed a similar significant drop due to these low production figures, with lumber down 48,530 tonnes over 1987, paper down 35,222 tonnes, and plywood down 9,553 tonnes.

There has also been a dramatic shift in where these exports went to. For instance, in 1980, 17 percent of exports went to Japan; in 1988 this increased to 41 percent. Exports for the year decreased from 15 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1988; the U.S.A. went from 52 percent to 45 percent in the same period. In fact, gross tonnage from Alberni decreased from 2,332,230 tonnes in 1977 to 1,719,500 tonnes in 1988.

Population figures reflect the decrease in production and shipping. The central statistics bureau of the Ministry of Regional Development showed that the

[ Page 5613 ]

population of the Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot declined from 32,558 in 1981 to 30,341 in 1986, a decrease of between 6 and 8 percent. More alarming, the same department predicts continued decreases over the next decade. In fact, Alberni has the only declining population on Vancouver Island.

I could continue to quote statistics about declines in housing starts, increases in business bankruptcies and a declining population. But the point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that although Alberni has the lowest housing costs in British Columbia, unemployed people cannot obtain mortgages.

Alberni does have some major projects coming on stream. MacMillan Bloedel has plans to spend millions of dollars to continue to modernize their converting plants and ensure continued, although reduced, employment in Port Alberni — at what are, I might add, good union wages.

The marine station at Bamfield is planning a major expansion. Ucluelet is applying for a Go B.C. program to build an arts centre. The harbour commission has applied for a similar program to expand its fish processing plant, and Alberni is planning a new intermediate-care home for 100 residents, refurbishing its high school and hospital, and a municipal airport.... Although cost-sharing and grants have been promised for these projects, this government must appreciate that communities with declining production and population bases will have difficulty financing these necessary projects.

I would also like to remind this government that when the original intermediate-care home, Fir Park Village, was built in Alberni under an NDP administration, it was financed entirely by the provincial government — not as this government is proposing, at only 60 percent.

With the machinery tax being removed from the mills in Alberni, and a 15 percent cap on industrial assessment, a reduced population is being asked to come up with more money per capita to keep the infrastructure in place.

I would also like to bring the government's attention to other crucial matters affecting the Alberni riding. One, as was just mentioned by the Minister Responsible for Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan), is the oil spill on the west coast.I , along with other members of the communities affected by that disaster, would urge this government to conduct an inquiry into the cleanup of that spill.

When oil was first spotted on the beach on January 1, as Mr. Strachan pointed out, at Carmanah lighthouse, it was shrugged off by both the federal and provincial governments. It wasn't until a week later, when the full extent of the damage was known, that governments took action. The Minister Responsible for Environment first said that he didn't need to go up to Alberni; he said it would be a waste of the taxpayers' money. In fact, he did go, and I have to agree with him: it was a waste of the taxpayers' money.

Still, little was done by the provincial emergency program. Despite grandiose problems, the cleanup was conducted by volunteers, by constituents of my riding. I'd like to take the opportunity here to publicly thank them for that effort.

I want to ask the government to push for an agreement with the state of Washington for compensation for those affected in my riding for this and future spills.

I will also be asking this government to establish a royal commission on forestry. As you know by now, my regional district of Alberni-Clayoquot put forth a resolution, which was passed, at the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities calling for a similar royal commission on forestry.

[3:30 p.m.]

I would also like to speak on my critic role of small business. Although, as was pointed out in the House on Friday, small business is creating the majority of jobs in B.C., there is no ministry of small business. Many business people and entrepreneurs must wade through as many as seven ministries in order to conduct their affairs. While big business is busy gobbling up one another in mergers and takeovers and laying off workers with each of those mergers and takeovers, small- and medium-sized businesses are creating the jobs in British Columbia — while still paying the second-highest tax in Canada. And they're still trying to wade through that mass of bureaucratic red tape.

Interest rates are also on the rise, and I will be asking this government to take a more aggressive role to see that those rates are reduced. As a small businessman and former president of the chamber of commerce of Alberni, I have seen the devastation caused by interest rates that reached 20 percent during the great economic decline of the 1980s. Business people in British Columbia lost not only their businesses, some of which had been in existence for a lifetime, but they also lost their homes and some even lost their families. High interest rates affect business not only directly, through higher loan and inventory costs, but these higher rates discourage capital spending by consumers, therefore driving businesses even further down. Add to this the almost $1,400 in tax and fee increases imposed by this government on average B.C. families, and business inevitably slows down. This government has to stop reaching into the paycheques and wallets of British Columbia workers before they get a chance to spend their incomes on goods and services in the private sector.

Although this government takes pride in building a budget stabilization fund, I do not think the average British Columbian wants the government in the savings end of the banking business. In fact, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has urged the Minister of Finance to cap the budget stabilization fund at $500 million and redirect surpluses to reduce the province's more than $5 billion direct debt, much of it created by this government. Failure to reduce this debt will only add to higher interest rates for the rest of us.

Business cannot endure another crisis such as that of the early 1980s, and although bankruptcies are down in the last few years, Craig Bushnell, president

[ Page 5614 ]

of the British Columbia Insolvency Association, states that they are still up from the 1981-82 recession levels. Bankruptcies fell to 1,169 in 1988 but are still up from the 1,042 firms who declared bankruptcy in 1982 before the economic decline. Similarly, personal bankruptcies were 2,552 in 1988, still 2½ times as high as the pre-recession 1981 figure of 979.

As we can see, although the B.C. economy is moving ahead, it is doing so primarily in the resource sector and in isolated pockets, particularly in the lower mainland. Many communities like Alberni are being shut out of the boom we now enjoy. Unemployment is still in the double-digit figures, bankruptcies persist and the government continues a policy of high interest rates and taxation. I urge this government to open the doors of the economy so that all British Columbians can share more equally.

We need a fairer tax system in British Columbia and a more diversified economy. One of the ways this can be achieved is surprisingly easy. The government should purchase more of the goods and services it consumes at a community level rather than by the centralized buying that now exists, and return the tax dollars it collects directly to the communities that pay them. We in the New Democratic Party will be urging the government to move to more of this community involvement and consultation during this session, and the recent by-election wins show that this is what British Columbians want.

I would now like to address the Premier, who is absent, in a language he might be more familiar with and understand: Meneer Premier, de menzen van British Columbia. Heben genog gehat, en ze nemen it neit meer. Translated, for those members who don't understand Dutch — and I'm sure the rest of the Dutch members of the House will be encouraging you all to learn that language, seeing as we represent the largest majority of the House: "The people of British Columbia have had enough, Mr. Premier, and they're not taking it anymore."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The debate continues.

Interjection.

MR. LOENEN: Indeed I do. No matter what language you use, they're the same tired old clichés that the people of British Columbia have rejected time and again, and they will continue to do so.

Interjection.

MR. LOENEN: I'm somewhat tempted to answer back in Dutch. I was born in Holland.

After having said that, I do want to welcome the member. Having come from a recent victory, you deserve the appreciation and, indeed, the esteem of all people, and we do want to welcome you very sincerely.

I would like to say a few things about the throne speech. After that I'd like to say a few things that relate particularly to my constituency of Richmond, concerns that people have expressed in our community. As far as the throne speech is concerned, I believe it's an excellent document. It's certainly the best I've seen. It's forward looking. It's progressive. It has a clear direction. It sets the tone. It provides positive leadership, and I think it will set the tone of the direction of this government and of this province for the next several years.

As such, it gives hope. It gives opportunity. It allows people to look to the future with anticipation. I believe that it builds on a foundation that was laid over the past number of years, one where we placed our economic house in order. I believe that this document is a vindication of the policies put forward by this government over the last number of years.

I welcome the shift away from economic concerns to social issues. It is a tribute to this government and to the people of this province that we are in a position to shift the focus from purely economic concerns to social issues.

I believe that this document and the policies that will ensue from it are possible because of sound responsible management, and we will continue to see that. Having said that we will focus on social issues, this government certainly does not mean that it will forget the economic concerns. As the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) pointed out, there are many areas and regions of this province that have yet to see the kind of economic development and stimulation that has occurred in the lower mainland.

Last week I had the opportunity to be in Lillooet and Kamloops. I was told that the unemployment rate there is still 16 percent. We must address those concerns. We must address the concerns of all the regions of the province. Of course, our government has been very definite, very frank, very upfront about pursuing those goals and those policies. That is why the throne speech talks about stepping up job training efforts, particularly for those young workers and those older workers.

We also have to combat illiteracy. I was happy to see that the throne speech is pointing to that. To the degree we're able to help people help themselves, to the degree we're able to assist people in developing their resources, their abilities and their talents, we will all benefit.

Of course, that also means we have to extend educational opportunities to every part of the province. In that regard, I'd just like to draw attention to the announcement today by our colleague the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) regarding access for all. Those are not simply words; that is putting our resources to the best use to meet those educational needs of our people and making them available in every part of our province.

I listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harcourt) with interest. He repeatedly said very emphatically that somehow the people of the province are ahead of the government. I do not believe that for one minute. In fact, the people of the province are not ahead of us and neither are we ahead of the people.

[ Page 5615 ]

This government is with the people of B.C. That is very evident, again, from the throne speech.

In fact, consultation has been a hallmark of this government. We consult with the people on a greater scale and to a larger degree than perhaps any other government on the North American continent. We do so in economic concerns and in transportation. In terms of the needs of my community, transportation is very important, and we welcome the fact that the minister of state for our region has put together a very comprehensive consultation process. We're here to listen to the people and together with the people develop the needs and the resources of our province.

In fact, there are many other ways in which we continue to consult with people. Services to seniors, for instance, is a very important area where we are going to reach out and ask the seniors to sit down with us and tell us how it is that government can better help them.

Education. What a wonderful way we were able to bring together the professionals, the parents and those who have a stake in our educational process. What a wonderful way that our Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has responded to that quickly and forthrightly. In fact, the minister has moved so fast that even the executive director of the BCTF has said: "Hold on, hold on; we're not sure we can do it quite that quickly." Yes, we have responded very quickly, and you know it.

There are other areas where we have shown that we want to consult with people. The Workers' Compensation Board and the justice system. We have appointed an advisory body on multicultural concerns. I tell you, the people of this community and the various ethnic communities have welcomed that and are very pleased that they can have a say in the development of policies.

A task force on the economy and the environment was mentioned earlier — waste management and all of these areas. We have consulted and will continue to consult. In view of that, I think it's entirely misleading to somehow claim that the people of the province are ahead of us. We are with the people, and that is the strength of this government: to listen, to draw our conclusions after listening and then to act on them, and to draw on the best talents available in our communities.

I would like to now turn to some issues that relate particularly to my community in Richmond, and one of them has to do with housing. Housing is one of the biggest issues in my riding currently, and it's for that reason I am very pleased to support and look forward to the various initiatives in the Speech from the Throne that deal with housing: enlarging the supply of rental accommodation and making it easier to attain home ownership. I was particularly pleased to see the reference to the possibility of using Crown lands in order to make it possible for people to own a home or for those of low income and meagre means to rent. I would also be very much interested in any and every plan that looks at some way whereby people can rent to own.

I believe it's very desirable socially — and in so many other ways — if we can make it possible for people to look forward to the day they can own their own home rather than be forever stuck in a rental situation. I do believe that there are possibilities there, and I am gladdened by the fact that our government is seeing this and is responding over the whole width of the various issues that relate to housing.

[3:45]

One further item that I'd like to raise relates to the foreign ownership question. Whether or not that has had a detrimental impact is a question that I believe we should study more fully. The impact of foreign investment in our housing market is a question of concern to many people in my riding. House prices in Richmond over the past year have increased by at least 60 percent. The average in the GVRD is 47 percent, but in Richmond it's greater than that. This has led to immense dislocation of singles and single parent families. Those are the people less able to afford housing, particularly the seniors. The rental units currently in our riding are rapidly being converted. They are strata title and sold off as individual units. Right now, for instance, on Ryan Road there is one complex of 246 units — just one complex — which previously was subsidized housing units and has been converted, and all of these people face the real possibility of not knowing where to go.

That puts tremendous pressure on individuals, families, neighbourhoods, and the social fabric of my community. Neighbourhoods undergo very rapid change. This in itself generates a great deal of uncertainty; it generates fear in people. In addition to that, it is quite evident that our purchasing power is simply no match for the purchasing power of offshore investors.

I've been told by some prominent real estate agents in my riding that as much as 98 percent of sales are to people of Asian origin. There are, of course, those who will say that the investment is not merely foreign, that it does not all come from offshore, that, in fact, a lot of the stimulation in the market is also driven by migration. That is true if you look at the GVRD as a whole, but it is not true when you look at the west side of Vancouver, at certain parts of the north shore and at my community of Richmond.

Asian Influence is particularly strong in my community. You will not find it in Surrey — or at least not to the same extent — or Coquitlam or areas further east. A recent CBC feature story claimed that the downtown area of Richmond is the fastest-growing Chinatown in North America. I don't know if that's true, but just looking at the place, I believe it to be true. I do think that in view of all that uncertainty and the things we see happening, it is very important for this government, and perhaps for the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) — who unfortunately just left — to take a hard look and to study and analyze the impact of foreign investment on our residential real estate market.

[ Page 5616 ]

Personally I don't see anything wrong with putting some kind of limitations on foreign ownership of residential property. When it comes to saving IWA jobs in the forest industry, we very readily put severe restrictions on the export of raw logs, and I see absolutely no difference between doing that and putting some restrictions on the ownership of our homes.

This government is not hung up on ideology. This government will respond to real human needs as it has done time and again. The Minister of Finance has been reported as saying that his staff had a cursory look at the figures to determine the impact of foreign investment. I suggest that the Minister of Finance ought to do more than take a cursory look. We ought to settle this. We ought to have at our disposal some hard data about the impact, particularly as they relate to communities such as the west side of Vancouver and my own community of Richmond. We have the figures and we ought to use that information.

People's lives are uprooted and the social fabric of our community is being torn, and that requires — demands — that those people deserve more than merely a cursory look. Since November our local constituency office has received 153 telephone calls in support of some kind of restrictions on foreign investment in the residential housing market. I've had only one call that spoke out against it.

MR. CLARK: The Premier.

MR. LOENEN: No, it wasn't the Premier, my friend. We are very conscious of what happens in our community. We log the various calls and concerns that people express, and I believe that in my community there is a lot of fear and that we ought to investigate that with hard data.

I believe it is possible for us to say to the world: "You're welcome to come and buy into our plants and equipment, our offices, our shopping centres, and we welcome your participation. But as far as speculative dollars are concerned, do not touch our homes." I believe that need not necessarily have a negative impact. In fact, a story in the Vancouver Sun of February 23 relates that according to the people in Australia, there has been no serious negative effect after they had similar measures imposed. In short, I would urge the Minister of Finance to instruct his staff to analyze the effect of foreign investment in our housing market.

There's one further item. Many of these people who are asked to move out of their rental units in order that they can be sold have a very difficult time finding another place within the two months allotted. When we look at legislation that affects renters, we ought to amend the provision under which a landlord can get away with giving only two months' notice to a renter should that landlord decide to sell the unit. I believe that two months in a tight rental market such as we see today is not long enough. It puts a hardship on many people. I would like to see that amended to six months at least.

I do not believe that going back to restrictions on rent increases will do us any good whatsoever. It has been proven time and time again that freezing rents does nothing to help renters. It's merely short-term gain for long-term pain, because over the long haul it dries up the market; it dries up the supply of rental units and simply makes it tougher on everyone. This government is committed to increasing the supply of rental units, and I believe that that's the way to go.

I was happy to note that the Speech from the Throne talks about improving Vancouver International Airport. Vancouver International Airport has a tremendous potential, and we are here to stimulate the building of the infrastructure in order to handle the potential trade that that facility will be able to accommodate. For my community, I would just like to say that I welcome that and look forward to the time when there will be much greater local control over the administration and the development of Vancouver International Airport.

Richmond General Hospital has not kept pace with the growth in population. We have seen, in the last number of years, a very rapid growth in population, and I'm sorry to say that we have not been able to continue to expand that facility to look after the increased needs of our population. I would very much like to continue to work at providing services at that facility so that our people do not have to go elsewhere within the greater Vancouver regional district in order to be given the basic health services that we have come to expect. I will be speaking more about that.

In closing, I'm very happy to note that we'll continue to look at the possibility of instituting an employees' stock ownership plan. It's something I've been very much interested in. I believe I spoke about this a number of times last year. I hope we can revive it in such a way that it will see the light of day. I believe that to the degree that we allow workers to be partakers of the enterprise, to be participants in a more meaningful way, to that degree will we strengthen our businesses, promote harmonious industrial relations, and it will be to the good of all.

Having said that, I do believe there are many positive aspects here and that this document is indeed a blueprint that bodes well. It is a credit not only to the Premier and the government, but to all British Columbians in every segment of our society. We have here an opportunity to face the future with a great deal of confidence.

MR. CLARK: It's good to be back in the Legislature. Nine months is far too long a period. I think it demonstrates again the lack of commitment to or understanding of democracy that we see on the other side. I will deal with that a little more in my remarks today.

The throne speech was an interesting one for this administration. It's a kind of deathbed repentance. After years of neglect in a whole range of areas, the government claims now to have seen the light. After serious underfunding of education, health care, post secondary education, environment, housing, and on

[ Page 5617 ]

and on — virtually every social program that the government administers — all of sudden the government claims it's in favour of more funding in those areas. Now we even see a commitment to a ministry of women, something we have long supported on this side and that is long overdue. Of course, the government seems to have this newfound commitment, although, given the track record of the Premier and other members, it's certainly hard to believe.

Now we see more intervention for battered children, which is something government cut severely in the 1983-84 period. Now we see a newfound commitment to restoring funding in those areas. I'm a little surprised and disappointed that they didn't have it in their hearts to fund a school lunch program, given the extent of poverty and hungry children — certainly in my constituency in Vancouver East. There's no commitment in that regard. So they went a ways in their words, but not far enough in that regard.

The throne speech really is an admission of failure and a kind of repudiation for the last ten years of Social Credit. The failed policies have been recognized by this administration in a desperate attempt to resuscitate their standing in the polls. We will see in the budget whether the financial commitment matches the fancy words that we read in the throne speech the other day.

[4:00]

There are at least three problems I want to deal with today which question the commitment of the government to the range of programs they've announced in the throne speech. The first problem is the underfunding of the basic services in a whole range of areas. Given the kinds of cutbacks we've seen, the second is the ability of the civil service to carry out some of these rather ambitious — at least on paper — programs. And finally, I want to address the government's lack of credibility in this area, which leads one to be skeptical of the commitment they have in the social services.

With respect to core underfunding, this goes to the heart of many of the problems of the Social Credit administration in the last ten years. For example, we saw the real cutback of roughly 20 percent in the budget for education and only commitments to new funding that is targeted to political priorities, which probably makes some political sense on the government's part, but really doesn't deal with funding the basic quality service that we need.

I think of the funds for excellence, for example, which were targeted for specific government programs. But at the same time, the existing services were being squeezed even further. We've seen huge increases in school taxes, and they'll be even bigger in the years to come because of this underfunding of the basic services. We've seen no increase in the homeowner grants over a similar period and no increased funding for the basic level of services. Likewise — and we'll see, of course, when the budget comes out — we've seen the government's commitment to provide funds for implementing the Sullivan royal commission on education. Certainly that's commendable in terms of implementing royal commission recommendations, but when the basic service remains starved, providing new funding for new programs doesn't make much sense. I think we've seen that across the board in many ministries.

I've talked to the presidents of two of the three universities, and we've seen consistent underfunding of universities. For example, the University of Victoria has $40 million worth of capital equipment and furniture. Obviously to replace that, as an ongoing institution they should be provided with maintenance budgets in the neighbourhood of $2 million to $4 million a year. Last year they were provided with roughly $200,000 — clearly not enough to replenish the deterioration of that capital stock. That's what has happened under restraint for the last seven years. It's very easy for a government to cut maintenance funds. It just delays the bill, and we'll see the bill come home now. Of course, the government's announced commitment to increase funding in that area really just tries to deal with the backlog of cuts in funding that we've seen over the last seven or eight years.

The second broad problem I see with the government's agenda is that the civil service has been decimated during the restraint period by 25 percent, and because of the early retirement program, another 10 percent of the senior civil service has gone. This, I think, questions the ability of the government to implement many of these new programs. Do they have the staff? Do they have the human resources to deliver the new social programs in British Columbia?

I think that can be exemplified by looking at a few of the areas where they clearly are understaffed. Virtually every ministry of government has been understaffed in the last few years. The last auditor-general's report documented that in the energy ministry we lost $7 million. We gave $7 million to mostly large — but not all large — natural gas producers in British Columbia because of a failure of the ability of the bureaucracy to monitor payments in that sector. They simply didn't have the staff to monitor a royalty payment, so they asked the companies to submit the royalties on faith. And of course the auditor-general documented clearly that about $7 million was lost to the taxpayers of British Columbia, given to the energy sector, because they didn't have the civil service or the staff to monitor that program.

Likewise in the environment we see that whole areas simply didn't have the staff to monitor programs. We have some very good standards in British Columbia, I think, with respect to certain areas of the environment. But if you don't have the staff to enforce them, it makes it a bit of a sham. I think we have seen that with cutbacks during the restraint period, and also with the early retirement program, the ability of government to move in that regard has been hampered by the lack of staffing over the last seven or eight years.

In the Ministry of Social Services and Housing — I see the minister here — clearly there is again significant understaffing. Virtually daily in our constituency office we deal with problems with that min-

[ Page 5618 ]

istry because of social workers overworked, dramatically in some instances. I understand the ombudsman's office deals with over 100 appeals or complaints a month from that ministry. About 80 to 90 per cent of them are resolved in the clients' favour. So very clearly the ministry failed in the initial steps to deal with those problems. If 80 per cent of the claimants are winning the appeal, then there is something wrong with the initial decision. That is clearly a problem that has to do with systemic underfunding of the ministry by this administration and previous Social Credit administrations.

Likewise with Principal Trust we have seen.... The ombudsman will be coming out with a report which I think will prove again that the ability to monitor financial institutions in this province is simply not up to scratch. We simply don't have the ability, the staff or the expertise to monitor financial institutions in British Columbia.

We have recently seen a small credit union go under, for example. It apparently had only something like $7 million worth of assets. By the time the ministry was alerted to a problem, the manager had absconded, essentially, with $3 million to $4 million worth of the assets of the credit union.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Sixteen million dollars. I am corrected by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). We wouldn't even have known about it if it weren't for a clerk in the credit union alerting the ministry. We simply don't have the staff to monitor, and people suffer as a result. In the Principal Trust case we've seen thousands of seniors in British Columbia lose their savings because of this government's negligence, in terms of their regulatory ability to monitor financial institutions.

The Vancouver Stock Exchange is another area where clearly the government is not up to speed with respect to administration, regulation and staffing to deal with the reality of the stock exchange in British Columbia. Let's give one other example of that. We recently had a company controlled by Ferdinand Marcos buy a seat on the stock exchange — not by being traded or listed on the stock exchange, but buy a seat on the stock exchange. That company, of only 49 members of the stock exchange, was the forty-ninth. It bought a seat, was approved to do business in British Columbia and underwrote 12 new listings on the stock exchange. Then because of the federal grand jury in New York indicting Ferdinand Marcos, one of the assets of his associate Roberto Benedicto turns out to be this Vancouver company. The regulators in British Columbia were as surprised as everybody else that this company was controlled by Ferdinand Marcos. Clearly this points out the fact that we simply don't have the regulatory ability in that regard. Lots of people can suffer as a result of that inability to monitor the stock exchange, or financial institutions, or a range of other matters.

The stock exchange, of course, has a whole range of problems.

MR. WILLIAMS: You're assuming they're against Marcos.

MR. CLARK: That's right, I am assuming they are against Ferdinand Marcos. Excuse me.

Clearly, money — it could be drug money or it could be money from deposed dictators like Marcos — can find its way onto the Vancouver Stock Exchange. The Tory government in Ottawa and this provincial Socred administration have deregulated the stock exchange; at the same time they haven't provided the staffing to monitor what's happening. We have opened it up to foreign investment and deregulated the stock exchange, and now we have crooks and cronies and dictators doing business on the stock exchange, and we don't have the regulatory ability to monitor that kind of thing.

So we see in a whole range, as I have talked about — in the energy sector, in the universities, in the environment, in social services and housing, with financial institutions and with the stock exchange — we haven't funded adequately those core services. It seems to me that new initiatives, which I agree with on paper and look very good.... For example, creating a ministry with respect to women is something that's long overdue in British Columbia. But I question the ability of the government to follow through on that commitment because of that systemic underfunding that we have seen, because of their lack of attention to that matter in all these other initiatives.

We see with the early retirement program close to $100 million of taxpayers' money gone to pay off senior civil servants to retire. We have this tremendous drain of human talent leaving the civil service and the government's stated commitment not to fill those vacancies — or not to fill many of them — in order to save money. But it's false economy. I would suggest that when you do away with middle and senior management and literally gut them, it impairs the ability of government to deliver the existing services and, I think, seriously questions the ability of government to undertake new initiatives the likes of which we've seen in the throne speech. I think that brings real problems in terms of putting the meat on some of the words in the throne speech the other day.

The third problem that I think the government suffers from in terms of trying to deliver on some of these initiatives is a lack of credibility. I'd like to deal briefly with that by reviewing some of the things we've seen over the last year with this administration. When people review it, as I'm going to do, it's amazing the kind of activities this government undertakes and then wants to be taken seriously as being people prepared to undertake social reform. As I said earlier, we have a government that I don't think understands democracy very well; nine months between sessions is a good example of that, but there are others. I've only been elected for two and a half years, and I'm amazed at the disregard for the institution of parliament that we see on the other side.

When the author Martin Robin talked about the turn of the century in British Columbia, he called it "a rush for spoils." I think we're seeing that again in

[ Page 5619 ]

British Columbia: a kind of public looting on a grand scale; friends of the government; insiders salivating at the prospect of some private gain at public expense. We've seen that over this last year with Socred insiders getting special favours. Again, this questions the credibility of the government to deliver on this newfound commitment to social programs. It obviously didn't start with the current Premier, but I'm convinced that it has been worse than ever in the last year.

I'd like to go through the first couple of years and remind people — and my voters — the extent to which the government has, in my view, sunk, to step back for a minute and review them. Let's start with the Coquihalla. I don't think anybody disagrees with building the Coquihalla, and I don't think anybody would be as concerned about the $500 million overrun.... Obviously everybody is concerned about it, but one could argue that this happens in some difficult construction projects. I think it is clearly proof of incompetence, but governments can survive some of that. The problem in this case is that the previous administration and this current administration systematically misled the Legislature or clearly skirted the truth in some respects with respect to that area. That's why we had questions in the House and debates on questions of privilege in that area. It's really a foundation of parliamentary democracy.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a little problem here with the statement that the Legislative Assembly was misled. Perhaps we can have some qualification or an apology; one or the other. It certainly doesn't sound parliamentary to me.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure that if the hon. minister is offended, the second member for Vancouver East will be willing to withdraw anything that was offensive.

[4:15]

MR. CLARK: I certainly would be, Mr. Speaker. I was quoting the MacKay report, which may in fact be in order, as opposed to a judgment. I may, if I can, continue by saying that the MacKay report said categorically that the government misled the House with respect to the funding of the Coquihalla. I'll leave it at that and let people judge for themselves whether the MacKay report is valid or not. Nevertheless, there were areas of disagreement between the MacKay report and government statements with respect to the funding or the problems of the overrun of the Coquihalla Highway. I think that kind of questioning and discussion around this overrun and why the overrun wasn't unveiled earlier — for example, before the last election — leads one to question the credibility of the government in a whole range of matters.

Let's look at the agricultural land reserve. The agricultural land reserve keeps the price of farmland low as cities grow, because it's frozen; it can't be used for other things. The price difference between farmland and urban values is now quite dramatic as growth has taken place, particularly in the lower mainland. In places like Richmond we see dramatic discrepancies. If you get your land removed from the land reserve, you earn millions of dollars in windfall profits. The Premier know this, and he certainly hasn't done anything to resolve the problem. In fact, the government seems determined to weaken the land reserve, to make it easier to remove land from the land reserve. Of course, the Premier had land removed from the land reserve and made windfall profits in so doing. There's nothing improper about that. Well, one might question whether it's proper, but there's nothing illegal about it. One can't blame a farmer for wanting to get his or her land removed from a land reserve because of these enormous windfall profits. Clearly that's a problem. It puts pressure on agricultural land, in my view, and it should be dealt with.

We saw a contributor to Social Credit make around $29 million by getting his land removed by cabinet from a land reserve against the views of the Land Commission, the society of agrologists, every expert in the field — the government's own commission, and cabinet removed it. The result was that one individual made roughly $20 million to $30 million. Again, that questions the credibility of the government to deal in a forthright manner with a whole range of things. I think that lends to public skepticism with respect to this administration.

The Expo lands. I am just going briefly through this litany of scandals from the past year to explain why the public questions the credibility of the government when it comes up with new initiatives such as we have seen in the throne speech. Obviously the Premier personally intervened ten times on behalf of an individual. Clearly, as the ombudsman said, that was improper.

The Knight Street Pub. Again, licences are granted by government. They are worth a lot of money. There are obvious problems associated with that, particularly when there is the inference of political interference. We saw again today the Premier's former aide charged in that matter. We see other people associated with the Knight Street Pub licence — very close associates of the government — charged with wrongdoing. One wonders why people are skeptical of the government's credibility in these matters; clearly that's another reason.

The Dominion Bridge site. Again, an associate of the Premier, Mr. Langas. Again the government tries to intervene and to influence the outcome of a decision.

Westwood Plateau and other Crown land is being flipped, given to, or perhaps sold to friends of the government, if not sold in an incompetent way and then resold for millions of dollars.

MR. WILLIAMS: Resold in a competent way.

MR. CLARK: That's right — millions of dollars changing hands again. We see that the minister in charge of Crown lands has had his own dealings in that regard.

[ Page 5620 ]

There is a range of areas in which the government has suffered from a credibility problem in the last year, and then we see a throne speech which has a deathbed repentance and a new-found commitment to social programs. The government wonders why people question their credibility and their ability to deliver these programs.

As I said, there are at least three problems in terms of their credibility. One is the core underfunding of basic services. How do you provide new programs on top of existing programs when the existing programs are underfunded? Secondly, I question the ability of the senior civil service to deliver. They have been decimated in the last ten years; in the last ten years of Social Credit we have seen a brain drain from the civil service. We have seen a contraction in a range of areas which has resulted, as I have pointed out, in several ministries clearly being unable to function in an optimum manner. The third area which I think is a real problem for the government with respect to delivering on some of these initiatives is the lack of credibility they have because of the last sad year of scandal and problems associated with the Premier and his colleagues in cabinet.

For those reasons — while there are areas of the throne speech that I clearly support, where the words sound very eloquent, and that we have promoted for years — one has to question whether they simply have the capacity or the political will to carry this out. We on this side will be watching very diligently and trying to ensure that the commitment to create a ministry with respect to women's issues.... In light of the sorry record of this administration, we will be watching carefully to see whether in fact the ministry means anything; whether in fact they will deliver on this area, which is one area that we promoted for many years.

HON. MR. VANT: Before I respond to some of the statements made by members on the other side of the House.... Hopefully the direction will be focused on the throne speech debate a little more. I have been trying to take notes here, trying to find something of substance from the other side. I am sure glad I didn't bank too heavily on what I heard from that side this afternoon.

First of all, I want to mention that I am indeed very disappointed that, due to his health, the hon. first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) can't be in the House at this time. During a throne speech debate one traditionally has the liberty to talk about one's own constituency. For sure, the hon. first member for Cariboo has been very much a part of the great Cariboo constituency, going right back to the time of his birth in 1916. At that precise time his father, John A. Fraser, was a Member of the Legislative Assembly for that great Cariboo constituency. The current member has served with great distinction for the last 20 years. Thinking of his father, I note that John A. Fraser was also a Member of Parliament in Ottawa, which, as you can imagine, was a long way back: between 1930 and 1935. Currently we sometimes think Ottawa is 30,000 miles away. For sure we joined Confederation in 1871, and British Columbia has certainly been a great plus for Canada since then. Today, of course, as a province we've grown to in excess of three million people. We can now boast that we have over 12 percent of Canada's total population, and we're growing. I'm very happy to note that because of the good government we've had in British Columbia, for the most part, since 1952....

HON. MR. VEITCH: Except for the 1,200 days.

HON. MR. VANT: That's right, the 1,200 dark days. Currently we have a net inflow of over 30,000 people coming to British Columbia, and that's just to the end of last year. Housing starts are now the highest in the province since 1981. There was no problem with housing during those 1,200 dark days between 1972 and 1975 because there were so many people moving out of this great province at that time.

I want to say, too, that we want to encourage the newly re-elected government in Ottawa to continue to reduce their deficit, to become more and more responsible fiscally. Canada's direct debt now is $254 billion. All of government debt between 1977 and 1987 grew by no less than 255 percent. Of course, many years of socialist rule in the province of Manitoba added to that debt as well. In Ottawa, they should be mindful that when things are good government shouldn't be running deficits; they should be running surpluses to help pay off the debt, and also perhaps they could follow our great example by establishing a rainy-day fund when times are good.

Recently the Western Transportation Advisory Council's annual general meeting was hosted right here in Victoria. One of the guest speakers was Dr. Michael Aho, who is the director of economic studies for the Council on Foreign Relations, based In New York. He said that very few governments around the world have balanced budgets. As a percentage of gross national product, Canada's debt is one of the highest of the industrialized nations.

As I said, I want to compliment the government in Ottawa for gradually reducing the federal deficit: in 1984, it was $38 billion; 1986, reduced to $34.4 billion; 1987, reduced further to $30.6 billion; 1988, reduced to $28.1 billion. They are definitely going in the right direction.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANT: I'll get to that, hon. member for Vancouver East.

At the present time the federal government revenues only cover 74 percent of their expenditures. For sure they need new revenues to reduce the deficit, not to finance new spending programs. They certainly need to downsize and perhaps privatize so that they can get on with things that are needed and not spend so much money on interest on the national debt. This throne speech addresses the need for sound fiscal management. We in British Columbia certainly believe in a strong private sector which can generate economic growth.

[ Page 5621 ]

The Speech from the Throne mentions comprehensive highways redevelopment programs. We have to not only get on with improving the present transportation systems but also be mindful that in British Columbia, because of good government and an expanding economy, new car sales amount to over 140,000 per year. This makes a net increase, when you retire older vehicles, of 70,000 vehicles per year on our roads. We have to get on with that very necessary highway development program, and also rehabilitation of bridges.

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned that he wanted some concrete solutions to some of our problems. As Minister of Transportation and Highways, I hope that an awful lot of concrete solutions come into reality, in terms of replacing some older bridges and developing some very worthwhile new projects.

[4:30]

The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) mentioned the great Coquihalla project. Everyone who drives that great highway is very thankful for it; it has certainly been an instrument of economic development for the interior of British Columbia. It allows many people from all parts of the province, whether the lower mainland or up on the northwest coast, to travel very safely to and from the interior of the province.

I want to assure the members of this Legislature that, subsequent to the MacKay commission report, I have fully implemented new management concerning major projects. And we can assure you that we will get full value for dollars spent. We'll have a fully responsible manager for every project in excess of $50 million.

The throne speech also mentions that marine transportation certainly needs additions to it, especially the ferry system between here and the mainland. The population of this island is now approaching that of the whole province of Newfoundland, and our B.C. Ferry Corporation is now moving over six million vehicles and 18 million people per year. It is growing by leaps and bounds, so we have to get into a very definite building-expansion mode.

Another area of concern addressed in the very thorough throne speech — which certainly has all kinds of very definite statements of substance — is the Vancouver International Airport. This airport, of course, is the responsibility of the government of Canada, specifically its Department of Transport. Recently I drove home the need for that third runway with Maj.-Gen. Claude LaFrance, assistant deputy minister of aviation for Transport Canada. This was in the context of the recent Western Transportation Advisory Council annual general meeting.

I want to emphasize to the members of this House the great cost of delays at the Vancouver International Airport due to the lack of proper runway facilities. I will give you the example of October 1988 — just one month, but I can assure the members of this House that there were considerable delays every month last year. There were no fewer than 4, 791 delayed departures at the Vancouver International

Airport in the month of October 1988. In other words, no less than 44.8 percent of all departures at that airport were delayed; the minutes of delay numbered 52,713. Can you imagine the millions of litres of fuel consumed on the aprons while those aircraft were waiting to take off? The cost of those direct delays, at Vancouver International Airport alone, was over $1,023,315.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't think it's important.

HON. MR. VANT: No, obviously they don't travel too much to the interior of this great province. Many of my constituents in the Cariboo leave the Quesnel Airport and have to get a connecting flight to somewhere else. To ensure that they will be there in time, because of the delays at the Vancouver airport.... Often the flights from the interior end up three-quarters of an hour to one hour late. Many people in the interior have to leave a day early and have the expense of staying overnight to make darned sure they can get onto that plane going to Toronto or anywhere else in North America, because Vancouver International Airport is the main connector point for all flights in and out of our great province.

I can't overemphasize the need for improvements to Vancouver International Airport. This throne speech makes mention of that and our government's commitment to cooperating with the federal government in any way to see that the necessary developments take place. Indeed, I soon plan to meet with the federal Minister of Transport, Hon. Benoit Bouchard, with the primary purpose of addressing that particular problem.

The member of the opposition mentioned — and I agree with that one statement — that the forests are the backbone of our economy. Certainly for us in the Cariboo, 75 percent of all the jobs are directly or indirectly related to the forest industry. I am very pleased to see that in the Cariboo we are gradually making progress on the non-sufficiently restocked forest lands, with more and more seedlings being planted, with brushing and with weeding.

MR. MILLER: What about FRDA II?

HON. MR. VANT. We are very anxiously working on FRDA II. I can mention that FRDA I has been of great benefit and will continue to be, right through to its completion in 1990. Many thousands of hectares of non-sufficiently restocked land have been seeded, and there have been other projects of brushing and weeding.

I'd like to mention in regard to forestry that we have entrepreneurs, like Bill Kordyban of Carrier Lumber, who have invested very heavily in the west Chilcotin to build sawmills and a planer mill, and they are successfully harvesting beetle-killed pine. These over-mature pine forests were not too many years ago regarded as weed trees. They are of very small diameter; they are only about 30 feet tall. He has invested, and he is getting valuable product from

[ Page 5622 ]

those over mature, beetle-infested forests. He is creating employment for the people in the west Chilcotin.

I'd like to mention, too, that the hon. Leader of the Opposition was referring to value-added forest products as though this was something new. We have such firms in the Cariboo as C&C Wood Products. For quite some time now they have been making panel boards with a very high-quality finish — they are tongue-and-groove. They are packaged and shipped to places all over the globe, such as Europe, Japan, the Middle East and, of course, the United States. Indeed, C&C Wood Products in Quesnel is not only processing local pine but is also importing rough cedar from the coast, processing that and shipping it all over the world. They make shelving, lattice boards, furniture stock and all kinds of laminated wood products.

Mention was also made of concern for modern pulp mills and controlling pollution. I am very happy that presently in the Cariboo the Cariboo Pulp mill at Quesnel is spending considerable money changing over to a new bleaching process that will be chlorine free and therefore dioxin-free.

The policies of the Social Credit government over many years.... The installation of a provincewide power grid —v thanks to the foresight and thought of great Social Credit leaders like W.A.C. Bennett — made power available and made the pulp mills in the Cariboo possible, especially the brand-new thermal mechanical pulp mill, the Quesnel River Pulp mill, and its brand-new twin, with a very clean process, which is, of course, both chlorine- and dioxin-free.

We keep hearing about royal commissions on forestry, and yet this very open, consultative government and its Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) have just recently gone throughout the province with hearings concerning forestry and tree-farm licences. It seems to me that with just about every major issue — be it transportation or anything else — we are always willing to go and consult with the people. My new initiatives, of course, are entitled: "Giving the people of the province the freedom to move." This involves every mode of transportation, be it air, marine, rail or road and bridge. For sure we want to have input from all the transportation committees in each and every development region of our great province.

Each region has its own unique character, issues and problems, and this government is very consciously getting out there in the front lines, working with the n-ministers of state and the people to get that firsthand information to assist us in setting both short-term and long-term priorities. The Leader of the Opposition kept mentioning friends and insiders of this government. Well, the friends of this government are the working people of B.C. We are open and accessible, always wanting to consult with people from every walk of life, everywhere. So everyone is an insider.

We also want to encourage the private sector. We want to be very responsible with the funds that the hard-working citizens provide to us through their taxes. We wouldn't be like a socialist government and impose a terrible payroll tax, because wherever they've been in power, and they've had the chance, they've taxed the working person. So our friends and insiders are the working people of British Columbia.

Another thing I'd like to mention is the mining industry of British Columbia. For many decades — indeed, since the beginning of the Cariboo constituency — mining has played a major part in our life. We're very happy that the Blackdome mine, a fairly new mine employing over 120 people, is still discovering ore and producing about 54,000 ounces of gold per year at their location southwest of Clinton.

I'm very happy, too, that the workers and management at Gibraltar Mines, just north of Williams Lake, recently reached a collective agreement. The price of copper is holding up, and the mine is happily back in production.

Also, I'm very mindful of exploration and development work by Mosquito Creek Gold Mining at Wells, near Barkerville, that famous gold rush mining town. They have spent over $8 million at this point in developing the haulage tunnel to their mill and in developing new ore bodies. That certainly will give Wells the stability in employment that it needs. If they are successful in locating sufficient ore, that mine should enjoy a very long life.

Certainly this Speech from the Throne has very detailed substance. There are many specific references to such things as funding for building new schools. For example, it very specifically mentions $1.5 billion to be spent over the next six years. For sure that is something of very concrete substance. I'm very happy that in my own part of the province there is currently a major addition under construction at the 150 Mile House Elementary School. They've just announced a very badly needed new school at Takla Lake, way out in west Chilcotin, where Carrier Lumber is building another sawmill to harvest over mature forest out there and create employment. So they will be having the school that the children in that part of the province deserve.

All in all, Mr. Speaker, I certainly support this Speech from the Throne 100 percent.

[4:45]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I was moved by the speech from the new Minister of Highways, and while it maybe didn't bring thunderous applause in here — it's very difficult in here — I'm sure it will read very well. We're all looking forward to all these plans when they come to fruition. My problem with the new Minister of Highways is that he's always planning. And then he says that when I write him about a highways problem....

The Coquihalla is certainly a wonderful artery — I know, because we're still bleeding from it. The people in my riding love the Coquihalla: it takes them to see all the unemployed in Kamloops. Then he said not to worry about the Barnet. It's a gridlock — that's the catch-phrase now — or constipation; it's not the freedom to move. That's what we've got. So the minister had to address that. But he said: "I can't

[ Page 5623 ]

do anything about it. I've got to send it over here to our new regional prince of Burnaby. He will decide for the whole region whether or not my constituents can get to work." So it's a very serious matter.

I'd like to congratulate all the new ministers, and even some of the old ones, the old ward-heelers that have been around here for ages and ages. It will be very interesting to see how the ex-ministers behave — or misbehave; I don't know if they're going to. I understand that they've papered over all their differences. The revulsion that drove them out of cabinet last year seems to be all forgotten now, and all is forgiven. Come home, John. Come home, Grace. All is forgiven. Anyway, they would be terrific news, and I would like to see them active. I hope they are.

There's an old joke about Tommy Douglas. Apparently he was making a speech at some time.... Tommy wasn't a very big man; he was a very small man. Apparently his opponent was a towering, very powerful person, much like our current Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) — a big, tall guy. And he was saying, contemptuous of Mr. Douglas: "Why, that little squirt, he's all talk; he's all mouth. With one bite I could eat his head right off." Tommy countered by saying: "Yes, and you'd be the only candidate in this election with more brains in his stomach than he has in his head."

I look over at the new cabinet, and I think they're estimable people. They're inexperienced, and I wouldn't want to make any disparaging remarks about them. But I look at the old cabinet, and I wonder if this government is the only one in Canada with more brains in its rump than in its cabinet. I wouldn't like to say that for certain, but all I know is it's something that....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I hope that won't come out of my time, Mr. Speaker, because when you have to pause for long bursts of applause, it has a profound effect on the atmosphere in the House. I was interested in this Speech from the Throne. It's the usual kind of self-gratification, self-glorification, that we've come to hear. This one has all kinds of promises in it, but I was thinking back to some previous throne speeches by this government. My leader talked about added value, and I know the government is aware of added value in the forest industry, because I can recall a Speech from the Throne that announced a chopstick factory. Where is the chopstick factory? I don't know where it is; it might be in the People's Republic of China. It's certainly not in B.C.

MR. WILLIAMS: It used to be in Prince George.

MR. ROSE: I don't know whether it's in Prince George. Now toothpicks — there's another thing that we should go in for. We could supply the world with toothpicks. I notice the member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan) over there, and I wonder if he's ever thought of expanding the production of the things that this government has been feeding people from Prince George and everywhere else. As a matter of fact he comes from the capital of the wooden nickel — there's added value. The wooden-nickel industry in Prince George is a tremendous one.

I don't know whether you knew it, Mr. Speaker, but I'm actually subbing this speech for someone else. I don't know whether you would have noticed that I had to fill in belatedly for somebody who couldn't make it here. I hope it won't show, but I promise you that what it lacks in depth I will make up in length.

Today in the House, with recent victories in two by-elections, it's very difficult for us not to gloat. For those of us who are more humble, it's not as difficult a task. I think that while we sing the praises of this government.... I know you people on the opposite side; it's your job to put up the best possible face on what must be crushing disappointments. But it doesn't matter what you say in the Speech from the Throne. You can't catch up for everything that you've done to us over two, three, four or five years. You change the conductor but it's the same old railroad. You can't do all that in six months. But I don't know, maybe you can with lots of goodies.

I think you're trying to outspend the socialists. Sounds to me like the Socreds are those capitalists on the back of the pickup truck with scoop-shovels, shovelling out the money. So much for restraint; it's really appalling. Whereas I think that our leader is showing a tremendous amount of prudence.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Is that what it's called?

MR. ROSE: It's the three Ps: prudence, planning, and somebody down there suggested it would be prunes. It's certainly nice to be back in the old bullring. I don't know where the bulls will emerge from, but I can see that there are a lot of them coming up.

I would now like to get into something more specific, and I say this with all the seriousness I can muster — which is usually very little. I am temporarily the critic counterpart of the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mr. Michael), and shortly after I was appointed to this lofty position, I went around to see the minister and said: "I want a briefing, and I want to go and visit all these different people — because you talk about open government and...." It's a grab bag. I don't know what rationale was used to form the thing, but it's got everything in it: it's got all the boards, some Crown corporations, a number of commissions. It's a very difficult thing to get a handle on, even for the minister. I think he's aptly demonstrated that. He doesn't need any more compliments from me. When I went to the minister and asked for the briefing, he said: "You are free to go to any of these Crown corporations or commissions and talk to their CEOs and ask for all the information that you want." I did, and they did, and I want to thank them and thank the minister for that. I want you to know that I was very impressed with the CEOs of 99 percent of the Crown corporations. I'm talking about the Purchasing Commission, the pension commission, the Pavilion Corporation, the air services, the Systems Corporation

[ Page 5624 ]

and the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. It was a very impressive learning experience for me. I was very grateful that they were so open. I asked for every bit of rental and leased space from the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I don't like some of their policies, but I got all that information from them immediately, with no hesitation — as far as I know, full and complete lists of all the Social Crediters who own buildings in Penticton and other places and lease to the government. Not a bit of hesitation there whatsoever. I'm grateful for that.

I said I didn't appreciate all the policies of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, and I will tell you one that I don't like. It affects a lot of my constituents. I know that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) is very proud of how he has wrung money out of the various people and has been able to save it and privatize and make a big fellow of himself while he built up his BS fund — his budget stabilization fund. He's justly proud. He has his kind of values and outlook. Unfortunately, that rubs off. The Buildings Corporation is very pleased at how little they spend on building maintenance. Do you know why? Because it's all privatized to contractors. Instead of paying immigrant women a decent wage, they are paying them $4, $5 and $6 an hour. That's shameful. All in aid of the BS fund. All in aid of being able to say: "We were able to get this stuff on the cheap." That's all it is: just on the cheap.

Everybody should know this basic lesson in economics. If you pay decent wages, then people will be able to shop at the local jeweler’s store; they'll be able to visit the used car lot owned by just about half a dozen of the Socred members — or so it was at one time. They can do all these things.

I don't think there's any gain in cutting the public service to the bone so they (1) can't give service, (2) are overworked or (3) are grossly underpaid. That's a basic criticism I have to level at the government.

MR. WILLIAMS: Somebody gets the difference.

MR. ROSE: I don't know who gets the difference.

I want you to know that we could talk about a lot of things. I hope I'm not interrupting the government Whip and some of my colleagues. If you find it difficult to hear, I'll speak a little more softly.

I want to talk for a little while about the growth in my own riding. The arteries from my riding to Vancouver, where the jobs are, are plugged. There is no area that is enjoying — or suffering from — greater building growth than Coquitlam-Moody, except for Surrey. Within five years it will add 20 percent to the time it takes people to get to work from all the neighbouring facilities and communities. Now 23.7 minutes from West Van; 1996.... From Coquitlam it now takes 39 minutes to get to work in Vancouver; it's going to take 44 in 1996. Surrey: 46 minutes now; 51 minutes, even with the addition of SkyTrain, to Vancouver.

One of the problems that we're having is a super hot economy in the lower mainland. The problems are that the commuters and the people who need the services haven't kept up with the building boom. That is a big problem.

I'm really pleased to hear the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) talk about such things as assisting people in terms of how they might get a home to buy, a rental purchase plan. I agree with that plan. It sounds a bit socialistic to me, but it's not a bad plan.

Another thing he didn't say and could have said: we should have legislation to stop these conversions. People in my riding are having a very difficult time because the rental housing is down below 1 percent. The wages don't support the kind of rent that some landlord gougers are demanding. If they have no law against them, of course.... You may say: "Well, that's not as bad as not having any incentive to build a house." In other words, if you remove the incentive to gouge, there won't be any housing.

If you just leave it up to the marketplace, it's not going to work. It has never worked. Sure, you get all kinds of expensive houses. In my riding the new houses run from about $200,000 up to $400,000. What young family can afford that?

Every day, as the experience shows with the member for Richmond.... I'll take his word for it, because I know he's a very religious man, a Socred and also a Netherlander. He would never lie. He says that his office is besieged with people with tremendous stories about the difficulty in getting rental accommodation. It's very serious. So what we are we going to do about it? Bring back the rentalsman is one idea. Provide legislation to let the councils decide whether or not there should be conversion of condominia — if that is the Latin plural of condominium; I'm not sure it's even Latin.

I think the growth in my riding, the housing on the hillsides, is good stuff. It's far better to have the housing on the rocks and Christmas trees on the hillsides in Coquitlam, Moody and Surrey than to put it on Colony Farm or out in Richmond. God doesn't need another golf course. We don't need to blacktop Richmond. I fly over it all the time, and probably more than half of it has gone. Certainly the arable land has gone.

[5:00]

There is no conversion notice for the limited stock of rental housing we have now. People phoned me the other day. Tartan Village is a rental accommodation that has been there at least 15 years. They are now starting the conversions, and people are out. Where are they going to go? Probably the only place they can go is further out in the valley. Then what do you have? You've got more commuters plugging the same roads and no plan to do anything about it, at least from Port Moody.

I wrote the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) on November 14 asking about plans and immediate help for the Barnet. That's the road along Burrard Inlet from Port Moody to Vancouver, just in case he spends all his time at Jack of Clubs Lake, Wells or Barkerville. He might not know Port Moody as well as I do. The commuters sure know Port Moody. They play crib on the way to work

[ Page 5625 ]

in the morning and drink coffee and eat doughnuts. Anyway, I wrote the minister and asked him about widening the Barnet. I know widening highways isn't the total answer. All improved arteries might do is to make people move further out.

I could give you a little story if I weren't in such a big rush to get rid of all these gems I have for you this afternoon. I'll do it briefly. I lived in Coquitlam in 1962, and I drove to UBC. There was no improvement on the Grandview, no improvement on Marine Drive, the freeway wasn't even in there yet and the Barnet was a goat-track. It took me an hour to get to work at UBC. We improved the Barnet, we put in the freeway and we improved the Grandview Highway. I've forgotten what they call it now; It used to be called the Grandview Highway when I was a little tad.

MR. WILLIAMS: Canada Way.

MR. ROSE: Canada Way. And we improved Marine and the expressway out to the airport. Do you know how long it now takes to get to UBC from where I live? One hour. It didn't do a thing in terms of time and convenience, because people stayed in their cars and plugged the highways because they had no alternatives.

Anyway, I wrote the minister and said: "In the meantime, those from Dewdney are facing increasing frustration and delays because rapid urban growth is occurring while millions have been spent" — or maybe squandered — "on the Coquihalla." We know that $500 million was spent and we know that $500 million extra was squandered.

And SkyTrain. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at 70,000 passengers per day isn't SkyTrain pretty well loaded? What are you going to do when you take it over to Surrey? How are you going to stuff them in? Like they do in Japan — have a couple of stuffers at the doorways of the thing to push them in and squeeze them up?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Put more cars on for them.

MR. ROSE: Put more cars on. That reminds me of another story called "put more men on the job."

I said to the minister in my letter: "I talked to Dan Doyle of your ministry, and Mr. Doyle informs me that no budget item for the Barnet is contemplated until 1990-91 and until a comprehensive multimodal transportation plan has been completed." I got back a very nice letter, because the minister is always very polite. It came back forthwith, and I was grateful for that. But do you know what he said to me? I haven't got it with me, but I've got it committed to memory. In essence he said: "I pass it over to Elwood." I'm sorry — what do you call him? The minister of state. If you want to stall something, you pass it over to Elwood, and he will fondle it, ponder it, study it and stall it for two or three years. I give him credit for that. He's a silver-tongued orator as well.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: That depends how you spell orator.

Coquitlam-Moody is the worst-served area in the lower mainland, except maybe for Dewdney, and they deserve it because they elected a couple of Socreds. We're the worst-served area in the lower mainland for transit. I saw a TV documentary a while back, and they said West Van wasn't bad. Of course, they've got their own buses; they're not waiting. Then we've got Richmond and Tsawwassen and that Delta area. They seem to be better served. Surrey is infinitely better served than we are in Coquitlam-Moody. We need some action out there — a lot of it. During the election we were promised a commuter rail over CPR. That won't help unless it goes at least to Mission. You can't put his nod in Hansard, but the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) did in fact nod; and he's smiling, or at least is making a face that I take to be a smile.

There are all kinds of problems. How are you going to solve this in a hurry? You're not going to solve it with freeways — not initially, not freeways only — as they take too long to build. Bypasses maybe. But what happens when we have a bypass? People build all over it, so pretty soon it's virtually impossible to get through it. For millions of dollars we built a long-promised bypass around Port Coquitlam, right through — guess what — an industrial park. If I'm in a hurry to get to the first member for Dewdney's house for vespers or something on a Sunday afternoon, do you know how many lights I have to go through on that bypass around Port Coquitlam? Five. The Barrett government put an underpass at Coquitlam Centre.

HON. MR. VEITCH: But there was no industry there then.

MR. ROSE: Not a thing. Not a store, not anything. As soon as it was put there, we had Coquitlam Centre.

What I am saying is that no one item is going to solve all these problems — not necessarily SkyTrain, buses, commuter rail. Maybe a subway. The problem, as I see it, is that we have to do a lot of things, and we have to do them with certain priorities. The minister said he likes planning; I've said he likes stalling. I don't know where all the money is coming from all of a sudden. For the last five years we've had no money for education, post-secondary education, highways — except for Coquihalla. No money for anything. We've got all kinds of money; it's running out of our ears.

Here's a priority. First of all, you've got to get people out of their cars. You'll do that. You're proceeding the right way, because if you plug up the highways it will get them out of cars and into car pools or something. That's the first thing you have to do. Many people prefer their automobiles; it's easiest. I do myself. There's no point in kidding. Cars are for me and buses are for everybody else. But if you can't get to work.... It depends on the time. I come over here on the helijet, and I find that at certain hours I can get through fine and at other hours I can't.

[ Page 5626 ]

Maybe staggered working hours might be worth looking into. We need better buses; park-and-ride. I would suggest that the bus is the fastest way to go.

I'm going to talk about your transit service and the first thing to do. You can do a few other cosmetic things. You could three-lane the Barnet, for instance, as you've done from Delta or over to West Van. Have you ever thought of that with the lanes that are there now? You could do that as an interim measure. You could probably do it for less than a million dollars. What's a million dollars? You threw away $500 million on the Coquihalla. These people would be eternally grateful; they might even put your name up in lights. It's an idea.

Another thing you could do is to add a lane between the Maillardville cutoff and the bypass, or what used to be called the bypass; now it centres right in the middle of the industrial park. The reason people can't get to that bypass is that there's a gridlock on the Port Mann exchange. The traffic is so bad that at 3 o'clock in the afternoon a week ago I left my office in Port Coquitlam, and at the Riverview Hospital, which is about two miles from the Port Mann interchange, we had a two-lane backup for two miles. It's a real mess. It's people who are going over to Surrey — even people who don't want to go to Surrey but who are sometimes forced to because they get into the wrong lane. Other people who want to go to Surrey are sometimes forced to go to Port Coquitlam, even though they're Social Credit and they know I'm there.

It's not good enough. We need a lot more attention to buses. What have we done? In September 1988 in the lower mainland they cut bus service by 60,000 hours, saving $1 million. Did you know that? What's a million? The new Solicitor-General: what's a million? What did that do? We had a wonderful service — people loved it — called runs 154 and 155. It ran to Vancouver faster than SkyTrain, and that was cut in September. We've got 151 and 152 that go to SkyTrain. People don't want to go to SkyTrain; they want to sit on their bus. They don't want to transfer. There's no reason they can't do that. You could have bus lanes; you could have all kinds of things. You have to do something in the interim, or else you are going to have to do what Mayor Sekora said he was going to do: no more growth, no more building permits, nothing until you do something about better commuter service.

In January the municipality of Surrey had three pages of bus improvements — three pages of new routes and stops in the transit book. You know how many Coquitlam has got? None. They have a new bridge across to Surrey to serve SkyTrain. Now we are talking about going to Whalley. Is SkyTrain going to go to Coquitlam Centre? No. You don't suppose there might be a little bias in that the member for Surrey-Newton (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) is head of transit for this government? I wouldn't want to think that, because I have been in politics with that estimable woman for a long time and have always found her fair. We want improved service for Surrey, but we also need it for Coquitlam.

How many buses were purchased between 1982 and 1988? You've got all kinds of money to throw at everything else. How many buses did you purchase? None — not one. Do we have the oldest fleet in Canada? Yes. Do we have the highest fares? Yes again. How many drivers were hired between 1982 and 1988? None. What happened when you had an epidemic of flu, and you had no spare board? You cut runs. People would be waiting for their ride to Vancouver. How on earth are people going to depend on a service like that, when they can't? No wonder they went back to their cars. You cut out Coquitlam Centre's park-n-ride — nothing there.

Before you go, Mr. Minister, I want to tell you something else. There is an employee assistance plan for counselling because of stress, booze, marital problems and all the things that this government professes to be interested in. Do you know how many people in Victoria tried to get appointments for counselling, which takes two weeks? Twenty-six percent of the drivers. Do you know what percentage of the drivers in Victoria — I am told — are divorced? Eighty percent. All of this trying to keep on time is affecting people's morale, their stress levels, their families and their lives.

I've got more horror stories. You say: why do people bother to live in Coquitlam at all? It's because they have a very attractive MLA with a wonderful personality. If it weren't for that, they would probably go to Richmond.

I'm told that I have four minutes, and I was just getting through my introduction. I was rather anxious to get on with the serious part of my talk. However, if I continue being heckled.... I haven't been around here as long as some people, and heckling sometimes causes me some trouble.

[5:15]

I want to talk to you about something that affects all the lower mainland — not just us in Coquitlam. I'm glad that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is here — the fellow who put "u" back into education. He sat there while "u" was removed from education for five years, while his government stole at least $300 million per year from teachers, chased 3,000 teachers out of the province, and now we are told we are going to have a 20,000-teacher shortage within six years — or is it ten years? Whatever it is, the shortages are beginning to show up already. But here he is, and I want to tell him something because I know he is a very serious fellow. He comes from Rutland, which is a suburb of.... Kelowna is a part of greater Rutland. He went to school at the same time I was there. Of course I was a very young teacher, and he took a long time to get to grade 12. That accounts for the similarities in our ages.

There is almost a tax revolt brewing — there was last year — about school taxes. First of all, the ministry has frozen the funding formula so that anything extra and above what the ministry dictates has to come out of the local home owner. Since 1981-82 there has been no increase in the homeowner grant. If the homeowner grant had been increased all those years, it would probably be about $300 higher than it

[ Page 5627 ]

is today. What effect has this got on people in the lower mainland where assessments are quite high? Let me tell you. In the greater Vancouver district of Richmond — which is a nice place to be from — Richmond had a tax of $189 on property owners on an average-sized home in 1984; it's now $267 over and above what the funding formula distributes.

Let me contrast that with Keremeos. In Keremeos the small school district gave $138 back to the municipality. Next year it will be $167, so if you don't like paying school taxes, move to Keremeos. Here's Vancouver itself. Each homeowner was additionally assessed $93 on his taxes for school purposes; in 1988 it was $285. What's happening in Princeton? If you don't like Keremeos, move to Princeton. You had a tax credit of $141 last year. New Westminster was $38 in 1984, and last year it was $213. Coquitlam was $301 extra last year. Armstrong, $89 back to the municipalities from the homeowner's grant; Merritt, $73 back; Agassiz-Harrison, $59 back; North Van, $421.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I don't know what it is in Golden, but I bet it's rich. If the nugget from Golden intends to intercede in future, I wish he would articulate a little better, because I know it was very funny but I couldn't hear it.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that his time is up.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm very pleased that you gave me all this extra time to mention Colony Farm and that dumb pipeline up to the Coquitlam River valley.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I used to think in Rutland that Kelowna was the suburb of Rutland, rather than the other way around. I must say that at that time I didn't learn that much from him either. But I'll forgive him for that because he tried valiantly to the best of his ability, as I believe he has at this time tried valiantly to make a speech out of virtually nothing. He started out to be very entertaining and then spoiled it all by trying to get serious. Then, I suppose at the conclusion, he resorted to questioning our approach to the facts. For instance, he said we had frozen the funds provided for education last year, but the amount over the previous year, in government grants, was 8 percent. This year we have provided 9.9 percent, and he says again that we have frozen the funds. I would strongly recommend that in place of preparing these exhilarating speeches the member might take some time to read the annual report, which was tabled in the House just last week, and look at some of the graphs. We've put it into pictures and charts.

No matter how we've said it, there is more money spent on education each year. Many members — and I know we've got to work on our literacy program — seem to be unable to grasp the simple fact that a 9 percent increase is more money than what it used to be last year. So this year we have put quite a bit of this into pictures in the report. I strongly commend the member to look at the pictures if the words bore him, because they do tell a significant story about the amounts that have been spent. I know that the graphs are done to scale as best as possible, and the bar graphs go up each year; they get taller.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Could the member please just pay attention. This is very important. When the bar graphs get taller in succeeding years, representing the amount of money spent, that means more money. Taller is more.

MR. ROSE: Could I ask for a point of order, for clarification? I didn't know you said graphs — graffs; I thought you said graft — and you're an expert on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm sure the member would like to withdraw that comment.

MR. ROSE: Yes, I think I overstated the case. But I was confused with what you said. I wish you'd try to articulate. I wouldn't accuse the minister of graft.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I have to use words in the House. I could perhaps admonish the member to listen more carefully. We're not allowed to use pictures in the House, so perhaps he'll have to pay attention to what I'm saying, and to graphs, charts and things like that which are done.

In a final comment to that member, he said that some of the districts are getting more money back because of their assessment base. His solution is that we should increase the homeowner grant by $300. I presume that is so they'd get more back.

The other thing I have some difficulty with.... I guess it comes from the socialist philosophy that the taxpayers should not contribute any more funds to education; that it should come from the government. I wonder if the member would take the quantum leap to recognize that the money provided in the homeowner grant comes from the taxpayers. It is not just printed paper. It comes from somewhere, and that is one of the things that the government has done.

However, so I don't take all my time in dealing with these facetious accusations and statements that bear no resemblance to reality, I would like to talk a bit about my constituency and relate that to what has happened in the province.

In the last two to three years a great deal has happened in my constituency. We have had the opening of the Fibreco mill at Taylor, using a new process. The new mill is non-polluting, in the sense that other mills have been polluting. I know that much money is being spent to try and reduce that pollution. It takes some time to spend $20 million to $40 million to fix up a mill that has been determined to be polluting

[ Page 5628 ]

unless you shut it down until the fix-up. That would make some difficulty in creating jobs.

That's been happening in Taylor, and much of the spinoff is in Fort St. John. Properties are selling, and there is an air of optimism among the people. Businesses are opening up, and that has happened as a result of the actions of this government in the last few years.

At Fort Nelson a major project is imminent, and other projects are in the works. Why? Because of the encouragement that this government has given investment and because of the feeling in that area of free enterprise that people are willing to put up their money, to take risks with that money and to fund it, if they have some opportunity to gain.

In the early seventies the oil and gas industry in this province virtually collapsed because we had a government that said: "We don't want you. Stay out." The Leader of the Opposition said, in his comments earlier today: "We want to leave these resources in place for our children." I know that at that time the NDP philosophy — you don't know what it is now — was: leave the gas in the ground; that's all there is. They seemed not to be able to understand what had been determined in other areas: that the amount of natural gas in the ground or oil in the ground is partly determined by the economy and the market. So they said: "That's all there is, and keep the oil and gas companies out...." They went out; they left. No pollution problems, no road problems, no housing problems — people were leaving the province.

What has happened since is that when people have been encouraged to invest and to drill for gas and oil, there have been oil finds and significant gas finds — just two: one in the Sikanni field recently, where there are projects being built to process that gas and put it into the system; and another one in the Boundary Lake area, a major gas find. These fields are found when people have a reason to drill. They only have a reason to drill when they have a market for the products that they produce.

I would suspect that there's a lot more gas and oil underground in my area, if only the reason exists to drill it. It does not exist under socialism, for under socialism you encourage the companies to drill and then take them over or shut them down. These companies need to have large investments. They need to have some security that they will be able to recover their investments.

In Hudson Hope they have developed a considerable tourism industry. They are working very much to develop that in the future. They are very optimistic. They are interested in helping themselves; they show the initiative. And they try to get some assistance from the government towards the projects that they do.

I can tell you this: the people there are planning for the long range. There is a project underway called Project '92, which is the commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the building of the Alaska Highway and also the two-hundredth anniversary of the trip through the area by Alexander Mackenzie. Those events are being used to encourage visitors to come there. These people are building for that to try to get the tourists to go away with having seen something very worthwhile and something about the country up there and the benefits of living in that country.

[5:30]

The people there recognize the potential and have always recognized it. Fortunately for the economy of this province, they have been willing to put their money where their mouth is and increase the developments in that area. Let's make no bones about it that, for instance, the provincial coffers, just in the last year, picked up over $100 million from just the lease sales in that area.

That $100 million then generates.... When these people put that kind of money into purchasing the right to drill in an area, they then follow that up with seismic activity, which generates jobs and more economic activity. That seismic activity leads to more drilling. When they find or have a fairly good success rate at finding more gas, that leads to development of those gas and oil fields, which leads to permanent jobs in the long run.

For instance, it has been proposed, and perhaps later this spring we will find out if it's economically viable.... Maybe they are waiting to see which way the political winds go. There is a major ethane plant being planned for the Taylor area, and that would create a substantial number of permanent jobs being generated by the wildcat and other explorations providing the gas.

In my constituency there is optimism and growth. More important than anything else, there is the entrepreneurship, the willingness to tackle the problem, to get on with it, that is so necessary. I would think that the provincial coffers not only gain $100 million and some directly from the lease sales, but it generates something over $700 million a year from the gas royalty sales and other things. I'm using that, as I think my constituency got very badly hurt in the recession when the sale for gas and some of their products went down, but they hung in there. Now, as a result of the government policy to encourage people back into the province, to encourage development and to spread it around the province, I think they are benefiting. I hope they do well from it. If they do well, then the province does well and we will be able to afford the services we are providing on an Increasing scale to all of the people of this province.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) did mention the congestion. I guess it's somewhat of a puzzle. When the Premier announced in the regionalization policy that we were going to try and spread some of the industry in this province throughout the province, they objected to the regionalization. They seem to object to the roads that are necessary. If you're going to produce products somewhere else in this province, you need to have access to the world markets, because we produce far more than we can use ourselves. There is plenty of room in this province. There are plenty of places where land and houses are not at the enormous

[ Page 5629 ]

prices they are when everybody tries to concentrate in one area.

Yet the solution seems to be to widen the highways. It doesn't take long and they're filled. If you widen the highway, that means there's better access, so therefore you concentrate more in that area; you generate more interest in people coming into this centre rather than moving out. If the people in Coquitlam were moving the other way to the factory and the jobs, we wouldn't have to keep spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to compress more people into the same area. There's plenty of room in this province, and I'm hopeful that many of these industries are going to see that there are advantages in locating in other areas. There's evidence of it now.

It's really pointless, but I know there was some talk about no money for education. I guess I referred the member to the list. No money for education? I think he did admit that maybe he was making some overstatements, and I have to agree very much with that. Many items are covered in the throne speech. Of course, it's typical for the opposition to greet it with "no substance, nothing in it." Yet some of the statements in the throne speech are simply confirmation of programs that have already started. For instance, just today the minister of post-secondary education announced more effort and money into post-secondary education, into providing access to the people throughout this province.

At the end of January my ministry, the Ministry of Education, announced a considerable and long-term plan and program to try to implement the direction given us by the Sullivan commission in order to move into the future and to prepare our students in a more relevant way for what they will have to face in the future. There was absolutely no recognition from the opposition of the extra money that we put into capital and so on. Of course, this is to be expected. Absolutely no recognition for the increase in funding that this government has provided in and for education; simply: "You shouldn't have been in that position." In the late 1970s student enrolment started to decline, and it kept declining until about 1985. It about leveled out in 1986. Interestingly enough, having that many more students coincides with the period that this government has been in office. For instance, last year we predicted, with the best technology available, comparing ministry projections and the local school district projections, perhaps an increase of some 4,000 students. We ended up with some 8,000. Many of the students we can predict exist in the province. What we couldn't predict accurately was the integration. I suppose we can be blamed for not anticipating the positive reaction to the policies this government has put in place to encourage people to come to this province.

I'll use the research that your leader is so famous for using — the newspapers. Very in-depth research, but it's backed up by figures from the central statistics bureau, provincial and federal:

"B.C. had a net gain of almost 30, 000 people from other parts of Canada last year. The population growth rate as of January 1 this year is the highest in the country, according to provincial figures."

It goes on to say:

"Preliminary figures released this month by B.C.'s central statistics bureau indicate the province's net gain in 1988 was the highest of any of the provinces and a substantial gain over its 19,408 in 1987."

In 1987 we had many people coming into the province; in 1988 we had more again coming into the province.

I suppose in a sense we have created our own problems. We have created growth in this province. We have created a positive attitude. Where the economy is growing, people are coming not only by in-migration from Canada that I've quoted, but also from offshore. We have many people coming; they're lining up to come to British Columbia. That seems to be contrary to what we hear repeatedly from the opposition about how horribly we are managing.

Why would people, if they believed that, come here to what they are told by the opposition is a horribly managed economy, with no services for people and no consideration for people and no proper education? People are lining up to join our education system in this province. Why? Because despite the negative sniping that we have become used to — and many people go by evidence not by the negative sniping we're faced with — people who go by the evidence find out that in any international competition, our students do better than most; they're up in the top— first, second or third. So the evidence is clear that the students in this education system are doing well, despite the concerted efforts at government bashing that have been going on over the last I don't know how many years.

When I first became Minister of Education some two and a half years ago, one of my first requests to the school trustees and the teachers in this province was that there is nothing productive to be gained by this, and that we're going to need the support of the public for more investment, for more money and for more support in education. We cannot hope to get that support if that public is repeatedly told how rotten the system is when, in fact, it is not a rotten system. In fact, all the evidence — and I'm not talking about just last year's results; I'm talking about the 1984 cross-Canada international survey; you can take any survey you like — shows that our students have done well.

I have acknowledged time and again that a great deal of the credit must go to the teachers who are in the classrooms in the school system. I don't acknowledge that in spite of what the government has done in education; I think we've had a part in that. Yes, we've had our tough times in education as we did throughout the economy during the recession from 1982-85. If you look at the comparisons on any graph or chart, even during the recession, the funding for education went up, the average teacher's salary went up, and the average funding per pupil went up. They've certainly gone up progressively since then.

Education takes place in the classroom, and I've acknowledged that time and time again. But despite that, we've had so much government-bashing, so

[ Page 5630 ]

many statements about the inadequacy of our system, how poorly our system is being funded and how poorly our system is being run, that it Is only natural for many people of the province to start believing that. They've heard it again and again from the people involved. So when a survey, as reported in the annual report, indicates that the people say yes.... Fifty percent of the people in several polls have said that if money was no object they would send their children to independent schools.

That is not because the quality of education is that different. It's a perception that I think has been created, because the independent schools have been positive about their work and their studies while the public school system has spent a great deal of time maligning itself. I have not. I have tried to build the image of the public school system in all the time I have been minister, and I think the evidence is before us.

[5:45]

We have greatly increased capital expenditures. We have greatly increased the operating budget. We have greatly increased programs and special funding. We have integrated into the school system many students who were at one time hopelessly kept in institutions, not even recognized as educable. Yet as I have gone around the schools, anywhere I go.... I would encourage any of you who have the opportunity to do so to go into the schools and see what is being done with some of these pupils. Pat the teachers on the back, because they have come up with some rather remarkable ways to deal with these pupils.

You always hear about the huge class sizes, about the poor pupil-teacher ratio. One of the reasons that our pupil-teacher ratio shows up a little higher now is because since about 1985 or 1986 we no longer subtract the special education students before we show the average class sizes. It was unrealistic, In some cases the pupil-teacher ratio is one to one, with the teacher and two or three aides. These people are being given that kind of assistance. Nobody ever talks about that.

I know that I can get very wrought up on the education issue, because I think it is very important, but I would like to make a few other points. We heard the Leader of the Opposition earlier today in a speech about.... Sorry, I don't know what it was about. It used some emotional terms; it used the standard rhetoric, the standard clichés, the little statements that are calculated to capture the attention. I listened quite attentively, and I was trying to see what specifically of substance.... I know at one point, when he said we've got to have this value added, I said: "Such as?" And he said: "Well, we could always build window-frames." It typifies that side. We've seen it time and time again. They don't worry about whether anybody will buy those window-frames. That's the difference, I guess, on this side.

I can give you an example. In the '83 election, the socialists had a solution to keeping the sawmills open. In '83, as some of you may recall, the housing program had collapsed in many parts, and nobody was buying the lumber. But the NDP philosophy was: "We will spend $500 million to keep the sawmills operating." The reason the people didn't give the Socreds a greater majority in '83 was that they didn't buy that. There are too many people who understand what really goes on out there. If you had kept the mills operating, that $500 million might have kept them operating for three or four months, but if the lumber wasn't selling, you would have the mill yards plugged with lumber, and you would force down the price of lumber even further, so that there would be no reason to operate the mills for an additional year or two afterwards, because of the inventory that you had built up and because of the downward pressure on the prices. I think many people out in the areas recognize that it's one thing to promise that we will keep people working to build widgets, but they want to know: is anybody buying widgets? The Leader of the Opposition says: "Look, we only tackle one issue at a time." That's one of the advantages, I guess, that opposition has. Opposition has the advantage, in that they don't need to tie it together.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If in fact you can build the public support on these illusory promises that your leader is making, then good luck. I just hope that you never win, for the sake of the people in this province. The opposition leader has said on a number of occasions that the people in this province are way ahead of this government. Well, I'm willing to concede that. But if I do, I'll tell you they are miles and miles ahead of the socialist philosophy, because that is not what built this province. That's the only setback this province has ever had.

Look, I'll concede something. I think the NDP, the non-democratic party.... I say that because their members are not allowed to speak unless they are told; they are not allowed to have diverging views, I understand; and they are not allowed to run for municipal council unless they get the sanction of the central NDP, so I'll give them the name non-democratic party. I will concede that they have probably the best anti-pollution policy in this province. And they have the best sustainable development and economic situation in this province. If you shut down all the mines, kick out all the oil and gas companies and shut down the mills with your million-dollar fines, there will be a minimum of pollution. That's wonderful in terms of that, except that you don't happen to mention that that means all the people who work in those mills, or work in the oil and gas industry and that sort of thing, would be without jobs. Yes, you can leave the oil and gas in the ground, and you can fine the companies a million dollars a day to stop pollution while they are spending $40 million to try to solve the problem. Yes, that can be done.

We would not have a housing problem in British Columbia if the NDP were in power. We didn't have. You know, we had a surplus of houses very quickly.

[ Page 5631 ]

We would not have a road problem in British Columbia. We would not have congested highways because it only takes the people so long to leave, and they are quite patient about leaving — from socialism. So they do have that.

We would not have a schools problem, and we would not have this growth that we are desperately trying to keep up to. We would not have that. It is easy to sustain an economy if you first of all flatten it. A sustainable economy at the zero base is much easier to maintain than a sustainable economy at high levels. I would like them to think about that, Mr. Speaker.

I am so concerned that my time is running out because I was just getting into full flight. Thank you very much.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand at this time. Unfortunately the member from North Peace River spoke so eloquently and so long that at this point I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.