[ Page 5649 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Prevent the Unnecessary Eviction of Renters When Their Homes are

Proposed for Redevelopment or Conversion to Condominiums (Bill M201).

Mr. Blencoe

Introduction and first reading –– 5649

Oral Questions

Dioxin testing at Woodfibre mill. Mr. Cashore –– 5650

Resignation of David Poole. Mr. Williams –– 5650

Property tax assessments. Mr. Loenen –– 5650

Resignation of David Poole. Mr. Williams –– 5651

Fletcher Challenge Canada Ltd. Mr. G. Hanson –– 5652

Presenting Reports –– 5652

Throne Speech Debate

Ms. Marzari –– 5653

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 5654

Mr. Cashore –– 5658

Hon. Mr. Ree –– 5662

Mr. Guno –– 5665

Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 5667

Mr. Jones –– 5669

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber –– 5673

Mr. Blencoe –– 5676

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today, from the good Kootenay region and right from the heart of the southeast coal, the city of Fernie, are Mayor Tiny Shatosky, Alderman Frank Lento, president of the B.C. Amateur Hockey Association, Alderman Barry Anselmo, Alderwoman Maureen Herbert and Mr. Colin Dean, the administrator. Would this House please make them welcome.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are two very good friends from Smithers, Mr. and Mrs. Hank Hofsink, and I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

Also, I am sure there are others chomping at the bit to introduce a former member of this House, John Parks, who is in the gallery with us today.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I have two introductions: first, Lloyd and Betty Howatt of Maple Ridge. They are here today in the building, and I enjoyed a luncheon with them. Some time ago they paid a small fortune at a fund-raiser of the Social Credit Women's Auxiliary in order to be here today and to have this luncheon, and I really appreciate that. Their roots and connections with the Social Credit Party go right back to 1952, and I would like to ask the House to welcome these two people.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the Premier and I are happy to welcome a constituent, a member of our Social Credit riding executive and also the host of "MLA Open Line," which is our monthly television program. I would like to ask the House to please welcome John Nixon.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to welcome my constituent, John Parks. We share the distinction of having had each other as constituents.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Everyone has introduced Mr. Parks today; he is a very popular chap. Seated next to Mr. Parks is a very prominent Chinese-Canadian businessman and accountant, Mr. Girn Huey. I would ask the House to bid him welcome.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It's a pleasure today to introduce two new friends: Mr. Jack Jenning and Miss Laurie Dee Kinney, who are visiting here from Morro Bay, California. Their 53-foot Canoe Cove was made and sold in British Columbia and is moored in the Inner Harbour; they are on their way to Alaska. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. CRANDALL: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate the House welcoming an uncle of mine here from Alberta, Mr. Alex Ogilvie. I might also remind the House that that's a province which re-elected a free enterprise government yesterday.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The other member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Huberts) and I are very pleased to have the opportunity of meeting some very dear friends. They have an abiding interest in the political scene in the province; I won't define their party affiliation. Nevertheless, we have with us today Mr. Mark Dickinson, Mrs. Roberta Cuppage, Mr. Ladi Holovsky, Mr. Art Kool, Mr. Bud McLean, Mr. Martin Olivier, Mr. John Robertson and Mr. Ron Vissers. In the precinct we also have Mr. Bert Ter Mors and Mrs. Jayne McCurrach. I'd ask the House to join me in giving them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In the gallery today is Jim Carter, who was the Deputy Minister of Education for a long period of time. He is here today maintaining an interest in education. He has brought with him to the Legislature for a tour and a visit to my office six or eight adults accompanying some 50 students from Japan, who are here learning better English over a 35-day period. I'd like the House to make them all welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the precincts today and I think in the gallery at this time is Lorna Kirkham and 34 of her students, who are completing the financial assistance worker education program at Douglas College. They are here visiting the Legislature, and I'll be pleased to meet them later on. Who knows, they may all be employees of ours sooner or later. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

[2:15]

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO PREVENT
THE UNNECESSARY EVICTION OF RENTERS
WHEN THEIR HOMES ARE PROPOSED
FOR REDEVELOPMENT OR
CONVERSION TO CONDOMINIUMS

Mr. Blencoe presented a bill intituled An Act to Prevent the Unnecessary Eviction of Renters When Their Homes are Proposed for Redevelopment or Conversion to Condominiums.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, this bill does five things.

(1) It protects renters — like the ones in Kerrisdale who want only to stay in their homes — from unnecessary eviction when their property is proposed for demolition or conversion to condominiums. It requires, as the 1977 legislation did, that notice shall not be served before all municipal or regional district requirements are met. It makes it clear that municipal or regional district approvals are required before conversion or demolition of rented homes is permitted.

(2) If the appropriate approvals are obtained, then the bill provides for moving expenses to be paid.

(3) The bill provides for reasonable notice for residents forced to relocate following the municipal permit process.

(4) It provides $2,000 compensation for the inconvenience and stress caused by the relocation.

[ Page 5650 ]

(5) It makes the protection retroactive to the opening day of the present legislative session to protect the tenants of Kerrisdale and others now threatened by demolition or eviction, among others who had not been served notice of eviction.

Bill M201 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

DIOXIN TESTING AT WOODFIBRE MILL

MR. CASHORE: To the Premier. I have a copy of a leaked document from Western Pulp Partnership, the Woodfibre mill in Howe Sound. It warns supervisory staff that there will be a survey of dioxins and other chlorinated discharges during the week of March 13-17. It gives details of the times of the tests and what must be done to make sure the mill is better than average — that is, wearing its Sunday go-to-meeting clothes instead of its working clothes at the times the tests are done.

How can this government justify having the mills do their own testing and monitoring of toxic chemicals given the fact that they are being tipped off in advance? Is this what you call open government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm slowly beginning to understand the whistle-blowing act, but I don't really have any knowledge of this leaked document. I would defer to the Minister Responsible for Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

MR. CASHORE: A new question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. These tests were due by January 30, 1988. Is it true that your government gave Woodfibre mill extra time to pretty itself up and get these tests in late?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I would defer to the Minister Responsible for Environment. I have no knowledge of this.

RESIGNATION OF DAVID POOLE

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Last year, before the strenuous caucus meeting in Courtenay, you said you had received Mr. David Poole's resignation and had accepted it. Would you confirm that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The question was that I had said what?

MR. WILLIAMS: That you had received David Poole's — who was your assistant for some 18 months — resignation and had accepted it. Can you confirm that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll need to check on dates. I don't recall that.

MR. WILLIAMS: We might ignore the dates, Mr. Speaker. Would the Premier confirm that he had advised the public through the media that he had indeed received Mr. Poole's resignation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Any quote in the media I will need to check.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the Premier unsure whether Mr. Poole resigned?

MR. SPEAKER: Second member for Richmond.

MR. SIHOTA: The question....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry. The member didn't get up, and I recognized the second member for Richmond. I'll have to let him ask a question, and then we can go back.

PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS

MR. LOENEN: I have a question for the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet). Property assessments in the lower mainland have increased dramatically. As a result, an increasingly larger share of the education dollar is carried by the homeowners in the lower mainland. The average Richmond homeowner will pay $36 more, while in Kimberley they will pay $54 less simply because of the shift in assessment. Will the minister adjust the funding formula so as to ease these dramatic shifts?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'd have to check the accuracy of the dollar amounts the member mentioned. I can answer the member that each year the fiscal framework is adjusted to take into account the changing assessments, once the assessment rolls are finalized. So there are those adjustments. I don't know if the member is wondering about any other adjustments. The only other thing I could say is that we have committed ourselves, as part of the policy directions of the government with respect to the royal commission report, to look at the whole basis for the tax structure over the next 12 months.

MR. LOENEN: I wonder if the ministry might also consider looking at the possibility of levying a minimum tax of, say, $25 on each homeowner throughout the province. Currently, in my case in Richmond, people will pay approximately $400 on average towards the cost of education, whereas there are throughout the province vast numbers of homeowners who do not pay at all. I wonder if the ministry will also consider the possibility of levying a minimum of $25 towards the cost of education on each homeowner, wherever they are in the province.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I thank the member for his question. Certainly we're considering any and all options. I guess the question arises as to whether increasing the amount of money that is paid by the

[ Page 5651 ]

minority of the population in some of the rural districts would in effect benefit the larger districts. So we've got to look at that, along with everything else. In other words, if you charge the people out where there's a population of 10,000 another $25, would that have any significant effect on lowering the taxes in the more heavily populated areas and where the assessments are high. I'd have to look at that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, during the exchange with the first member for Vancouver East, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) made some remarks towards the Chair that I found offensive, and I would ask him to withdraw.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you hear it?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I did. We all did over here. I found them most offensive, especially concerning the Chair. I would ask that he withdraw the remarks. They were along the lines of: "Mr. Speaker, are you part of the same game?"

MR. ROSE: I realize that the government House Leader is a new man on the job, and I know that he might be very sensitive and offend rather easily. But it has been the practice here in this House, since I've been here, that all points of order, should they be necessary, are usually delayed until after the question period is over, because all that does is limit the amount of time we have for question period.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my learned colleague and to yourself, if the remarks had been offensive merely to myself, I would have let them go until after question period; but when they're questioning the integrity of Mr. Speaker and the Chair, I think it's important that they be brought to your attention immediately.

MR. CLARK: I certainly withdraw any inference that the other side may feel in terms of...that I cast aspersions on the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member for that. I can assure the members on both sides that if a point of order is raised and it is felt necessary, the time will not be taken out of question period. I have asked the Clerks to make sure that the time this debate has taken in the last minute or so be added to question period.

RESIGNATION OF DAVID POOLE

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier. Last year you said you had received Mr. Poole's resignation. It seems you are not ready to confirm that today. He was your number one assistant for some 18 months. Are you telling us, Mr. Premier, that at this point you don't know whether he quit or was fired?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The answer is no, I'm not saying that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Then the question is: did Mr. Poole resign?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The answer is yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the Premier explain why anybody who resigned after 18 months should receive $172,000 in severance pay of one kind or another?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If it is at all possible, we could go back some years to see what the policy has been in government with respect to these matters. Perhaps we could go back to '72, '73, '74 and beyond. Similarly, we could consider what it has been over the years in another jurisdiction, say the city of Vancouver, to see how these matters are dealt with when it comes to people in higher positions, be they planners or otherwise. Possibly it will be of some benefit to members of the House to see how these personnel matters are dealt with.

I understand, of course, that personnel matters generally, whether at the municipal level, city level, regional level or here, are of a confidential nature, but I can appreciate that certain things are a matter of practice with all jurisdictions. They may perhaps appear to be one way or another but certainly are a matter of practice. I will be prepared to give some further information on that at a later date. If you wish me to go back as far as 1972, '73 and '74, that might be of some help.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Government Management Services. Can you confirm the amounts that Mr. Poole received in severance and in topping up the pension? And can you advise the House if anybody else in the history of the public service of British Columbia received any amounts of that nature after 18 months' employment with the province?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I have not gone to the trouble of going back many years and examining the amounts of severance that were paid to various people who voluntarily or involuntarily left the service of government. Perhaps we could do that, as the Premier has said. But surely there should be respect for the policy, not only of the provincial government but the federal government, all governments across Canada. How about what goes on in municipalities? I know that not very many members opposite have had experience at the municipal level, whether it be serving on council, as mayors, school trustees or school board chairmen, but certainly those who have had that experience.... The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) is one of the few opposite who has had community experience. Surely those who have had that kind of experience are aware that personnel policy and property procurement are matters where the doors are closed. Those issues are discussed privately among the people, whether they are involved in separation or disputes. Those matters are of a confidential nature, and have been in the past — and will be in the future — kept between the parties involved.

[ Page 5652 ]

I would suggest that anybody opposite who has had that experience would know that's the way it is at all levels of government, whether it be municipal, regional, provincial or federal.

MR. WILLIAMS: Ten grand a month for every month of service was put into severance. Is there anything comparable in the history of British Columbia? Did the minister consider that the average old age pension at the base level is $3,841 a year? Does he think about the real world out there when he's behind closed doors?

[2:30]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I am not privy to all of the negotiations and arrangements that have been made over the years between parties. I do know that it is a matter of great confidentiality when someone parts company, particularly at the senior level.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that there is one example of a member of this House who received some $80,000 after one month of service.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KEMPF: But not taxpayers' money.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Surely, Mr. Speaker, there must be respect for policy; there must be respect for precedence; there must be respect for things that have gone on at all levels of government, as I said earlier — and, indeed, in Crown corporations. I can give you an example from not too long ago where settlements were made in excess of the figure the member mentioned. Those are confidential matters.

In many instances there are contracts in effect between the senior staff and Crown corporations, or senior levels of government, and I would suggest that the members opposite take cognizance of those types of arrangements that are made. They are of a personnel nature. I don't think it is the kind of thing that we want to flag throughout the province. It is a matter of departure of employees and arrangements made on severance.

As the next few weeks unfold, I'm sure we are all looking forward to the report that is being brought in by former Chief Justice Nemetz. We know that report is being prepared. Consultation is ongoing between my senior staff and Chief Justice Nemetz. We look forward to that report which was brought in on the instruction of myself to fully review the policy and the past practice to see whether or not what is being done by the provincial government is indeed of interest to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

FLETCHER CHALLENGE CANADA LTD.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forests regarding people who have worked 25 and 35 years in the Fletcher Challenge mill in Victoria. Yesterday the Minister of Forests announced measures to decrease log exports from the south coast, and the Minister stated that over one million cubic metres fewer logs were to be exported from the province in the first year of this new policy. Has the Minister decided to ensure that the Fletcher Challenge sawmill in Victoria stays open in order that it can take advantage of the increased supply of raw logs in the province?

HON. MR. PARKER: We have created an opportunity for additional wood supply in the southwestern portion of the province. All participants in that marketplace have equal opportunity. Whether or not Fletcher Challenge sees fit to take advantage of that opportunity is up to them. This ministry doesn't direct anybody into one supply or another.

MR. G. HANSON: One of the minister's duties under the Ministry of Forests Act is to encourage a vigorous, efficient and world competitive timber processing industry in the province. This particular operation is being caught in a classic catch-22.

The audit on TFL 46 will not be completed until June. The impact of the tax on the raw logs will not be felt for some time. By the time these occur, that mill will be closed. That mill plows $7 million in payroll into this economy with $2 million in profits last year. Is this a good way to ensure a vigorous timber-processing industry in the province — to allow such a mill to close? It's a catch-22. We are asking you to postpone that to allow these people a fair opportunity to get access to that wood.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, the fee in lieu of manufacture has been raised from 40 percent to 100 percent on surplus logs offered for export. This means that the seller of the logs will not see any advantage to selling his logs offshore or domestically; he has the same opportunity. That goes into play next week — not some months from now — on April 1. The impact is pretty well immediate, and that means the log supply is available.

What will determine what is efficient and appropriate is the marketplace and the economics of the marketplace. We make sure that the wood supply is there. We do that, and we do it very well throughout the province. We've gone one step further for the southwestern region of the province. Those opportunities are available. If Fletcher Challenge sees fit to seize upon it, they'll seize upon it. It's the marketplace that will determine that.

Orders of the Day

Presenting Reports

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a statement which details the

[ Page 5653 ]

amounts remitted or refunded in the '88 calendar year under section 23 of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act.

I have the honour to present the annual report of the Assessment Appeal Board in accordance with section 66 of the Assessment Act. This summarizes the activities of the board for the '88 calendar year.

I am presenting also the annual report of the superintendent of insurance for the '87 calendar year in accordance with section 351 of the Insurance Act. This details the insurance business transacted during that year.

I also have the annual report of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations for the fiscal year ended March 31, in accordance with section 5 of the Financial Administration Act.

I also have the honour to present the public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1988. I am requesting leave of the House to move a motion without notice.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move that the public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1988, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts pursuant to the orders of the House made Thursday last.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if my colleague can make a few remarks about public accounts.

MS. MARZARI: In the fall of 1987, the House met. It was therefore capable of dealing at greater length with the public accounts of 1986-87. It brought within reasonable proximity the completion of the public accounts and the actual ability to look them over.

Here we find ourselves in 1989 just receiving the public accounts for the first time for a previous fiscal year, 1987-88. A full year has gone by. We are looking at figures which are still relevant but, one must admit, a year away from the public disclosure and from open government.

I would suggest that this gives us pause to think in terms of ensuring that the public accounts are prepared within three or four months after the end of a fiscal year, and that the Public Accounts Committee be given leave to sit when the House is not meeting. I put that forward. I have already put a motion on the order paper, and I will pursue that as best I can over the next term.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I have the honour to present the annual report for 1987-88 of B.C. Transit.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

On the amendment.

MS. MARZARI: This morning, before the break, I likened the province to a spring garden, and I'm glad the Premier is in attendance this afternoon. I likened it to a garden that had been allowed to run dry. The throne speech is basically a thin sprinkling of fertilizer on ground too parched to fully receive it.

I found that I discussed the industry and the new minister for women, and I suggested that whoever she will be, she is going to be faced with a contradiction in terms. When it was suggested to me by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid) that the new minister for women could well be a man, I thought: there is proof of the pudding, the contradiction in terms is complete.

Whether he is a she or if she is a he, I suggested that what we needed to do was create good ideas to fill what may well be a good structure. That is what the government is missing right now: good ideas about what women should be. I suggested that a minister should be there to empower a group or a function, not to control a group or a function.

I suggested that women under this government have been referred to only in terms of being mothers or mothers-to-be, not as workers, as equal contributors to the workforce and society.

Attempting to help the new minister along, I suggested too that women in this province wanted three things: equality, security and choice. Equality in terms of their capacity to earn money in the workforce. Security in terms of their ability to feel secure in the workplace, on the street, at home and in terms of income security. And reproductive choice is the foundation stone, the issue that women in this province are feeling right now is the ultimate one for them. Because without reproductive choice, another agenda can be imposed upon women, and women will always be vulnerable.

I did not want to write a terms of reference for the new minister, but I do think there are a few ideas which should come forth now, ideas which have been put forward before by our party, as many of them are in its policy. These ideas have come to many of us over our desks over the last few months and the last few years and are part of our lives. I would suggest that if we were sincere about a women's ministry, a minister for women, we would do a number of things, such as — and these are not exhaustive — immediate funding of the operating costs for Everywoman's Health Centre; the development of a complete education for girls and women around family planning and reproductive choice; an affirmative action plan for women, handicapped, visible minorities, government and Crown employees; a contract compliance act to encourage the promotion of women in the private sector doing business with the province, which would assist women to be bumped up the employability ladder in their professions and their workplaces; women's offices in colleges throughout the province. I think all three of the universities have small rudimentary women's offices which do research. The colleges are also asking for women's offices to deal with problems that women students have in access, in ability to pay their way, in funding, in student loans. Women in colleges are having a rough time.

[ Page 5654 ]

Another thing would be a pay equity bill to encourage and develop a whole series of strategies to give women the dollar difference between their pay and men's pay. There are a lot of ways of doing it. We don't have an ultimate answer yet, but I think it's something you might want to work on, to deal with that 60-cent dollar that women make in the workplace and which we ultimately subsidize. We very often pay the remaining 40 cents in social services and court costs.

Another thing would be a hard-nosed negotiation with Ottawa to build affordable housing for women of all ages: transition housing for when they are abused; second stage housing for when they are ready to come back into the community; family housing for women with children; housing for women in middle years, the women who are very often invisible and neglected by the community; and housing for seniors.

An increase to poverty levels, at least, of welfare rates: women live 65 percent below the poverty level, below the subsistence level. Let's help bring those rates back up to the rates defined as subsistence level by the SPARC review, which I gather will be coming out in a week or so. That SPARC food basket is a pretty good indication of how people on welfare live in our province.

Another need: a bill to recognize women in small business and a special capital fund to assist them to get their equity in line and to get their operating lines of credit when they set up small business. As I said, small business for women is big business for us.

[2:45]

A provision in the Medical Services Plan to cover, perhaps, the costs of adult and child counselling for the survivors of sexual abuse. This is something which hasn't been discussed before, but I know many of you, as I have, have been coming across many women and children in our society who are discovering — who literally didn't know — that sexual abuse has happened to them, that it is an issue for them, that their functioning and their children's functioning has been badly impaired by the fact that they have been abused as children. Alcoholism goes along with that trend, that pattern. I am suggesting that you take a look at Medical Services Plan coverage for the special counselling needed. It is a phenomenal need.

We need an increase in the homemaker rates and the training time to train homemakers, an increase in the number of hours and days that homemakers are capable of working with people, and an expansion of quality nursing home spaces so that when homemaking services are no longer required and a person — a woman, most likely, since women live longer and end up in nursing homes.... Perhaps we can expand the amount of time women spend in their home and then ensure that if they go to a nursing home it's a quality-care home.

Another thing: a move to massively increase child care spaces to reflect more than 10 percent of the need. We need 200,000 spaces in this province for child care — licensed, safe places — and we've got 20,000. We don't need a study. The minister will be studying this; the study is not required; the study can be done in 10 minutes with $10.

Perhaps the most important thing we need is a new language to pull together, between ministries, programs which already exist. That's not so much a new ministry, but a coordinative function: collaboration between ministers; cooperation between programs which exist, whether they be alcohol-abuse programs coordinated with CounterAttack, with special counselling, with programs developed with, perhaps, organizations like MADD, Mothers Against Drinking Drivers; coordination between education programs designed to reduce sexism in school curricula and health department coordination to develop new kinds of programs to deal with women's health needs; coordination with labour to ensure that there's safety in the workplace for women. I'm talking about cooperation between existing departments. It's a new language for this government, one which is difficult for this government to understand completely because it would involve a commitment to rebuild the public service, to put back in place people who can do the job — rather than public servants waiting for their pink slips, public servants would be waiting for new jobs, new challenges, new coordinative programs to be pulled together. This is not something this government has done a very good job of. In fact, you have decimated the civil service.

These are just a few of the ideas which I think would help fill out the new spring garden and bring the parched earth back to life again. They take a lot of commitment. They take more commitment than money, as a matter of fact. They take proper structures built by a civil service. They take proper willpower on the part of ministers or the new minister. These are just a few of the ideas, as I said before. They may help you out, but in the last analysis I'd basically rather that we voted you out.

HON. MR. PARKER: I welcome this opportunity to speak in support of the Speech from the Throne. The throne speech flagged three sustaining priorities for British Columbia: continued economic growth and diversification; preservation of our environment; and an education policy to meet our future needs. I think I would have turned that around just a bit and said that first and foremost we would direct an education policy to meet our future needs, because youth is our key resource; then follows our environment and all the natural resources that come with it. With those two together, we can be ensured of economic growth and diversification in the future. We'll see growth and diversification; we'll see caring for the environment; and we'll see a sustaining economy that will support the education policies we wish to make available to our youth through the teamwork of the various ministries of this government.

Some of the initiatives that the Ministry of Forests has put forth during this mandate in order to support the claims and aims and goals of this Speech from the Throne include a great deal of diversification in the

[ Page 5655 ]

forest industry, the primary thrust being through the small business enterprise program. As many people are aware, we undertook to increase the amount of timber available for this program by recapturing 5 percent of the annual allowable cut of licensees holding replaceable licences. Add that to the existing small business program and a portion of the Forest Service reserve in each of our timber supply areas in the province, and we'll have a minimum of 15 percent of the provincial annual allowable cut available for the small business enterprise program.

We're taking that increased volume to promote value-added industry in the small business sector. Small business is a very important sector in British Columbia. Small business, not only in the forest industry but in a number of other segments in the province, is a major employer and the backbone of the provincial economy. We as a ministry are fostering small business initiative, and we're doing that through the Forest Service to provide the economic growth that provides the funding necessary for all the services that we like to see in this province, including the monitoring of environmental strategies, services for social services, health, education, transportation — all the many items that are provided by government. But they're only provided as long as you have a healthy economy.

Through our small business enterprise program the Forest Service must deal with the preparation and the planning. When we do the planning, we very much pay attention to the environmental concerns through a referral process to the various ministries that are involved. In each stage of that development of the small business program timber sales, we present our planning publicly. We do that at the management and working-plan stage, which is a five-year plan for the small business program in any TSA.

We go on to the development plan, and that too is available for public viewing and input. Then we go on to the cutting plans, which get down to an annual activity. That too is referred to all the agencies and is available to the public. Then we get into the pre-harvest silvicultural plan. That too is vetted by various agencies and the public. Then we get to the cutting permit, and that too.... In this case the cutting permits are usually timber sales, and those are available for vetting by the various agencies and by the public. So we have a very substantial consultative process, and that type of consultation prevails throughout this government. This is the most open government in the history of British Columbia and the most accessible. We certainly do that in the Ministry of Forests.

We move on. When we get through the harvest stage — we monitor the harvest stage to make sure that our licensees are indeed meeting the terms of their contract — we are into the forest renewal stage, and that's our responsibility as a ministry too.

Forest renewal is the responsibility of the ministry in the small business program, but forest renewal is fully the responsibility of all those licensees who hold replaceable licences in this province. Because of that, we see some additional diversification in our economy. We have fostered a substantial silvicultural industry in this province.

There are a number of small businesses springing up throughout British Columbia. They are involved in site preparation, cone collection and tree planting. In those areas where there is overstocking, they're involved in spacing, weeding and thinning. Overstocking happens in natural regeneration situations; it also happens in artificially regenerated areas where we have seed blown in, and the growth of wild seedlings along with the artificially raised seedlings causes overcrowding on the site. It's as important to tend the farm as it is to plant the crop.

So we see a great diversification in the small business sector in British Columbia that contributes very much to the revenues we need to be able to deliver on the things we outlined in the throne speech.

The real key to the small business program has been the focus on the value-added industries. Opportunities in the forest industry in value-added products are just limited by your imagination. I have a number of examples of value-added industry; it's scattered around the province, and I'd like to share them with the House. I think many of us don't realize that the things we heard from across the way here the other day are already happening in this province. They're happening in a big way, and we're fostering it and helping it grow to be a much more substantial segment of our industry.

Believe it or not, MacMillan Bloedel in Alberni has been one of the leaders in value-added products. Many people think that MacMillan Bloedel is just cranking out timbers, dimension, pulp and newsprint. They do a great deal more than that. They are leading the way with some very high tech processing in Alberni, primarily in cedar and hemlock products that are really end-product items. They're ready to go into place in the home or in the furniture — wherever the customer has specified.

That's the key here with not only MacMillan Bloedel, but everybody who has entered the value-added industry in British Columbia. They've learned, and they're doing very well with this new knowledge. I guess it's elementary to most people who just take a look at it from the sidelines. You have to identify what the customer wants and deliver it consistently and of high quality. MacMillan Bloedel is doing that. They're using a number of contract mills in the southwestern portion of the province to help them deliver those products.

They've developed a very interesting item; it's a reconstituted wood product called Parallam. These are substantial timbers; they're about 11 inches by 14 inches in dimension and about 65 or 66 feet in length. From my background in the forest industry, I'd call that a sawmiller's dream, because here we have rectangular logs to put through a remanning process. The only thing you have is sawdust, and that I understand is used in fire-log products. There is very little waste in that process, and Parallam has caught the imagination of construction agencies around the world. It came right out of British Columbia, right out of one of the big bad multinationals called Mac-

[ Page 5656 ]

Millan Bloedel Ltd. I am pleased for British Columbia and for MacMillan Bloedel.

[3:00]

Fletcher Challenge Canada is very much in the forefront in value-added, providing joinery products, paneling, moulding products and a number of specialty items for the European and Japanese joinery industries. They are also going into newsprint. A newsprint mill will provide the same amount of employment for a cubic metre of wood as a sawmill. It's a good place for our logs to wind up — in newsprint products. The employment level is comparable to the sawmill industry.

Canfor Corp. is moving forward into newsprint, but for years they've been in value-added products. They are expanding there too. As a matter of fact, they were the first ones to use sawdust in masonite, that hard particle board that so many of us have used in the past, before the new plastic laminates came along.

Canadian Pacific Forest Products is putting in a brand new sawmill in Tahsis. I know the print media would have you believe that Tahsis is going down the tube, but Canadian Pacific Forest Products is putting in a new sawmill that will be oriented to the Orient. Its products will be custom cut for specialty customers in Japan, China and other places in Asia.

They are also going into newsprint. There is a newsprint plant going into Gold River, and a newsprint plant employs as many people per cubic metre of wood as a sawmill — value-added. It helps to provide the diversification for our economy that is so important to be sure we can deliver the things that people have come to expect of this government.

Not too far up the Island from here, a German family in Chemainus set up Plenk's Wood Centre, which is delivering quality doors and windows to Germany. It's already in place.

So is Woodland Sash and Door in Prince George. Their products are going to Europe and Japan. As a matter of fact, they are working with another value-added product: British Columbia log homes. They are manufactured by a number of manufacturers in British Columbia in a number of locations, such as Penticton, 100 Mile House, and Prince George.

Woodland Sash and Door is providing a unique door and window system that is in keeping with those value-added log homes. It appeals to customers around the world, and they are shipping them around the world.

The sort of initiative that you see in a small business industry is demonstrated at Woodland Sash and Door. They determine that if they can make these frames, they can certainly glaze them. So we have another little sideline happening right in Woodland Sash and Door: glazing. They have gone one step further. If for some reason people do not want to buy windows and doors for a little while, what will they do with their staff? They are very conscientious employers, these small business enterprisers.

I go back to Woodland Sash and Door in Prince George, who have been in operation since 1969. They have never closed their doors or had any layoffs in those 20 years, regardless of the market situations.

They have been versatile and they have been conscientious. They know that without the people in that mill, all they have is a bunch of old steel. It's not worth much without the people. They are the key.

They put their heads together and determined that they could deliver quality pine furniture for Ikea. They have picked several product items that they felt they could deal with very well. They have identified that as their business. The employees have been part of that decision-making and bought into the program. So among other things they provide specialty furniture items to Ikea that are sold over North America.

There is another outfit in Chemainus that is into the same sort of thing: Adwood Manufacturing. There is another outfit in Surrey — B.W. Creative Wood Industries. Their specialty is spindles. They use a great deal of hemlock. It wasn't too many years ago when hemlock was considered a weed species, and the only way we could market it was to call it Alaska pine.

There are a number of things you have to bring to mind to remember that the opportunities in British Columbia are many. Diversification of our economy is the key to recession-proofing. Diversification is the key to our being able to continue to deliver the services people come to expect from us. We see further diversification in the lower mainland. Over in Port Mellon on the Sunshine Coast there is an outfit that is a small business enterprise — again, delivering special forest products cut specifically for Japanese housing. Tyee Timber Products out in Langley is doing cedar and fir paneling and mouldings, special patterns, and providing those extra things. Do you ever wonder where the crossarms come from for telephone poles? That is a specialty item. If you need one, get it from Tyee Timber Products.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PARKER: They're in Langley. They're close to you there, Mark — not too far from you. It probably takes about an hour to drive from there to UBC, I would guess.

Up in Quesnel there is a small business enterprise called C&C Wood Products. They've identified a means of utilizing small-diameter lodge pole pine, which for years has been considered a weed, and they are making specialty paneling and furniture components. Again, it's a small business initiative, and that's what we're fostering with this ministry.

Elkwood Specialties in Maple Ridge is into specialty wood products for Japan. Finishing Touch, as it is called, in Richmond is a small business that puts out mouldings in hemlock and pine.

We haven't just fostered business in sawmilling, solid-wood products or reconstituted wood products. This ministry has helped foster an industry that's known very well in Abbotsford. Conair Aviation is actually known the world round for redesigning aircraft for firefighting purposes. They are a specialty manufacturer. In their development of the technology

[ Page 5657 ]

for redesigning these aircraft, they have provided a number of apprenticeship opportunities for young men and women in the aviation industry. In the past those opportunities have been all too infrequent, and I am pleased to see the thrust that my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) is taking in making post-secondary education opportunities that much better for our young people.

Conair Aviation, with just private initiative, has developed a payroll of some 300 people, with a substantial number of apprentices. They are delivering aircraft around the world. Their most recent accomplishment is the conversion of a small airliner, an F-27. It's a twin-engine turbine aircraft. They've converted it to a water bomber, and they can sell all they can get their hands on to France.

They've provided Trackers to France and Spain. Those Trackers are naval aircraft. They're used for tracking submarines, and they fly off carriers. They are quite a substantial aircraft, built like a bridge — very tough, very popular with the water-bombing services. Conair is the very first in the world to convert that airframe to turbine power, right in Abbotsford.

They've caught the eye of a number of countries. Most significantly, the United States Air Force and Navy are dealing with Conair and getting specialty items built for their purposes. Conair has the expertise, and they are developing more expertise by providing apprenticeship opportunities to our youth in the Abbotsford area.

Other areas where our ministry has been able to help provide diversification, the punch for our economy, are in the various fields of forest research. We've seen a great deal of work done around the province — actually, a great deal of work has been done in genetic improvement since the 1920s — and the Forest Service has been in the forefront in that research. Since then we've seen substantial growth in that field in the number of major licensees: Canadian Pacific Forest Products, MacMillan Bloedel, Fletcher Challenge, Canadian Forest Products, Tolko Industries. A number of corporations throughout the province have seen their responsibility to genetically improve stock so that we can see a faster turnaround in forest renewal in British Columbia, with trees that have better growing characteristics and better wood characteristics.

We have developed a means of detecting lightning strikes around the province — some 40 percent of our forest fires are caused by lightning strikes. We have a network around the province of two dozen lightning locators, allowing us to triangulate and deal with those lightning strikes. Our province is unique in its terrain; a lot of those strikes are in remote areas and must be dealt with quickly, and we're able to do that by pinpointing just where the strikes are. These locators, plus air patrols, have replaced our stationary lookouts for the most part. It's a technology that was developed here in British Columbia. It's very effective, and we have people around the world taking a look at what we are doing.

To deal with those lightning strikes, we developed a rap attack fire suppression system, which provides employment opportunities for young people in British Columbia every fire season. It's a highly selective process; only the fittest individuals get to serve. Rapattack is an acronym for rappel fire attack teams; they rappel from helicopters. These young people, most of them university students, are very bright, very athletic, very competent. As a matter of fact, in the over ten years that we've had rapattack in the province, we've had two minor non-time-loss accidents. I think that speaks very well of our Forest Service, very well of our youth. They're in the vanguard. The U.S. Forest Service attempted to develop this type of a team and had a substantial number of injuries. They stopped the program. Since then they have restarted the program, but using British Columbia techniques.

These young people are very innovative and over the years have developed a series of products that they concocted out of necessity in the field. Necessity is the mother of invention. A number of products are being built by British Columbia manufacturers and actually marketed around the world. Here is some more of the diversification that is so critical, making sure our economy is running in the manner in which it can deliver the sorts of things that are put forth in this throne speech.

Another developing company in British Columbia as a result of Forest Service initiatives is in the field of forest pests: Phero Teck Inc. in Vancouver. Some faculty and graduate students from the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University got together and are providing forest pest control services that are biologically acceptable and, again, in the forefront world 'round. As a matter of fact, a little spinoff from that is a funnel trap that one of the gentlemen there developed. By using secretions from the insects that attract both sexes to the trap, they are able to control forest pests. They also have developed a system that will allow us to control the African killer bee, which is a real problem in a number of areas where we have commercial apiaries. These folks are just a little outfit in the southwestern part of British Columbia, but they're innovative, they're well educated, and the initiative they have demonstrated has put their company into an international mode.

[3:15]

There are many success stories throughout the province. It is creating the environment for these people to take their ideas and actually put them into motion, benefiting all of us in British Columbia as a result with remarkable new products that are environmentally safe and acceptable, products that make our lives better, that improve our productivity, that make us more competitive world 'round. I'm most thankful that we have people of that initiative in British Columbia, and I'm proud that we as a ministry can help to create the opportunities and the support necessary to foster those sorts of undertakings.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I stand here and support the Speech from the Throne and the good things put forth in this speech. I am

[ Page 5658 ]

particularly pleased to see a Premier's Council on Native Affairs. In Terrace, where I live, we're in the centre of some of the heaviest population of natives in British Columbia. We live, worship, go to school, attend the local shopping centres and so on with many natives. Many of them are not only friends but good friends of our family.

I, like a lot of other people, recognize that these are our first peoples and that their concerns are real concerns. We need to better understand how we can meet their goals and our goals and live together in a peaceful manner. The Premier's Council on Native Affairs is an excellent way to help understand one another's goals and objectives.

When I was appointed minister of state on an interim basis covering the North Coast area, I was pleased to invite our native leaders to participate in our advisory committees, and they were pleased to join us. In many cases, I found that it was the first time any of the non-native participants ever took the time to bother to find out what the native peoples' goals, concerns and hurts were. The Premier's Council on Native Affairs is a great step forward in that issue.

In closing, I'd like to touch on something mentioned just briefly in the throne speech, the B.C. Winter Games. This last month, these were held in Nelson. Anybody who has participated in either the B.C. Winter Games or the B.C. Summer Games knows just how much latent talent we have in each of our committees. It's an absolute pleasure to participate in those Games organizations. I'm pleased to have participated in two of them across the province. The talent in our communities is much and varied, and you never know it until you get the chance to bring the volunteers out and support these sorts of undertakings. The Games in British Columbia really bring our communities together. They really get people to focus on the community and what it can offer.

British Columbia has more to offer than any place I've encountered anywhere in the world. I'm honoured to be a part of British Columbia and a part of this government.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I was a little bit concerned about attendance here this afternoon. I'm told by the Deputy Whip of the government that there are some committee meetings going on while the House is sitting. I don't know whether that's the reason, but I do think that since the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) is about to speak, we should call a quorum, bells, and get the members in here.

MR. SPEAKER: The point raised by the opposition House Leader is a very good one, and I think it would be appropriate to ring the bells.

There now appears to be a quorum.

MR. CASHORE: This is the third time that I have risen to speak to a throne speech. Even after three years of having fresh surprises, my House Leader has surprised me again. I do appreciate the support.

In my remarks, I want to concentrate on the issue of the environment and sustainable development. There has been much said about sustainable development, and about the environment and the economy. The Brundtland commission report that the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) referred to yesterday is certainly a document that does not belong to people of any political stripe. It's a document that has had a tremendous impact.

One of the things that is going on right now, as we saw during the federal election, is that people of all political persuasions are involved in the battle to try to win the minds and hearts of people with regard to their understanding, their perspective on what sustainable development is all about. Again, it's a situation of the politicians following the lead of the people. I understand that surveys make it clear that 83 percent of the people of Canada and 87 percent of the people of British Columbia indicate that the environment is the most important issue.

Just remember that the scope of the Brundtland commission is global. I would, on a somewhat somber note, remind my colleagues in the House that there are major problems on a worldwide scale that we are going to have to find ways to address today. We're going to have to find ways to address those issues on a non-partisan basis.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund declared in November that 500,000 children had died worldwide as a result of the tragic situation with regard to the debt of Third World countries. What has been happening, Mr. Speaker, is that instead of nations such as Brazil, just to mention one, tending to matters that are so important in order to be able to feed their children and deal with matters of illness, those countries are tending to the matter of paying off the interest on their enormous debt. This is truly an issue that we as a world community must find a way to address, and urgently, because there's kind of a myth out there that foreign aid flows from the industrialized world to the Third World. But when you really look at what is involved in paying off that debt, the opposite is the case. The wealth is flowing from the Third World to the industrialized world, and this is something that is ultimately going to be a problem for everybody, on a global scale.

How does this relate to the environment? Mr. Speaker, this is one of the reasons that the Brazilian rain forest, the lungs of the earth, is being cut down at an alarming rate. Many hectares every day are being cut down in the rain forest in Brazil so that country can attend to its foreign debt, and that country is therefore deprived of its responsibility to attend to the starvation and illness among many of its children.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech listed several initiatives that the government is planning with regard to the environment. The opposition brought forward, many weeks before the throne speech, its own pro-

[ Page 5659 ]

gram of 22 private members' bills to deal with the matter of sustainable development.

Truly, Mr. Speaker, credibility becomes the issue here — who has the credibility to be seen as the ones who will stand up on behalf of the people of British Columbia, on behalf of the people of the world, and provide the kind of environmental care and protection that is needed. We need people who truly love this planet to be able to function in such a way that we do not continue to damage the environment and that we can deliver a hopeful future to our grandchildren, as they may do for their grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad — and this may be quoted to me again out of context — that the government has pointed out that it plans to take some initiatives with regard to environmental issues. I'm pleased to see that, but I think what we have to recognize when we say that is that it comes down to the question of what is called political will. Who has the political will to fulfill the kinds of promises and commitments being made?

I want to point out that the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan), having been stung by the criticism of a great many people with regard to the oil spill and having been stung by the criticism of some journalists, said in his speech yesterday that he was very critical of the Times-Colonist, in that they had no basis for criticizing him. I hope that his thin skin doesn't cause problems for the good people in his ministry who have spoken out against him — people like Jim Walker, director of the wildlife branch, who in a document that we released several weeks ago wrote: "Many staff have the impression that the performance of the Ministry of Environment is to be evaluated mainly on the basis of whether it...pays its way. It would rather appear to be undermining the original reason for the existence of the ministry." He goes on to say that some "staff may still have the impression that we were supposed to be stewards of the environment."

Mr. Speaker, this is an indictment of this ministry, of the political interference that has taken place with regard to this ministry, of the loss of staff in that ministry who have had their ability to fulfill their responsibility to protect the environment severely abused and damaged by two governments' programs of restraint.

Mr. Walker goes on to ask: "Why are we cutting back at the time the government has supposedly made a public commitment to ensuring that environmental concerns will be a higher priority...than ever before?" Why indeed, Mr. Speaker, when the minister yesterday admitted that it was in 1985, more than two years ago, that this government apparently endorsed the Bruntland commission report? How can they say that they endorse that report when they have such an abysmal track record?

Jim Walker went on to say: "In actual fact, we have rarely been worse off. The apparent paradox of the government's concept of sustainable development is tied very closely to the declining morale of our own staff." What then, Mr. Speaker, is sustainable development? What is the role of the Environment ministry? Well, Mr. Speaker, sustainable development comes down to a question of political will. Does the B.C. government have the political will to put in place what it says it's going to? I would say that its track record says beyond a shadow of doubt that it doesn't, in view of the well-documented lack of public confidence, of editorial comment and of the angst that comes through from very good people who work within this ministry, who constantly have their legs cut out from under them in their attempts to fulfill their responsibility with inadequate staff and direction.

[3:30]

Here are just a few examples of a great many issues that are tremendously problematic in the province right now and that indicate that the Minister of Environment has failed. First of all there is the fast-tracking of the Vancouver Island pipeline. That fast-tracking is being put forward as being for environmental reasons. As so often is the case, it uses the argument that this is going to protect the environment, but what about fast-tracking through the Coquitlam watershed, as my colleague from Coquitlam Moody has recently pointed out? What about the effect of fast-tracking when you haven't got adequate environmental impact studies to prove that the finest drinking water supply in the world of any city or region of that size is not going to be negatively impacted? We have to be very concerned about the quality of the water that that is going to go through. To say that they want to start construction in two months' time is absolutely unconscionable; it is ridiculous.

As I said, sustainable development comes down to a question of political will. As well as the fast-tracking of the Vancouver Island pipeline, there is evidence of non-enforcement of the B.C. waste management regulations in the case of persistent non-compliance. I'm referring here to the report that the University of Victoria did in reference to Vancouver Island and northern regions.

Third there's the refusal to release information on the plans of mills to reduce dioxin levels. And fourth, there's the embarrassing failure to defend the British Columbia environment following the oil spill.

There's the failure to put meaningful public participation procedures in place and land use planning, such as in the case of the Cache Creek area landfill.

The Environment ministry has shot itself in the foot by destroying the environment lab and eliminating its opportunity to provide evenness in terms of protecting the public good in the work of testing water samples, checking calibrations on emissions and ensuring that the proper standards in waste management permits are fulfilled.

Seventh is the failure to adequately monitor the quality of air emissions. As Mr. Sandberg has pointed out, there is the lack of checking for accuracy.

There's the scandal of the False Creek lands: the way that deal was handled, that it did not even take into consideration the enormous cost of cleaning up that site, and the fact that the cost is going to be left

[ Page 5660 ]

to the people of British Columbia, according to the very bad deal that was struck.

There's the lack of leadership from this government with regard to waste management, the after-the-fact approach to recycling that's coming forward, maybe after many other more dramatic types of solutions have been dealt with, such as incineration. Surely in the hierarchy of ways of dealing with waste management, number one should be recycling. That's where the leadership of this government should be coming from.

Tenth there's the situation with liquid waste, in which this government has refused to provide the leadership necessary to enable municipalities, in cooperation with the provincial and federal governments, to get on with the task of proper treatment of liquid waste so that we're not dumping raw sewage into the waters of British Columbia. We're finding that the desecration of our environment is more and more impacting on such things as crustacean fisheries and that toxic substances are showing up in finfish.

Looking at the role of the ministry — what is that role? Is it to administer a handful of acts and regulations? No. It is a mandate as big as all outdoors, Mr. Speaker. That is how the Minister of Environment has to understand his mandate, and the Premier has to have the political will to enable that minister to fulfill his task in that way. Failure to understand the mandate has resulted in a botched job of responding to the oil spill. There wasn't the political will.

When the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday in reference to the Minister of Environment, he quoted him as having said: "We're ready to follow; just tell us what to do." The minister asked across the floor: "When did I say that?" Well, I wish the minister was here, because he said it on a CBC morning program. He said that the Coast Guard has the lead role and he's prepared to follow. This is horrendous. There's no political will in that type of attitude; there's no vision. It's a myopic view. When there is no vision, the people perish, and this is what's happening to this planet. There are people in charge who do not have the vision that is going to enable the protection of this planet, which is so necessary.

To make that point, I refer now to a document from the Ministry of Environment, file 61.153, dated February 17; it's signed by Bob Langford and Brian Turner of the planning and assessment branch. It lists 30 items for a meeting of directors within this ministry. It says:

"These are generic compliance and enforcement issues. The following list of issues has been developed from discussions with regional and Victoria staff and through a reading of the Canadian literature pertaining to enforcement and compliance. The topics, which are tabulated below, will be presented more fully in the discussion paper which is being completed for the Yellow Point meeting."

I'm going to read, somewhat quickly, these 30 items. But the point I want to make very clear to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the people of British Columbia is the language. This is not benign language; it's not just one- or two-word headings. This is language that contains the passion and concern of the employees of the Environment ministry, whose hearts are broken over what they see going on out there. And you cannot fail to see in this case that the medium is the message. Here's the list:

"l. Low public credibility of the ministry regarding enforcement of the province's environmental legislation.

"2. Lack of political support for enforcement of environmental legislation.

"3. Traditional reactive...role of the ministry.

"4. Lack of use, or improper use, of some of the ministry's existing enforcement instruments.

"5. Many aspects of environmental protection for which the ministry should be responsible are not enforceable because of lack of jurisdiction, authority, agreements or procedures.

"6. Legislative inconsistencies among acts in terms of compliance and enforcement authority and procedures.

"7. Lack of ministry principles, policy or strategy for either compliance or enforcement.

"8. Lack of ministry analysis and priorization of compliance and enforcement issues and remedies.

"9. Lack of inter-program objectives for compliance and enforcement.

"10. Lack of inter-program objectives for environmental conservation and protection of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

"11. General lack of specific written policies and procedures for each program regarding compliance and enforcement.

"12. Regional and program inconsistencies in application of compliance and enforcement.

"13. Lack of consistent issue-specific enforcement processes to yield an immediate response capability for minor infractions.

"14. Uncertainty regarding native Indian rights and the ministry's ability to enforce their activities.

"15. Current menu-enforcement options too narrow to respond to the range of compliance in enforcement situations confronting the ministry.

"16. Lack of enforceable permits and licences due to their terms or conditions being vague, indefensible or unmeasurable.

"17. Few or no economic incentives for abatement or conservation.

"18. Inadequate number of compliance and enforcement staff or funds in the ministry to do the job well.

"19. Inadequate training of technical enforcement staff to respond to the broad range of situations encountered.

"20. Lack of a public education reinforcement or support when complaints are received from the public.

"21. Poor effectiveness of prosecutions, lengthy process, low fines and penalties, inadequate support and training.

"22. Lack of experienced and dedicated environmental prosecutors.

"23. Lack of trained and experienced expert witnesses in the ministry.

"24. Ticketing systems incomplete, inconsistent, not supported and used inappropriately.

"25. Inadequate monitoring data upon which to base compliance and enforcement activities.

"26. Lack of critical technical and economic analysis of major compliance issues....

[ Page 5661 ]

"27. Lack of analysis and interpretation of data to determine environmental risks and abatement priorities.

"28. Lack of economic analysis to determine abatement costs in relation to incentive policy options.

"29. Lack of support for the development of environmental audit programs in the private sector and municipal government to encourage environmental accountability within the corporate structure.

"30. Excessive reliance on negotiation and coercion for the attainment of compliance in instances where this is inappropriate.

Mr. Speaker, this is an indictment of the political albatross that this government is to this ministry. This is horrendous. We find here in the throne speech a government trying to do a patchwork job in dealing with a legacy of neglect and abuse that has gone on for many years, and somehow they hope that the public will roll over and play dead, and somehow give them a pat on the back and say that what they're doing is fine. Mr. Speaker, we have evidence in this that there is no environmental will within this government whatsoever, and it has not been a part of their makeup for quite some time.

In response to the UVic study that pointed out that there was non-enforcement of persistent offenders, the minister said: "Look, that study was completed in 1987. That was before I was the minister. I'm a new minister, and I am an enforcer." So with reference to the Vancouver Island and North regions, I would want to put the minister on notice with this question: what specifically, Mr. Minister, have you done with regard to the information that was contained in that? I have heard the minister speak on this in public. He tends to reply to a question about apples with an answer about oranges. What he ends up doing is talking about prosecutions in the lower mainland, which was not the area studied. So, Mr. Minister, we on this side of the House, in the name of political will, want to know just how much you have cleaned up your government's act in terms of the regions that were studied by that UVic report.

The fact that the minister would say "I am an enforcer" is a sick joke. I refer you to a lawyer, Peter Ryan, a private citizen who filed a private prosecution against the Woodfibre mill. It was a well-documented case. It was done under the federal Fisheries Act, using the Criminal Code. The minister has indicated that he wants to see members of the public having the opportunity to do their part in the name of sustainable development in monitoring. But here is a private citizen who is concerned about what is happening in Howe Sound. He is concerned about the loss of the fishery and about what's happening to the people who live in the area. What did this enforcer's ministry do? It stood by while the Crown prosecutor's office by an executive decision sent a person to visit the court registry in Squamish. When they went to Squamish they quashed the proceedings. This means that they don't have the political will. It means that they aren't out there enabling the process to take place whereby this type of situation will be dealt with. Mr. Speaker, this is cause of grave concern to the people of this province.

It was the province that decided to stay the proceedings, proceedings by a private citizen who wants to do his part to protect the environment. It needs to be recognized that the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) has the power to stay such proceedings. We have to ask how this squares with the rhetoric of this government, as contained within this throne speech. I think that this is why we need to see this government come in with access-to-information legislation. We are providing them with the work that needs to be done so they will know how to do it. It's contained within the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There is no reason why they may not do that.

The kinds of concerns that have been brought forward from people within the ministry come from dedicated, ethical people who are committed. These people need to be taken seriously. I want to say, in recognition of the minister, that when Mr. Jim Walker's statement was released, the minister stated publicly that Mr. Walker is a valued employee and that it was not the ministry's role to punish that individual. I want to commend the minister for that; I think that was appropriate. Surely these are heartfelt concerns. These devastating critiques that come from within the minister are really virtually cries for help.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I thought that I might stand up in this house and call for the minister to resign, in view of the very serious problems that exist within this province, but I have looked over the other members of cabinet and the back bench, and I don't believe there is anyone there who has the political will. There's no one who could take this minister's place, so I am not going to call for him to resign. However, what happens in cabinet when he goes there to defend the environment and when he is not able to fulfill his role?

[3:45]

I would remind the members opposite — for anybody who would say they endorse it — that the Bruncitland commission points out that the ministry of the environment must be represented at the highest level of decision-making. What do we get in this throne speech? We get a ministry of the environment replacing a ministry of the environment. That's a very interesting and unique move. I would think that maybe the people who thought this up have resurrected the prayer room. Possibly this is a new religious concept of reincarnation. How do you replace a ministry of the environment with a ministry of the environment? I find that quite confusing. I heard this explanation: that ministry was actually demoted when he became a minister of state for one of the fiefdoms in the province. If that's the case, why wasn't it announced at that time that that ministry was being demoted in terms of its relevance within the cabinet?

Now there's an inner cabinet in this province, and that's the planning and priorities committee, or policy and priorities committee. Anyway, it's that committee of cabinet. That minister is not on that

[ Page 5662 ]

committee, and therefore the environment is not represented in this province at the highest level of decision-making. As Brundtland says, this therefore relegates the Minister of Environment to a janitorial role. Unless the Minister of Environment is present when those decisions are being made, how can we expect that it is a proactive role that's taking place? All the talk about new rules is not worth the paper they're written on when we have such stark evidence of a lack of political will that goes deeply into the heart of this government and right into the Premier's office.

I did not come here to bury the minister. I didn't come here to praise him, but to call on the Premier to bring the environment into the inner cabinet. Let him show the political will. Let him show that he really means it. Let him show that he understands what he agreed to do when he said he endorsed the Brundtland commission. You know the line from My Fair Lady, "Don't talk of love, show me"? Get them to show us something that indicates they mean what they say, because the legacy of the last several years is that they really do not take this part of our life seriously.

Lyndon Baines Johnson said: "I'm the only president we got." I suppose the minister could say: "I'm the only minister we've got." I do not see the inadequacy of the environment ministry as something that is a problem of him as individual. It's a problem of the thinking and the philosophy of this government, and that is a deep-rooted problem. It is a problem that does not recognize the need to be supporting the very ground of our being, the environment which makes it possible to have an economy, which makes it possible to have sustainable development.

I would say this in conclusion: without meaningful public input, there can be no sustainable development. Without taking native people seriously with regard to their rights, there can be no sustainable development. Without access to information, there can be no sustainable development. Without environment represented at the highest cabinet level, there can be no sustainable development. Without recycling as a first response to waste management, there can be no sustainable development. Without a demonstrated track record on the ability to protect the environment for our children's future. Without political will, there is no sustainable development. This government stands at the bar of the court of public confidence. It stands condemned.

HON. MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on your election as Deputy Speaker of this House. I know that with your vast past experience you will adjudicate, in a fair, equitable and responsible manner, the problems we may have between the various sides of the House from time to time.

It's a pleasure to stand here today as the ministry responsible for the first Solicitor-General's ministry in the province of British Columbia, which was created last September. Solicitor-General's offices are not unique in Canada; we have them in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and even in the federal government of Canada. But it is unique to British Columbia, and I have the honour to be the minister responsible.

Three main mandates or provincial responsibilities have been brought together under the one ministry: police services, corrections and the motor vehicle branch. We do have other ancillary responsibilities, but it is mainly to those three that I have been addressing a great deal of my attention. Certainly there are other things, like the very important provincial emergency program. I guess one of the greatest values that the people of British Columbia have through their government is the provincial emergency program, which has some 6,700 volunteers. It's a measure of the people of British Columbia that that number of them are volunteers to assist our community in the event of emergencies.

With respect to the three major components of the ministry, in essence they designate the responsibility of the ministry as being that of public safety. I think the main product of our ministry is public safety. As a result of looking at it from that point of view, I have taken a great initiative towards traffic safety, a section of the public safety, to try to make it safer for us as members of the community to travel on the highways and byways of this province. The statistics of one person killed every 14 hours on the highway and one injured every 12 minutes on the highway are completely unacceptable to me.

In supporting the Speech from the Throne, I was very pleased to note that the speech makes reference to the traffic initiatives and also to the proposal for bringing in fines in addition to penalty points for offenders on our highways for moving traffic offences. From that point of view, I am certainly proud to stand here in support of the throne speech.

In addition to public safety on the highways, the other public safety aspect is that we can be safe in our homes from attack by other people — that is, a custodial function in terms of those who commit serious and violent crimes against the community. In that aspect, the ministry is upgrading a large number of the correctional institutions and always endeavouring to make them safer for us in our homes, so that we don't have to fear.

It is naturally with great distress that we had this breakout from the Wilkinson facility yesterday morning. It is distressful in that here are three individuals who have not been adjudged as criminals yet; they were there on remand. They have been charged with very serious crimes against the community; the most serious possible crime of all — that is, murder. They certainly should have been kept in strictest custodial conditions.

Indeed we thought that they were, in that institution. The institution was basically constructed — and the specifications were set — to prevent people from breaking out. I don't think they were looked at from the aspect of someone trying to break in. That is in essence what took place there; it was help from people outside that allowed them to escape. It was people, in a sense, from outside breaking into the prison to create the access for them to get out. I admit

[ Page 5663 ]

the accomplices they had from outside did not go into the prison, but they made that opening big enough so those inside could get out.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REE: Actually, it was felt that that type of institution, unlike Oakalla, which is quote, question mark, period.... I think that says enough for Oakalla. The Wilkinson institution is completely different and would not need additional perimeter patrols because of its construction and design.

Since the event, we have added on two additional staff members at Wilkinson and hope this will not take place until we complete the full study and look at the options we have to make the institution safer than it is now. Obviously it's not safe when there is outside assistance.

As I said, great effort is going on to create more updated institutions. We have the remand centre being constructed in Surrey. We have the Fraser institute up in your riding, Mr. Speaker, being constructed. Both these institutions should be finished in late 1990 or earlier. We have a women's correctional centre in the south end of Burnaby under construction. We've just recently opened the Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre in Kamloops. There's a facility in Prince George under construction. We're looking at a new youth facility in Kamloops, and also I hope to eventually have the replacement of Willingdon in Burnaby.

That will bring British Columbia into the twenty-first century as far as institutional facilities for prisoners are concerned. I think they are places that we can be very proud of. The responsibility is not just to keep the prisoners within four walls; we have a responsibility to allow the rehabilitation of these prisoners so that we can let them back into the community as valued members of the community who can contribute to our community. It is necessary to have institutions which will, in essence, help us in the rehabilitative mode rather than just the complete confinement.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment about an event that is going to be happening in this province this year. It is one that very few people know of. It is a great event in the city of Vancouver. There has not been a great deal of advertising of it. We certainly hear about the Commonwealth Games coming to Victoria in due course, but this event is far greater and bigger than the Commonwealth Games. It is the second-largest sports Olympic in the world. The ordinary Olympics are the largest; this one is next in size. From July 29 to August 6 this year the British Columbia Police and Fire Athletic Federation will be hosting the World Police and Fire Games III in greater Vancouver. This is the third time it has been held. The first one was held in San Jose. Two years later it was held in San Diego, and in 1989 it is being held in Vancouver.

[4:00]

For the third Games we are expecting between 6,000 to 7,000 athletes to take part in the sporting events. With their accompanying families this figure should rise to around 15,000 people altogether coming from.... The goal is 30 countries; 27 countries are already listed as participating. If I might, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to mention them: Canada, United States, Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Tobago, England, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France, the Netherlands, West Germany, Belgium — the European Economic Community countries — Austria, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Hong Kong, Macao, Japan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Bermuda and the Virgin Islands.

The people in my ministry — the RCMP and municipal police forces, and the corrections people — will all be participating and having a high profile in these games. In addition, fire departments around British Columbia will be participating.

Some 44 events will be taking place, all the way from archery to wrestling. In between there is crosscountry, triathlons, tug-of-war, volleyball, marathons, karate, judo, horseshoes, handball, golf, etc. It is going to be a really exciting time. Up to now it has fairly well been ignored. We have talked more about the Commonwealth Games here in Victoria, but these Police and Fire Games are a big event worldwide, and I think they are something we can be very proud of.

I hope all members of this House will participate by attending these events from time to time. They will be taking place, as I said, in greater Vancouver. That includes B.C. Place Stadium, the facilities at UBC, Simon Fraser University and Central Park in Burnaby. Minoru Park will be the site for the track and field events. Gymnasiums located throughout the city... Jericho Beach will be the venue for the sailing events. English Bay is the location for the open-water swim, as well as the triathlon event. Other events will take place at the Vancouver Aquatic Centre.

I think it will be an exciting time for greater Vancouver, and certainly for the police and corrections people in my industry.

I guess in the throne speech we often comment on our own ridings. Mine, as you know, is North Vancouver–Capilano. I think it's one of the most desirable places in the province, but I'm very pleased this year that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) has put out for tender the construction, eventually, of an overpass at the intersection of Lonsdale and the Upper Levels Highway. I've spoken on this issue.... I guess the first time was in 1979, and since those days I've spoken many times on it — not necessarily here, but I've worn out the carpet on the way to the various Ministers of Highways.

It's almost like a birthday this year to have it finally announced. The people of North Vancouver–Capilano — in fact of all of the North Shore — and those who travel to Whistler and use that highway are very pleased.

Now that I've got that one going, maybe I should start talking about the next one. But I don't know, since it's taken me ten years to get this one, whether

[ Page 5664 ]

it will take me ten years to get the next intersection at Westview and the Upper Levels.

MR. JONES: What's the completion date?

HON. MR. REE: It will be about two years.

MR. JONES: After the election.

HON. MR. REE: When I will be back here. You bring up an interesting issue there, and I guess we should feel kindly to the two new members from Point Grey and Nanaimo. I see that they also will swell the educational background of the majority of the members of the opposition. Most of them come from that elite section of our community: teachers, college instructors, professors and that sort of thing. The majority of the members of the opposition come from the educational side. I do recognize that there are a few others.

We don't have, except possibly the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller).... He's about the only true, old CCF working-type person that gave the great impetus to the old, honourable CCF which the opposition no longer represents. They have gone for it and now they are participating in glasnost. They switched around. The orders have come from Moscow because of the new change, the new attitude.

We have the Leader of the Opposition standing up here. We have the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who has sat in this House over 20 years, I imagine, now turning round and saying he has learned he was wrong. Now, after 20 years here, he has just learned. They remind me of Mexican jumping beans: flipping and flopping back so quickly you can't tell which side is up. It's interesting. I certainly commend the member for Prince Rupert. He's about the only one that is really of the background of the people that formed the CCF, which was a most commendable political party.

Mr. Member, I would love to see that member introducing the piece of legislation they're talking about: banning the export of logs. I would like to have him stand up and tell us about the ills of exporting logs in British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: Are you defending the export of raw logs?

HON. MR. REE: Some logs should be exported, yes. But I would like you, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, to turn around and say that you are averse to it, and I don't think you will.

MR. MILLER: Are you defending the export of raw logs?

HON. MR. REE: Yes.

I sat at a table one time with the Leader of the Opposition, and I remember a person there telling him that he was the best thing that ever happened to Social Credit, and I agree. That is why I was really very pleased with the results of the last four by-elections. Had they gone the other way the Leader of the Opposition would not be there any longer. He's the best thing for us at the next election, and it's final elections that count. At the next election we know how the people of British Columbia will go because they know they can't understand or trust what the philosophy of the opposition is going to be from one day to the next.

They talk about allowing people to acquire capital, but I look at their proposed legislative program.... If anyone wanted to kill the number one industry of this province, the forests.... That's their goal. Moratoriums — stop, do this, do nothing. They've got two acts in there that say not to do anything. But that has always been the philosophy of the Leader of the Opposition. He did nothing as mayor of Vancouver except put up barricades which stopped people from traveling down certain roads. He was against everything else, and he still supports that. The people of British Columbia should look at that proposed legislation and understand what that will do to the whole economy of this province: it will kill it.

MR. MILLER: Why don't you defend the Premier?

HON. MR. REE: I will defend the Premier. I have defended the Premier, and I continue to defend the Premier. To me he's the best man for leader of this province. This province is now economically better off than it has ever been before. For a team to do what this government has done, it has to have a quality, top-notch leader, and that's what we have in this province. I'll defend our Premier any time, but I sure as heck would be embarrassed to defend your leader.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REE: We want you to keep your leader, because he's the best thing for us.

I would love to hear comments on the pipeline from the new and existing members for Nanaimo, in comparison to the comments by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), who again was calling for moratoriums. "Hold up, stop, don't do anything" — that's what we've always had from the opposition; that's what happened between '72 and '75.

But as I say, I am very proud to stand up here and support the throne speech. I think it is the best throne speech I have heard in my ten years in this chamber.

MR. MILLER: The Premier said it was the best in the history of this province.

HON. MR. REE: That may very well be, Mr. Member. He may be right. I am judging it only on my ten years of experience here. It was the most positive throne speech, the most definitive as to what this government is going to do this session. Therefore, when the vote is called next week, I will be only too proud to stand up on the yea side.

[ Page 5665 ]

MR. GUNO: I can't help but make a comment on the last speaker's closing remarks. I think that you have damned the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) with excessive praise about his CCF roots — but we'll take it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not an elitist like the rest of you.

MR. GUNO: You know all about elitists.

Anyway, it's good to be back, Mr. Speaker. It's been nine months. These believers in democracy have decided to call this forum back into session. I genuinely feel that it is a privilege to take part in the throne speech debate, even if there is really little to debate about this particular one.

Throne speeches, I gather, are a blueprint setting out the government's agenda for the future. But as throne speeches go, this one is rather a mixed bag. In fact, it's all over the map. It touches on all sorts of things: the environment, education, the economy. It even talks about setting up a new ministry for women's affairs, a Premier's council on native affairs, and so on. I am reminded of Stephen Leacock's comic imagery of the cowboy who runs out of his house, jumps on his horse, and proceeds to ride out in all directions.

This newfound interest in all these matters by the Socred government would be laughable if not for the fact that it is an implicit — actually explicit — admission of neglect in all these vital areas.

I think one cannot be faulted for asking whether this newfound conversion is genuine or the usual cynicism of this government to try and hoodwink the public, to regain the public favour that they've lost so much of in the last while, whether it is an attempt to buy back public confidence. I don't think it's going to work; I think most of the speakers from this side have pointed out the reason why.

[4:15]

There is a discernible pattern here. If you look at the world scene, you see that these right-wing governments have suddenly become concerned about the environment. You read about Thatcher's newfound interest in the environment, in social safety nets. You see Mulroney when the election was called talking about his newfound concern about the environment. And of course, we have George Bush, who talks about a kinder and gentler nation. There is kind of a flip-flop from the other side that has a fairly discernible pattern, but it also has a definite hollow ring to it.

As I said, this kind of conversion is, I think, a confession that their laissez-faire ideology is losing public support. The public is becoming more and more concerned about the price of this kind of untrammelled capitalism in terms of environment degradation — which is global — and the growing disparity between rich and poor. Some time ago, President Kennedy talked about the rising tide lifting all vessels; this particular rise in the economic tide lifts only a few. The rest, especially in the north, are mired into the deep, absolutely out of sight.

I think a lot of this was captured in a speech in the movie Wall Street, where the main character made a speech to the members of a particular company. He talked about greed: that greed is good, it works, it is the engine of our economy, and so forth.

We don't support that approach, Mr. Speaker. The New Democrats are for growth and the creation of wealth, but not at any cost. I support the leader's speech the other day, wherein he sets out some pretty realistic long-term priorities for our province. He talks about managing our natural resources to provide sustainable economic opportunities for working people. I think that the people in the north will wholly support this concept, because it doesn't only mean sustainability; it also means real decentralization of decision-making. It recognizes that local people are best able to judge what economic priorities are suitable for their region.

Our leader talked about managing our natural resources to provide sustainable economic opportunities for resolving resource and land use conflicts, to move away from the myopic view that this government has in terms of single resource use.

Another priority identified in the leader's speech was increasing the level of value-added opportunities, thereby generating new jobs, especially in the north. The Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) asked if we were against banning log exports. I don't think that we're so insensitive as to say that we should have a total ban now. There ought to be a transition for the people who have to depend on log exports right now, because there is nothing else for them; there is no alternative. In Stewart they have been talking about creating a value-added mill.

Our leader also talked about protecting the quality of our environment for families and children. If you only drive the Nass Valley, you will see the need for immediate attention in terms of protecting our environment. The fact is, there was incredible mismanagement of the forest resource there, and as a result we have an economic backwater, where in each community it is not unusual to have something like 90 percent unemployment. For the children in that area there is no future while we are under this particular government, which is insensitive to these kinds of problems.

Finally, another priority that the leader spoke about was preserving our beautiful scenery and wilderness resources for future generations. Atlin, which is one of the biggest areas, has only one conservation officer. Many management decisions in our forest policy are based on wholly inadequate data. I just can't see how we can adequately protect our wilderness resources as long as this very basic agency is underfunded.

Mr. Speaker, not only will the New Democrats put forward concrete actions to show our commitment to sustainable development, but we will continue to develop the concept to demonstrate the possibilities that flow from this exciting program. As I said, it doesn't deal just with economics. It deals with government. It deals with a way of life, new values that we have to take into account. It certainly

[ Page 5666 ]

presents better opportunities for the people in the north.

My biggest beef about the throne speech was that it said very little about the concerns of the people who live in northern and rural communities. It concentrates on the southern lower mainland. There is nothing about economic initiatives to provide more new jobs for our young people so that they would not be forced to leave their homes in order to find jobs in the south. While the throne speech touches on issues that have been ignored in the past, it is consistent in not dealing with the concerns of northern people.

There is much challenge in living in an area like Atlin. For people there, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Sometimes we in the north feel somewhat alienated because of the indifference of our southern neighbours. This government has done little to bridge that gap.

Today we heard the minister of state talk about decentralization, although that was not dealt with in the throne speech, which is curious in light of the fact that they expended $8 million last year to launch this rather curious distortion of the word "decentralization."

I have an editorial from the Terrace Standard, dated March 1, entitled "Road to Votes." It talks about the fact that in B.C. you spell progress p-a-v-e-m-e-n-t — miles and miles of it. It talks about politicians loving pavement, for it spells something that is being done. I want to quote a couple of paragraphs about this whole process of so-called decentralization.

"Lately, this process has been refined through two areas: the creation of economic development regions and the release of a provincial transportation strategy. The first is being used by the provincial government as a way of saying it is decentralizing power, while the second is supposed to give us an indication of what is needed into the next century.

"What we have now is a committee of northwest mayors and others designated by the provincial government to give advice on transportation needs. The idea is that this committee draws up a list, it's given to a minister of state for this economic development region, who then gives it to cabinet, which then makes some sort of decision. No real power is given to this committee. It won't be able to allocate budgets and won't have any control over events once the action moves to Victoria. What it will do is neatly fit into the provincial government's public relations machine. Any action coming out of Victoria will be construed as having been the idea of this transportation committee. Everything will be nice, neat and tidy. There are enough votes for all the miles and miles of pavement."

Just recently the committee on transportation was in my area holding hearings, receiving presentations. The whole process will probably take about a year. By the time it comes down, decisions will be made about the transportation priorities of this province, and once again the highway priorities in the north will be ignored. So much for decentralization.

I want to talk about the creation of the Premier's Council on Native Affairs. I think the Great White Father is alive and well and living in Victoria in the guise of the Premier. He does send forward his emissary, the well-meaning member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber), to meet with Indian leaders and elders, who will patiently listen and receive this person. But as an aboriginal person, I find the concept of the Premier's council an affront to our people; it is highly paternalistic. It's another advisory group set up to delay dealing with this important issue. This problem has been studied to death. It has been studied since 1968 and even beyond that. I would refer the government to the Coolican report, which sets out a comprehensive outline as to how this matter can be dealt with.

If the Premier feels that this is an effort to get the aboriginal people to blow off steam and to divert attention from the main problem, it's not going to work. The government has not come to grips with the fact that the first nations have aboriginal title — that is borne out by a growing number of legal judgments — and they want to negotiate. I don't think this problem is going to go away. No matter how this government attempts to dance around the issue, it's going to be there. We have a new generation of leaders that is going to continue the fight. I think it's in the interests of this province, of the people of British Columbia, that this matter be dealt with fairly and that a negotiation process begin. The trinkets-and-beads approach will not fool the aboriginal people, who want nothing short of a just resolution of their aboriginal rights.

As I said, there was very little mention of economic initiatives with regard to the north. A number of committees have been established to study a range of issues, but they are really geared to show that the government is attempting some form of decentralization. I think it's a sham; it continues to circumvent the established political process by not providing local governments with the kind of authority they need to deal with local problems and local priorities.

This government can't be serious about its newfound interest in the environment. I think it's almost antithetical to its whole philosophy of laissez-faire. This government has a mind-set; it's all for big bucks for a few, big business for a few, big power for a few. It ought to look at what Eric Klerans and Walter Gordon have to say in their book, The Wrong End of the Rainbow: The Collapse of Free Enterprise in Canada. These guys do know about free enterprise. They talk about the new role of money. I want to quote a couple of passages, just for the edification of the people on the other side of this House, who have a penchant for money on its own.

[4:30]

"The purpose of a financial system is to channel money into productive uses, to promote the kind of investment that will increase the output of goods and services and so contribute to the improved standard of living of people everywhere." It talks about the utilization of these funds: "These investment funds will not only be in factories and research but in the improvement of human skills, education and health, as well as in the development of an infrastructure of transportation, communication and resource technol-

[ Page 5667 ]

ogy." It further talks about the objective of the state, which is to develop, grow and produce a suitable standard of living for its people. It is not, or ever ought to be, primarily an instrument for the enrichment of individuals and corporations."

In terms of some specific items that impact on my constituents in Atlin, I want to turn briefly to education. I think that the need to invest in the improvement of human skills of northern people is as urgent as it is for the people in the south. There are particular challenges in providing education for northern people. Costs of materials and transportation are generally higher. The problem in dealing with these higher costs is that the funding formula has often been unpredictable, so that it has been very difficult for many of our educators to consistently plan from year to year.

Things that are taken for granted in the south — extracurricular activities like traveling to various sports events — are becoming more and more impossible for our northern students, depriving them of a very essential part of education, especially for northern native communities: social interaction.

I don't really see anything.... We'll have to see whether or not the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has allocated anything in the budget to meet these rising costs, rather than just capping the funding and forcing the school districts to have the local homeowners pay a disproportionately higher amount of tax in communities like Dease Lake, Cassiar and Atlin.

I really wanted to comment on some of the comments by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier), who was the first speaker. It was rather puzzling. I wondered if he had actually read the throne speech. I am not sure why he felt compelled to lecture this House about the history of parliament. I am always willing to give every member the benefit of the doubt that they know what parliamentary democracy is all about. I certainly don't think that we on this side of the House need his gratuitous lectures on the rule of law, but perhaps the hon. member had a particular audience in mind. As I said, his speech was quite puzzling.

I think the throne speech is short on vision and concrete action. We New Democrats have set out some very concrete things that we feel are much needed to turn around the mess that this government has created for the people of British Columbia.

In summary, I think the speech was a transparent effort to gloss over the neglect of this government in many vital areas: the economy, education and the environment. I don't think it will be lost on the people of British Columbia, and I think they will increasingly turn to the New Democrats for an alternative vision.

HON. MR. DIRKS: It's with a great sense of honour and privilege that I rise today to support the Speech from the Throne delivered by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, David Lam, last Thursday.

This throne speech, I believe, will be a very memorable one in the history of this distinguished chamber. The initiatives announced in the speech are innovative and are designed to respond to the needs of British Columbians today. But they are also, perhaps more importantly, a foundation for this great province to move into the twenty-first century.

I'd like today just to relate some of the different announcements from the throne speech to another government initiative that is very important to me, as it is to every member of the government and to every citizen of this great province. I am referring to this government's major initiative of regionalization.

I've been fortunate to be involved in this initiative right from the start. Having worked through the initial growing pains, I am confident in saying today that the program is well underway and is beginning to show very concrete results. It makes sense that the impetus for development and guidance of planning and priorities comes from within the regions affected. I am very pleased to hear the last speaker refer to the idea of regionalization and grassroots involvement, because that is truly what we have.

The wealth of experience and energy the concerned individuals in the regions have to offer should be focused on the development that is so essential to their growth and continued quality of life. The people of British Columbia's communities are this province's strengths. Their ability to rise to a challenge and their desire to take part in charting their own future are assets. It is something that communities throughout this province hold in common.

Part of that process of helping to develop the economy of the regions is making suppliers of goods and services in the different areas aware of what is available in the way of government resources, and we're doing just that. I was very pleased to hear that the B.C. Business Network in the Enterprise Centre experienced a 22 percent increase in requests for information in 1989. As well, there will be 20 new community business information centres established this year, getting the information out to the regions. I can tell you that aspect of regionalization is working.

This is also a very important and fundamental tool for achieving the B.C. we want for the future. It is a meaningful part of this government's initiative, and it will continue to be. We are all sharing in this endeavour across the province. As you can see from our economic situation, all parts of this province are reaping the rewards of these efforts. I'm proud of what we have accomplished to date, and I'm convinced that if we carry along this road with enthusiasm, we can be sure of continued prosperity.

The announcement of a task force on employment in the throne speech is certainly very timely and extremely worthwhile. Again, it relates directly to what is going on in the Kootenay region. In the Kootenay development region, a workforce task force was established in the spring of 1988. The task force was made up of local representatives, elected people and representatives from the various industries.

The task force coordinated a questionnaire sent out to approximately 3,200 employers in the Kootenay region. The purpose of this questionnaire was to try to assess future skill requirements from

[ Page 5668 ]

the area's workforce, and what kind of training such a future workforce might require.

Local input. In response to this survey, the workforce task force requested that a more in-depth study be undertaken. I'm pleased to say today that that study has been completed in its draft form, and I will be able to release it in the near future. This was the first of such studies that has ever been carried out in one of the interior regions. No doubt part of that study will conclude that, as was noted in the throne speech, knowledge-based industries will be the main generator of new jobs in the future.

In that regard, I was very pleased to be in Fernie a week ago to make an announcement on behalf of the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen). It was an announcement of a $625,000 grant to upgrade the East Kootenay Community College. The funds will be used to replace overcrowded classrooms and offices with a newly refurbished building.

This grant is just one of the many demonstrations of this government's continuing committment to strengthen the community colleges and increase access to advanced education in all areas of the province. I doubt that there is anyone in this House or in the province who would disagree that our children are our most precious asset, and that the quality of their education will directly affect the quality of their lives and the quality of life for all British Columbians.

In that regard, the announcements regarding British Columbia's education system involve some very new and exciting ideas. I believe that the thrust of the new school act is that the process of education should be learner-driven. That is what education should be all about. It should be driven by the benefactor of the system: the learner.

The increased access to post-secondary education as announced by the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training is also good news for this province's youth.

MR. JONES: What happened to the Kootenays?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Let me tell you what happened in the Kootenays. Unfortunately, today I read in the paper that there are a bunch of negative Nellies out there who are raining on a good parade. They are looking at the negative things, and they are harking back to the old days. They are saying: "What happened? Why are we forgotten?" We weren't forgotten, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Let me tell you there will be more emphasis on first- and second-year courses at Selkirk College and East Kootenay Community College as and when the market requires it. We are the keeper of the taxpayers' dollars, and there's no point in putting something in place that is not utilizing the dollars and cents in the wisest fashion.

The announcement that Okanagan College in Kelowna will be expanded to third- and fourth-year classes certainly makes university education much more readily accessible to the people in my region, and I applaud that. Somehow we always have to look at the negative side. We have to hear about all these bad things. Like I said to the press: "There are negative Nellies. Unfortunately, they're all on the other side of the House."

We're very positive. It is a great program. Certainly when you combine this announcement with the initiatives taken by the Ministry of Education, our education system certainly will be one that we can be proud of well into the future.

I was very pleased too to see that the throne speech dealt with environmental issues.

MR. MILLER: It came as a surprise, eh?

HON. MR. DIRKS: By listening to the briefs that were submitted to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) in Nelson, my colleague across there is obviously very aware that environmental issues are very important in my riding. And well they should be, because we do live in a very beautiful spot.

He asked me a little while ago why I did not speak at those hearings. Obviously he does not understand what hearings are all about. The hearings were also for me to listen to what the constituents had to say, not talk, as he would have me do.

As we enter this twenty-first century, we will now more than ever before have to allow our environment to flourish as well as maintaining and providing long-term jobs and economic well-being for the province. It is our right to expect clean water and air for ourselves and our children.

[4:45]

At the same time there are many people employed in the forest and mining industries who also have the right to continue to make a living and put food on their tables for their children. This is where coexistence comes into the picture. We don't want to devastate our landscape or our environment. We must admit that we are, to a very large degree — especially in my area — a resource-based economy. Some of our livelihoods must be made in that area. To deprive these people of their living is certainly not reasonable — any more than haphazard destructive logging or logging practices would be. How we achieve that balance is very important to my constituents, and I am very pleased that this government is addressing that task.

The beauty of our area and the quality of life that we so enjoy has made my constituency a very desirable location for people reaching retirement age. Therefore I am exceptionally pleased with the initiatives mentioned in the throne speech that relate to the security and health of our senior citizens.

Especially important is the task force to meet with seniors throughout the province. This is a worthwhile endeavour. I hope they will visit the beautiful town of Creston where I have a number of senior citizens who I am sure will be able to make very worthwhile presentations.

[ Page 5669 ]

I was pleased also to see that our government will introduce an employee equity program. Employee equity programs — or ESOPs, as they have come to be known — have enjoyed runaway popularity wherever they have been introduced. The reason for ESOPs' great success is that they serve to benefit employee and employer alike to the overall improvement of the company involved. Companies utilizing employee equity programs have experienced increased morale and productivity resulting in growth in profits and return on investment. Workers respond to ownership with corporate loyalty.

An announcement in the throne speech regarding the proposed energy policy in conjunction with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources electricity strategy is very good news for the province. It relates again directly to the Kootenay development region.

The expansion of the reforestation program is certainly good news to my constituency.

The initiatives to develop legislation to address consumer concerns respecting the use of chemicals in food production and ensuring environmentally sensitive food processing methods are also of great interest to my constituents.

I could go on and on, but I would be remiss if I did not respond to the mention of my home town of Nelson in the Speech from the Throne. I popped the buttons on my shirt with pride when I heard Nelson mentioned. I felt a rekindling of the immense pride of community experienced when over 4,500 volunteers from Nelson and the surrounding area went all out to stage the 1989 B.C. Winter Games.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DIRKS: You would decry volunteers' work, would you?

I know I am biased, but I must say that those were the best Games ever. I would just like to express my thanks to the many volunteers. Roger Skillings and his tremendous staff at the B.C. Games did a marvellous job. It is they, through hard work and dedication, who made the Games possible and such a success.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank each of the directors of the 1989 B.C. Winter Games at Nelson and their society. While there is certainly not enough time to thank every one of the thousands of volunteers, I would like the House to recognize those people in particular who responded to Roger and Lloyd Miskiman above and beyond the call of duty. Specifically, I would like to extend my personal thanks to the president of the society, Mr. Lloyd Miskiman and his board of directors: Eileen Carver, Judy Brown, Pat Renwick, Donna Graychick, Cathy Gare, Gordon McGregor, John Schnare, Mike Hryniuk, Dr. Paul Hinton, Panny Caron, Jim Todd, Janet Sommerville, Eli Tetrault, Bill Lightfoot, Bill Ramsden, Fred Scott, Shoji Takatori and Bruce Meldrum. These people spent months and months preparing for the Games and did exceedingly well.

I wholeheartedly endorse the Speech from the Throne. I look forward to the next several months when these initiatives mentioned will be brought forward in this House.

MR. JONES: It's a pleasure to rise and respond to the throne speech today. There is much in the throne speech. There is much hypocrisy in the throne speech and there is much that I wanted to comment on. The three priorities of the government, the environment, education and the economy, are rife with shortcomings that I wanted to point out, but I think I will try to focus on just one of those three. It was probably because of yesterday, yesterday being the first day of spring, a beautiful sunny day, a sign of rebirth and hope, and there was an important announcement from the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) that prompted me to want to focus on that one area.

It is my responsibility, as opposition critic for Advanced Education, to point out the shortcomings of a government program. There has certainly been in my two and a half years in this House no shortage of shortcomings at which to aim. But I think I would be remiss if I did not commend the minister for getting through cabinet even promises for improvement in access to advanced education and opportunities for young people in this province.

On a personal note, I am sorry the minister.... Although I know he is traveling the province, even if he was not doing that job, he might not be here, because he has severe back pain. I have experienced that myself, and I know how difficult it might be. I know that by the end of this half hour he might wish that he was here to respond to these comments, but I am sure he will have an opportunity.

On the first day of spring we had the good-news press conference. It was a magnificent affair. The cabinet colleagues and former cabinet ministers of the government were there. We had university presidents and college presidents — a good turnout. We had a fancy slogan for that press conference: "Access for All." I think we could have had another slogan there, something like: "The government has seen the light." That light is the loss of power, rather than "Access for All."

The minister made his speech, and in it there was a very brief, euphemistic reference to the earlier part of this decade, which really set the stage for the problems that we face in post-secondary education. The minister said that in 1980 the government was forced to examine our position in the global economy. I think that is a reference to the restraint period; and the government response to that restraint period, as everybody knows, was to cut back, starve and underfund post-secondary education in this province and to funnel the province's revenue into megaprojects which I don't think have turned out to be that successful in terms of long-term economic benefit for this province.

The product of those cutbacks was a tremendous slump in terms of the young people in this province and their participation rates, their degree-completion

[ Page 5670 ]

rates, to the point where we achieved the worst record for treating our young people with the kind of respect they warrant, and we adopted basically an import policy in terms of degreed persons. Over a ten-year period this province imported some 20,000 people with degrees. Each year we are some 3,300 bachelors' degrees short of the national average.

The minister again indicated, as he has in this House a number of times, that the first task given by the Premier to the minister, when he was appointed to that portfolio, was to improve access and participation rates for young people in this province. Actually, yesterday he said that the assignment was to study, but he has said in the past that it was to improve accessibility. So we had that assignment in the fall of 1986, and some two and a half years later, after much study, we see the final announcement that there are now some promises in place.

There was nothing radically new in those announcements. In fact, some 27 years ago when I was a student at the University of British Columbia, the then-president, John Barfoot Macdonald, had a report called the Macdonald report. In 1962 that report indicated that we should expand degree-granting status to the regions of the province. It focused in particular on the Okanagan Valley.

We have the "Access" report that reiterated those kinds of findings, and really nothing very new. The people in the regions have understood this need for many years, as the Macdonald report indicated. In fact, the people in this area are very far ahead of the government. The people of this province finally demanded a response and got a response from government, but the government did not lead, as is very evident in the throne speech. Those groups like the Interior University Society in Prince George.... It was groups like the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce, Malaspina College and Cariboo College that led the government, dragging and kicking, and even some Socred back-bench MLAs forced the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), after knocking on his door for two and a half years, to make some commitment, some promise, to improve degree-granting status in the regions of this province.

What the minister announced yesterday, and what we saw, was recommendations from the access report that I was aware of last summer. If I was aware of the recommendations in that report last summer, I'm sure the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training was aware of those recommendations.

We had, on the minister's table, the recommendations to improve access to the regions. He finally released the report in September or October 1988, and he promised the big announcement to take place in November. He promised the big announcement to take place in December. He promised the big announcement to take place in January. And we saw yesterday, in March, the big announcement.

The minister dragged his feet on that issue. While that announcement is most welcome, and there is no question of its importance in terms of reducing economic barriers to education in this province, to reduce the extra expenses that students in the regions of this province have in addition to the difficult economic circumstances that all students find themselves in — the added travel, the added room and board, the added costs that those students have in traveling to the lower mainland or south Vancouver Island.... To enhance the quality of opportunity for those young people is most welcome.

It's hoped, and I think it is a valid hope, that students trained in the regions of the province will remain in those regions to take their place, to support the development of those regions in the province. But the minister, despite the worthiness of all those laudable values and goals, had a chance to do something last fall. He had a chance to put in place the proper planning that's necessary. The Minister of Education knows well that it requires a time factor to properly plan programs for educational opportunities, be they in the school system or be they in post-secondary education.

[5:00]

The time-line that the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training has created for these colleges puts in jeopardy the successful programs being implemented in September 1989. The reason is primarily.... Although the colleges were moving ahead in terms of working with the universities and establishing cooperative relationships, the Minister of Advanced Education would not allow the colleges to advertise for upper-level faculty. It was their plan to begin sometime last January a national advertising campaign for faculty for upper-level courses.

Now in response to that assertion yesterday, the minister said: "No, the colleges did do advertising." Well, I think there is a bit of terminological inexactitude there. Although there was some advertising going on, it was not advertising for upper-level faculty. Until the minister announced that, the colleges were not allowed to, for fear of upstaging the minister announcement at his press conference yesterday. Quite logically, I assume that the minister did not want that announcement to take place in a national advertising campaign before the minister had actually announced the implementation or the proposed implementation of these programs.

If you think about that two- or three-month delay, while the minister dragged his feet, what that does to the process of selecting faculty.... Think of yourself, say at the University of Toronto, looking at the paper today and seeing an ad to come to British Columbia to teach in a new program of degree completion at a college in Kelowna or Kamloops, and you decide you would like to do that. You put together your curriculum vitae and send that off. It goes through a process and you're invited out, you go through a selection process, a short-listing, and you're offered a position. Then you have to extricate yourself from your current contract, which certainly would take time to attract the high-quality staff that our students in British Columbia deserve. In addition to that, you would come out to British Columbia, plan your courses, maybe set up labs and get things organized. That virtually cannot be done in the very short period left in this school year. So what we see, through the

[ Page 5671 ]

minister's dithering on not announcing the access to post-secondary education in the regions as he promised last fall, is very little in terms of the planning necessary for successful programs this fall in post-secondary education.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I can only speculate as to the rationale of the minister. Why the delay? Why did he not want to go ahead as promised last fall and make these announcements? I suppose it could be said that it was a lack of understanding of the complexities involved in planning these kinds of programs. Perhaps it was some attempt at not having those programs go ahead in the fall in a full-blown fashion and thus provide a cost saving to the government. I don't know if either of those are strong rationales. Probably the more likely one is that yesterday's announced package fits into some kind of provincial election strategy. But what we see, regardless of the motivation, is a political agenda getting in the way of an educational agenda.

The minister yesterday showed some repentance, I suppose, for past Social Credit sins. In a thinly veiled attempt to improve the dismal level of popularity, he proposed some spending promises, and although we saw that work well in the last federal election, I wonder what ex-Premier Getty would be advising today about promising large spending programs. I don't think it worked too well in his riding.

There's been some talk, even this afternoon, about flip-flops, and I'm sorry the member for Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Dirks) has left, because yesterday's announcement is symbolic of one of the greatest flip-flops in advanced education that this province has ever seen. It was not that long ago that this government had a reputation unparalleled in North America of being the only government ever to close down a public university in the history of this continent. The government felt at that time that the $3.5 million annual cost was too high to serve the students of that region.

I had the opportunity to look at some old newspapers from the Nelson Daily News and found out some interesting information. One bit of information was that the current member for Nelson-Creston, who ran in the 1983 provincial election, included as part of his platform that there was going to be a strong commitment to the continuation of David Thompson University Centre in Nelson. So in 1983 we had the member for Nelson-Creston being a strong supporter of that particular institution. That was matched in September 1983 by the Minister of Education and the minister responsible for universities at that time. Their statement on September 21 of that year was: "We are satisfied that the success achieved thus far by the centre warrants its continuation."

So the government at that time was praising David Thompson University Centre. But not very long after that — only a couple of months after that — in the January 6, 1984, edition of the Nelson Daily News — we see quite a different story. We see a change of attitude, the real flip-flop. We see the current member for Nelson-Creston suggesting that it would be better to terminate David Thompson University Centre now, rather than allow the status to drag out at reduced funding levels until the next election. We see that same member saying: "...then the community doesn't use David Thompson University Centre as a crutch." And it was his hope to establish something new in the long term.

That same member said, "It was the apathy on the part of Nelson residents that's partly to blame for the termination of David Thompson University Centre," and that personally the demise of that centre gave him relief. What we see is the ultimate flip-flop in terms of government attitude towards post-secondary education. In 1984 we had a government that one month supports David Thompson University Centre and the next month brings about its demise. The reason for that was, of course, the cost factor: we can't afford all this regional access; we can't afford a university centre at Nelson.

Last year in this House the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training talked about access to the regions, and he mentioned three areas in particular: Kamloops, Kelowna and the Kootenays. He didn't mention Nanaimo, which was favoured by the minister's announcement yesterday, but he did mention demand being created at Kamloops, Kelowna and the Kootenays. But the Kootenays were left out of yesterday's announcement. It's a shame that the university centre there was closed down. It's a shame that the vacuum created by that closure has had to be filled by American universities — Gonzaga and Eastern Washington University. It's a shame that the Kootenay region was overlooked in yesterday's announcement, a serious omission.

What we have, after two and a half years of discussing regional access, is a promise that the programs will go ahead at Kamloops, Kelowna and Nanaimo. We have a schedule for implementation that makes it virtually impossible for successful programs to be in place, attracting the calibre of faculty we would expect that the young people of this province deserve. At Prince George we have another promise, a suggestion in yesterday's announcement that there is an approval in principle to establish a self-governing degree-granting institution. I'm confused by what that really means. Does that mean a university? Clearly, the institutions at Kamloops and Kelowna will be self-governing degree-granting institutions. I don't think anybody would argue with that point. They will be institutions offering degrees in a variety of programs. But nowhere in that announcement was the "U" word used. Nowhere did we hear "university." Perhaps the minister is saving that for some later announcement.

What we really have, after admitting that we have an excellent group in Prince George that has been planning this university for a couple of years now, is that we're going to establish a planning group for implementation. At Prince George we see a lot of questions. What's going to happen to the College of New Caledonia, to the first and second year courses

[ Page 5672 ]

there? Will they not be able to establish a cooperative relationship, as the other centres have done? As we near the end of this government's term of office — this session being, I expect, the last before a provincial election — we see that there's really nothing in place in Prince George. We have promises in Kelowna and Kamloops, promises at Nanaimo, promises in Prince George. Promises, promises, promises.

Last session, midway through this term, two years before an election, we saw quite a different attitude. We saw the real face of Social Credit. The minister at that time acknowledged that the Interior University Society was a very successful group, that they had done their homework and were very advanced in their planning. The minister had in fact met twice with the chairperson of that group. The minister said at that time, last April 26: "My commitment is to provide access to university programs, but I'm hesitant to say to provide a university campus." The minister was hesitant to say the word "university" a year ago, and he seemed hesitant yesterday as well.

The byword last year was the minister's comment that: "The question is to come up with a process that delivers what we want in an affordable manner." Last year the key word was "affordable." Fiscal responsibility. This year, in yesterday's announcement, we don't seem to be worrying about those things.

If we talk about flip-flops, which is the real face of Social Credit? Is it those old bywords like ability to pay and fiscal responsibility, or is it this "Access for All" language that we're experiencing now?

[5:15]

So we have promises for improved access in the regions, and we also have what I think is the big promise of overall improvement in access to postsecondary opportunities in this province. This morning the Premier said that nobody has done more for post-secondary education than Social Credit. I think he was off by one word; I think he should have said that nobody has done more to post-secondary education than Social Credit. After years of cutbacks and neglect, after robbing the young people of this province by funneling funds into megaprojects and really creating a lost generation of young people, and in the process making B.C. a laughing-stock in terms of post-secondary education in Canada, participation and degree-completion rates....

Interjections.

MR. JONES: Have a look at the figures.

So in the last few months before we see a provincial election, we see the saviour ride in on the white horse to solve the problems that Social Credit created, with a promise — again a most welcome promise. Everybody in British Columbia is very thankful, even for promises.

The promise yesterday was to improve access to post-secondary education in British Columbia to achieve the national average in six years. Almost three years of the mandate of this government has gone by, and we're going to wait another six years to get up not to the place where, as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), I'm sure, would say, in light of the comments he made the other day about 13-year-olds in international competitions in science and math, whereby the 13-year-olds of this province topped virtually all other countries in science and all other English-speaking countries in mathematics — not just other provinces in Canada but other countries....

And what do we do to those 13-year-olds when they get to be 18 and are qualified, and they line up at the universities and colleges in this province? Some 10,000 of them are turned away in the lower mainland alone, and they are qualified and capable. They are capable of making a contribution to this province.

The minister knows, because of yesterday's promise, that there is a tremendous shortfall in the participation rates in this province. That's why he made the promise to create in post-secondary education some 15,000 new spaces over the next six years. That's going to get us up to the national average, but those 13-year-olds, when they turn 18, shouldn't have opportunity just to the level of the national average, because they top the national average in their ability in math and science. They shouldn't just have the national average; they should be at the top. But even if we did that today, even if we could create the 15,000 spaces right here and now in 1989, we still wouldn't be to the national average, because the figures have changed since the minister did his guesswork. I would suggest we would need 20,000 spaces right here and now in 1989 in order to achieve the national average.

We have a couple of questions. Should the public be satisfied with the ten-year detour that we've seen in order to bring us up to the national average? Secondly, is this government believable in terms of the sort of thorough planning, the process necessary to make the necessary commitment that we haven't seen in the past by this government? When the minister was asked yesterday to break down the $35 million promise for this coming year into how much is for capital and how much is for operating, he didn't have those figures. The minister, asked a very simple question by a reporter, could give no detail. The plans are not there. This is not a government that can be trusted to carry through with the kind of commitment to post-secondary education that's necessary.

What if there is a downturn in the economy? Are we going to be back to the old rhetoric of restraint? These are just promises that we've seen at this point.

Right now we have a labour dispute at BCIT, and the reason for that labour dispute is that the level of funding promised to that institution is not sufficient to meet the needs of the staff there, who have not had a salary increase in six years.

We have a promise of access for all, except that access for all does not include the Kootenays; it does not include the prison population, as promised by the recommendations in the access report; it does not include ethnic minorities; it does not include women in non-traditional programs such as science and tech-

[ Page 5673 ]

nology or graduate studies; and it does not include students with lower socio-economic backgrounds.

The promises in the throne speech will not fool the population of British Columbia. This afternoon we heard the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) and his snide remarks about the academic background of the two newly elected members to this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair takes exception to the use of the word "snide." Would you withdraw that, please?

MR. JONES: I withdraw the remark "snide."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry to advise you, hon. member, that in accordance with standing orders, your time has expired. I'll just give you a couple of seconds to wind it up.

MR. JONES: I will just finish this sentence. What we saw was not the three Es. What the public does not accept is the three Es. Like the uncola, we accept the un three Es. The province sees this government as unethical, unenlightened and, in the next provincial election, unelectable.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to the member, a time-limit is a time-limit. I think that member should be censured.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The debate on the amendment to the Speech from the Throne continues with the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I'm pleased to rise and speak in support of the throne speech. The throne speech is that one opportunity every year when members from both sides have an opportunity to stand up and talk about those things that are near and dear to them, and I intend today to take full advantage of that. I'll talk in three basic veins: first, as the MLA for South Peace River; second, as Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast; and finally, as the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs.

Many of the very positive statements in the throne speech affect more than one of those areas. Indeed, many of these very positive statements overlap and touch on all three constituencies that I represent. It is my intention, therefore, to go through this speech and only comment on those issues which are of particular importance to either my constituency of South Peace River, one of the development regions that I represent, or native people.

The government's policy on regional diversification has been particularly successful in the northern part of British Columbia. It has become the custom in this House to refer to the press to substantiate the points we're trying to make, and I'd like to refer members to Western Report, which is published in western Canada and is, I think, among the more objective magazines in western Canada. I refer you to the March 20, 1989, edition and the headline that says: "It's No Longer a Pipe Dream: Vander Zalm’s

Decentralization Plans Begin to Bear Fruit." There is an article here that speaks very positively about decentralization in British Columbia, particularly about the activities in the northern part of the province and how well accepted they are there. We'll have an opportunity to talk at some length, I am sure, about the results we have achieved in several regions.

In the north the results are particularly impressive. We have assisted in bringing in new industries ranging from a new pulp mill at Chetwynd to a small shake-and-cedar mill at Smithers.

We have addressed health care issues ranging from bringing a psychiatric ward to the Dawson Creek hospital to arranging for a part-time public health nurse for the Cassiar-Dease Lake area. I would add that the public health nurse issue in those two communities is probably equal in importance to the psychiatric wing in Dawson Creek. They are issues that have been brought to the regional development committees — ones that we have been able to address and solve. I think they are important in those communities. Those who say nay should go and ask the good folk in those communities what they think about the process. It is fine to sit and shake your head, but the important thing is to get out, meet the folks, and we'll see how it goes.

Mining activity has been expanded at the Cassiar mine, saving some 400 jobs, actually adding 100 new jobs and extending the life of the mine by a considerable number of years.

In the same area, work that we did with the Tahltan nation and the Golden Bear mine created 100 new jobs in the Dease Lake area.

Agriculture in the Peace will benefit substantially from extension of the prairie farm rehabilitation agreement into British Columbia.

Changes in regulations brought forward by the development region allow for the introduction of reindeer farming in the northeast.

The people of the South Peace are pleased with the government's announcements on the small business forest enterprise program. These will provide fresh opportunities for new businesses and encourage the production of specialty value-added products. Many communities in both of the development regions will take full advantage of these opportunities, partly through their municipalities and partly through their regional development groups. These are the kinds of initiatives that people in the northern parts of the province are looking for.

In northern regions particularly, economic growth and diversification are tied directly to the transportation system. Each of our eight development regions is working with the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) to develop a provincial transportation strategy. These people, volunteers, have spent a good deal of their time traveling regions of the province inviting public participation in planning a transportation system. Indeed, never before in British Columbia has there been a process where the province went out and invited as broad an input into any topic as we are doing with the

[ Page 5674 ]

transportation strategy. This information, I think, will allow us to prepare a good transportation strategy which will assist in development throughout those northern regions.

MR. JONES: You've discovered consultation.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: We have been consulting for many years, my friend. You are just starting to wake up and hear the fact that it's working.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech also addresses the problem of improved air service for British Columbians. In no place more than in the north is there a need for an improvement in air services. In Dawson Creek you can fly in but you can't fly out again — which may explain the rising population. In fact, if you want to get out of town you have to either drive to Fort St. John and catch a plane there or fly to Vancouver and then back to Edmonton again. Not very satisfactory. One of the real problems with air service in the northern part of British Columbia has been this six-month change in schedules. No sooner do people start to become familiar with their schedules than they change again. We must work with the airlines to improve that situation. Indeed, the throne speech recognizes the need and the intention to do that.

The throne speech also refers to a new electricity strategy. In the northeast particularly this is good news.

MR. WILLIAMS: Power-smart.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Power-smart, indeed. The Peace River now has two dams that provide a good portion of the hydro to British Columbia. We anticipate a third one, Site C, and, more importantly perhaps, we anticipate energy-intensive industry that will come and that we should be able to attract to the Peace.

[5:30]

Yesterday the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) announced the extension of degree-granting status to three colleges in the southern half of the province. Today that same minister is in Prince George announcing steps that I believe will ultimately lead to a university of the north in Prince George. I believe that it will....

MR. KEMPF: Can we quote you on that?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I'm sure you will. I'm indeed flattered any time the member for Omineca chooses to quote me. Certainly. Feel free.

This northern university is something that all of our constituents in the northern part of the province have been looking for. I think that the steps being announced today will lead to a rational decision that will introduce degree-granting status and, indeed a university.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the throne speech reconfirms the importance of our parks system to our important tourism industry. My constituents in Tumbler Ridge have been pushing for several years for access to two parks south of Tumbler Ridge that they believe will help them diversify the economy of their one-industry town. This year may well be the year that their dreams are fulfilled in terms of access to Monkman Park and the new tourism industry that will follow with it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Those new to the House have to learn that they have to heckle a little louder when they sit that far back.

I wish to address those areas of this throne speech which touch on responsibilities I have as Minister of Native Affairs. This government has made a commitment to strengthen its relationship with British Columbia's native communities. We have suggested a Premier's council on native affairs and a series of round-table meetings with native leaders and elders to find ways to improve the social and economic well-being of native people.

In addition, we have promised to continue the very successful practice we have begun of appointing native advisory committees on specific topics, such as education, culture and heritage, and economic development.

I'm aware that some hon. members and some other observers have suggested that our efforts are somehow meaningless unless we agree to something no government in British Columbia has ever agreed to — including the opposition when they were in power — and that is to negotiate native land claims. It makes sense at this time to ensure that hon. members are fully informed on British Columbia's position on aboriginal title.

It is the same position that was enunciated by the opposition when they were in power, and when it is fully understood, it is not intended in any way to slight native people or to refuse to recognize their vast contributions to our province. Rather, it recognizes that there is a difference between the province seeking to work with native people towards a better life and the province taking on a matter which is clearly a federal responsibility.

The long-standing position of this province is that, as a matter of law, we do not believe that outstanding aboriginal title to the province remains in Indian hands, as claimed by many Indian groups. Further, we believe that if the courts prove the province wrong, any outstanding obligations related to title would be a federal responsibility.

Why do we hold that position? First, on the basis that section 91 (24) of the Constitution Act of 1867 gives the federal government jurisdiction over Indians and lands reserved for Indians. Second, article 13 of the Terms of Union under which British Columbia joined Confederation restates federal jurisdiction over Indians and Indian lands. Third, article 1 of the Terms of Union provides that the federal government assume responsibility for the debts and liabilities of British Columbia union. It is our assertion that if aboriginal title is shown to exist, it is a debt, in effect, against the character of the provincial title and a debt Canada assumed at the time of union.

[ Page 5675 ]

This isn't an easy issue. It is an emotional issue to many Indians and many non-Indians. Unlike the opposition, however, we have taken a straight and honest course, outlining our position in a straightforward manner, even where it would perhaps have been more politically convenient to lead people to believe there is another approach that is in the public interest. There isn't. That's why Dave Barrett, when he was Premier, stated that land claims were exclusively a federal matter. That's why Bob Skelly, when he was leader, stated that Canada must assume financial responsibility for land claims. That's why even today the Leader of the Opposition insists that Canada must be financially responsible for land claims.

The difference between our positions is in fact not one of attitudes toward Indians but one of candour and strategy. The NDP says: "Let's sit down and start negotiating land claims and then hope Canada will pay all the bills." We have said that once Canada accepts its financial and legal responsibilities, we would be happy to sit down and discuss the matter further. So the opposition plays with the emotions of Indian people on this subject, while we make efforts to address the other, very real and pressing problems that Indian people have described to us. While the NDP promises to negotiate land claims, they never did so when they had a chance. They accept no responsibility now to pay the bills, and they have no idea on how to go about it. That is a recipe for disaster.

Can you imagine the Leader of the Opposition sitting at a table with the federal government, having told the Indian community he will negotiate land claims, and being told that it might cost between $4 billion and $6 billion and perhaps several hundred thousand or even a million acres of land? The leader says: "Canada, you'll have to pay." Canada is going to say: "You have to pay half." What would you do then — break off talks, having raised the expectations of Indian people all across the province? Or perhaps you would decide to contribute your half. How would you go about funding the amount that anybody with a pencil and a piece of paper can calculate based on negotiations that are going on in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories? You don't have to be a financial genius to figure out what it's going to cost.

Gentlemen, I think what you should do is come clean — and lady, although it's gentlemen across the way that I speak to. British Columbians want to know how you are going to fund land claim settlements that you are so eager to settle. Don't just tell us to settle land claims; say how we should fund the settlement of those land claims. When we start hearing those kinds of suggestions, perhaps we will take you more seriously.

Because we don't recognize aboriginal title doesn't mean we don't recognize Indian people and the great needs they have today. Since the election of this government we have perhaps taken a different tack than previous administrations. We have said that while the courts decide the question of land claims, let's not set aside all the other issues that are so important to native people. Let's sit down together and try to address economic problems that face economic communities — on and off reserve. Let's work together on solving educational problems, child care problems, child care issues, and the natural resource questions. Let's tackle job training and forestry opportunities. We've said, let's solve the problems we can by creating wealth in the Indian communities, which will ensure healthy, prosperous futures for native British Columbians. We are doing just that.

Let me give you a few examples, for those naysayers across the way. During this administration more than 33 forestry tenures have been awarded to Indian bands. In addition to the many woodlot licences, a forest licence has been granted to the Indian band at Canyon City, which has created more than 50 jobs for the Nishga people in the area.

It may be helpful to look at that area of the province for a minute. We have been doing, and are doing today, a number of things in the Atlin constituency which may be of interest to members. Last year we rectified an old wrong at the village of Kincolith by returning to that band a piece of land which had been cut off from their reserve in the early part of the century. It was one of 12 cut-off claims settled by this government. I am pleased to add that cabinet recently approved offers to three more bands to settle cut-off land claims. Also in Atlin, Mr. Speaker, during the last year the government worked closely with the Tahltan Tribal Council and the Tahltan Development Corp., working to prove that protection of the environment and economic development can go hand in hand.

Working with the Tahltans at Golden Bear mine, we have seen an agreement between the Indian people of the Dease Lake area and the mine, which means 20 or more jobs in the new mine to be held by the Tahltans. It has already meant at least 20 jobs for the corporation in road building and mine site construction. Our efforts to assist the Tahltans resulted in their forming a road construction company which has begun to win provincial road building contracts in competitive bidding. All this has meant a substantial new payroll for Indians and non-Indians alike. More importantly, it has shown that we can develop new industry without irreparable damage to the environment. The Tahltans participated actively and constructively in helping to ascertain the best possible route for the road.

We've also had an issue with the people of Greenville for many years. I had the pleasure today of informing the chief that we've come to a resolution that will see the province contribute $433,000 toward reclamation of land and diking, which will provide new jobs for the band, provide new residential accommodation and put to rest another issue.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, those are just a few of the things we have done in one area of the province. The province recently announced a $475 million, three-year drug

[ Page 5676 ]

and alcohol prevention and treatment program. Twenty friendship centres around the province have hired drug and alcohol counsellors this year. In Vancouver we are working to establish a new treatment centre. A short time ago I announced nearly $300,000 in prevention grants to Indian organizations and communities.

As a direct result of the Indian representation to the Cabinet Committee on Native Affairs and to the Sullivan commission, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has developed a positive and long sought-after plan for replacement of the master tuition agreement. You will see in the new budget significant new spending on Indian education, reflecting the Education minister's and our whole government's commitment to education for native people. We have put $300,000 a year in the last two years towards the Vancouver Indian Education Centre. The Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) contributed $135,000 to the Ynka-Dene Language Institute in Prince George and a similar amount to an Indian education centre in Penticton. In addition, $200,000 has been directed to instruction in Indian languages in our schools during the past year.

[5:45]

Yesterday the Minister of Advanced Education announced a new advisory committee on Indian post-secondary education. The Education minister has announced an advisory committee on Indian education for his ministry as well.

We have appointed an advisory committee of Indian elders and professionals to give advice to cabinet on the creation of one or more culture, language and heritage centres. Through my parliamentary secretary, the first member for Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa), we expect to have a report to cabinet in the very near future.

We also have in place the First Citizens' Fund Advisory Committee, which has dealt primarily with economic development. This board is made up of successful Indian businessmen and women. They have helped us launch a worthwhile new business loan program, one which has seen loans for everything from a duty-free store in the Kootenays to a commercial art business.

We have appointed successful Indian leaders to the board of B.C. Ferries, B.C. Rail, the Open Learning Agency, several college boards, the Task Force on the Environment and the Economy and many other agencies. It's not the complete answer, but it is a beginning.

For many years Indian people and the provincial government weren't even talking. We're not suggesting we have the answer to all of our problems, but we are working very hard on it. It took 100 years to create the divisions between us, and it will take some time to reduce the tensions. We are working on it. We're being successful. No government, including that infamous one between 1972 and 1975, did as much for native people as this government has done in the last two and a half years.

Our Cabinet Committee on Native Affairs has been meeting on a regular basis with bands, tribal councils and other organizations. The Premier has made a particular effort to meet with native groups. He has spent time with our committee on cultural heritage, talking with the First Citizens' board and meeting with tribal councils such as the Carrier Sekani. In this throne speech the government has taken another step forward with the creation of the Premier's council on native issues. The creation of this council demonstrates our committment to continue to try to resolve many of the outstanding issues.

There is much to be done. Far too many Indian people remain unemployed, undereducated and in poverty. Indian people remain in the grips of the outmoded and paternalistic Indian Act, an act which restricts their ability to find new solutions to current problems. Indian people want to participate in the growing economy of British Columbia. In visits to Indian communities we have been told of the hopes and desires of Indian people to achieve economic independence, and we will support measures to assist that. We have been told how important are the preservation of language, culture and heritage to Indian people, and we will be working with Indian people to find ways of doing that.

In the last couple of years we have learned how little all of us, on both sides of this House, really know about the first citizens of British Columbia, even though they live next door. During the next year or so we hope to begin to rectify that as well. We won't solve all of the problems by taking the measures announced; however, we have begun the process of meeting with Indian people to hear their concerns and developing plans to address them and respond concretely where possible.

MR. BLENCOE: Given the time of day.... Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate you on your reappointment to the position of Speaker and my good friend and colleague the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) on his as Deputy Speaker.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to my hon. friend that, in spite of his best wishes to the current Speaker, he wasn't reappointed; he is appointed for a session. It was the Deputy Speaker who was reappointed. But perhaps you don't see that well and you thought it was the Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Blencoe moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.