[ Page 5677 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Blencoe –– 5677

Mr. Messmer –– 5680

Mr. Miller –– 5683

Mr. Rogers –– 5687

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: My colleague the hon. second member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Huberts) and I are very proud of the interest by local schools in our parliamentary process and are pleased to welcome in the building this morning Mr. Bill Brennan and Mr. Sturrock from Claremont Senior Secondary School, together with 31 of the grade 11 students. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

MR. BLENCOE: In the gallery today is a good friend of our constituency who works very hard for us, Mr. Bruce Fogg. Would the House please welcome Bruce this morning.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: On behalf of my colleague the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and myself, I'd like to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Coppard from Sidney.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate
(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: Before I get into the thrust of my comments on the throne speech and the issue that I specifically want to talk to this morning, which is housing, I would like, as I always do, to welcome all the MLAs, my colleagues and members on the other side, back to Victoria. I don't know how long we'll be sitting, but I hope you enjoy your brief stay. The community always knows when the House is sitting, and we hope you will enjoy your next few months in this beautiful city of ours.

This morning I want to address the issue of housing in the province. Housing has once again become a critical issue for many British Columbians. Every day of the last six or nine months — virtually the last year — we have read of cases of escalating rents, hardship cases of finding places to live, the question of land prices and affordability and the whole question of foreign and offshore investment in our residential properties. That has raised some eyebrows and some concerns.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of housing is always with us, and as legislators developing policy, we should recognize that housing is a critical component of a progressive society. We shouldn't always — as we tend to — deal with the crisis when it arises every four or five years and immediately apply instant solutions to the problem. I think we always have to be looking ahead, pre-planning and ensuring that the private sector is up to scratch and the public sector has long-range programs for housing.

Unfortunately, we don't seem to learn from our past. I recall that some years ago in this House, we were debating the same issue: housing. It was controversial, and unfortunately we don't seem to have learned from that. In my estimation, this government has always de-emphasized the role of government in terms of initiating and helping to establish a comprehensive long-range program to ensure that our citizens are housed properly and affordably.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about some of the things I think we can be doing. I've always felt that the housing ministry — the component of housing in the government — has been tacked on to the end of another ministry, and that really we don't look at it in a comprehensive fashion. I think we need to give some consideration to the fact that we need a proper comprehensive ministry to develop long-range programs for housing.

MR. JONES: Even some ministries aren't ministries.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, even some ministries aren't ministries.

Mr. Speaker, this government, for whatever reason, has defined itself very narrowly in terms of a housing mandate. It has shown itself more disposed to the private sector than the non-profit sector or the community groups and those agencies who work in the non-market sector. This government has abandoned the co-op sector. There is no support for the co-op sector today. I hope that changes.

Some years ago, this government cut back dramatically on tenants' rights in the province of British Columbia. The rentalsman was abandoned, rent review was abandoned, a Residential Tenancy Act came in that we believe — and now we know; the evidence is there — is weak in terms of establishing an equal balance between landlords and tenants. I think we need to look at the Residential Tenancy Act in terms of developing an equal formula that ensures both tenants and landlords are treated fairly.

Rents have escalated dramatically in the last year, to the point that many, particularly those on fixed incomes.... Our senior citizens are facing 30 percent to 50 percent increases in rent. That wouldn't be so bad if there had been a proactive housing policy in place that was ensuring there was the construction of good, affordable family and senior accommodation during those escalating rents.

The evidence was there a year and a half ago. We saw the rents escalating. We saw the market tightening. For whatever reason, many of the programs for housing in the province were de-emphasized. Direct spending and construction and allocation of units for social housing were either cut back or maintained at the existing levels. Yet we had the evidence that we were heading towards another crisis.

[10:15]

Demolitions continue at a high rate, and yesterday I introduced a private members' bill that would try to deal with renters' protection in that area. If I have time, I'll speak a little more on that today. Construc-

[ Page 5678 ]

tion of new rental housing is minimal, and most units today are renting at the high end of the market. Social housing units, as I said, have dropped dramatically.

During the by-election in Vancouver-Point Grey, we put forward what we think was a proactive response, an initial response, to the problems of housing. At the same time the member running for the government decided there wasn't going to be a proactive response. The response from the government was to study the situation, call for a task force. Every day for the last year we have seen the evidence that it requires immediate policies and immediate action on behalf of the provincial government. We didn't get that.

Now we see in the throne speech that the government has decided that there will be some reaction. Even if it is somewhat late, at least the government has realized that there are thousands of British Columbians requesting a comprehensive strategy to deal with the issue of housing.

In the key areas — and sometimes this government forgets this; it certainly forgot this in '83 and '84 — most homes in the province are rented. Close to 400,000 households in British Columbia are rented. That requires us to ensure that there is a comprehensive policy and strategy to deal with that kind of housing. Yet in '83 and '84 this government eliminated and vacated the field virtually and said the private sector would respond in housing and that we didn't need the security issues. This government said we didn't need a very active Ministry of Social Services and Housing, we didn't need rent review, we didn't need a rentalsman, we didn't need a Crown land policy, we didn't need to participate in the co-op sector. This government was saying: "Trust us; the private sector will respond."

I suggest today that for various reasons the private sector has not been able to respond. Here we are again dealing with the issue somewhat in a crisis situation — having to apply programs at the last minute.

In Point Grey we put forward some specific programs. I want to reiterate those today. The first one dealt with the question of home ownership and spiralling costs of housing and land. It is our belief that British Columbians, young people, still want to dream of owning a home. For various reasons we have sat on the sidelines watching the speculation go ahead, watching the spiral continue. We know what is happening in the marketplace. We suggested that the way to deheat the market was to bring in a tax on windfall profits made by speculators who flip houses. In a nutshell, we said that residential properties were for living in, not for speculating. We have suggested that a speculation tax be applied at a rate of 80 per cent for property bought and sold within one year — unless it was owner-occupied, of course — and at 60 per cent if within two years.

The basic premise in housing today, for both renters and owners, is affordability. There is no question that young people, and parents of young people, are wondering if young British Columbians will ever be able to get into the marketplace. We have been very concerned, as have the majority of British Columbians, I think, at the incredible rise in the price of housing, driven by those who have decided to speculate in residential property. We think that a speculation tax is a useful tool, not only to deal with those who do it but also to turn down the heat on the price of housing.

We suggested a ban at this time on public land sales, Crown land, and going to a leasing system. I have suggested on behalf of our party that we need to develop a comprehensive Crown land policy whereby on lands

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: No, I'm not saying that at all. On Crown land, our first consideration is to lease the land. Either leasing, or if the government insists on selling, then a portion of those lands should be put over to the non-market, affordable social housing component –– 25 to 30 per cent set aside to ensure that they will be able to participate — and to construct rental accommodation at the lower rent end.

We suggested changes to the property purchase tax: exempt all first-time buyers and close the loophole that allows corporations, under the cover of a shell company, to avoid paying the tax. I hope the government will be reviewing the property purchase tax. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) is saying: "What's $1,000 to a young couple buying their home?" — if they have to pay a 1 percent purchase tax on their home –– I suggest that $1,000 in terms of part of the down payment is considerable. We would like to see an exemption at least for the first-time buyer on that tax.

The fourth item: we think it's essential to re-establish the office of the rentalsman. That office was, in its day, a fair way to deal with landlord and tenant issues. It kept many of the problems out of the court. We all recall the Law Reform Commission's recommendations; that's why the rentalsman was established. We have unfortunately gone to a residential tenancy branch, which I think is extremely weak; I think its mandate is limited. Vancouver city council has called for the re-establishment of the office of the rentalsman, so that both landlords and tenants have a mechanism whereby if there are disputes or confrontations, both sides can appear before an arbitrator not appointed directly by the minister but through the public service system; an objective arbitrator, if you will. I think the rentalsman is a useful tool and worked well in its day. Most people in the province of British Columbia had respect for that office, and there is a general consensus that we need to re-establish that office.

Unfortunately this government appears set in its ideology that the rentalsman automatically meant rent control. To make it quite clear today — and I've said it over and over again — we're not calling for the re-establishment of rent control. We're not calling for the setting of an arbitrary limit on increases. What we're suggesting, with the office of the rentalsman, is

[ Page 5679 ]

that there be an appropriate rent-review process. At the moment, any rent increase in the province of British Columbia is legal once a year — any rent increase. Don't disagree, Mr. Speaker. The owners of properties have the right to make a fair return and to set the rules and regulations for their buildings. But there comes a time when — as we have now in a tight market — there are those who, for whatever reason, abuse the system and escalate rents far higher, and it could be shown in a rent review process that those rents aren't justified.

We're not suggesting rent control, Mr. Speaker, but a process of rent review, whereby if aggrieved tenants feel that the rent is unjustified, the landlord has to show evidence The minister responsible is smiling; he knows what I'm talking about; I've written to him about this issue. There should be a process whereby the tenants can go to an appeal board and say: "Look, we can show that a 50 percent increase" — an unconscionable increase sometimes — "is not justified." And that appeal procedure would have the right to roll back that increase.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that kind of equal system, that fair play or that justice in the market. Right now, anything goes. Everything is determined by the market. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there are many provinces in this country that have active rent review processes and the equivalent of a rentalsman. We'd like to see seniors, for instance.... In my riding and in many of the ridings that my colleagues represent, seniors are facing incredible increases. They call me — not only from my riding, but from all over the lower mainland and other parts of the province — saying: "What can we do? Where do we appeal? How can the government let me take a 40 percent to 50 percent increase when it's not justified?" All they're saying is: "We want to be able to go and appeal and have our voices heard and have that looked at." That's fair in a democratic society; that's not imposing rent control.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this government is not thinking ahead; it's still stuck in the past. It's still saying that the rentalsman and rent review is automatic rent control. It's not at all. I think the people of British Columbia are tired of hearing the excuses for not introducing a fair system of rent review and the rentalsman.

We have called for more non-profit affordable housing, including seniors' housing. I said a few minutes ago that in the wisdom of this government, when the market was tightening — the evidence was there, we were heading for a problem — we saw cutbacks. We didn't see an emphasis on putting our resources into ensuring there was more affordable housing. We suggest that the minimum we can do today is to double the provincial government nonprofit housing starts, especially for seniors' housing. The government has announced, so far, 1,000 nonprofit rental homes in the non-market sector to be built this year. Last year it was 1,100.

The Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and I have had a debate about this issue. He wants to go the route of subsidy in the private sector route. What we need is the supply; what we need is the construction. The Minister of Housing was going to find another.... I don't know how many units he was going to find to subsidize. I suggest to him that with a zero vacancy rate, or less than zero, there aren't the units to subsidize. We need construction. A doubling of the direct-spending non-profit housing program should be done immediately,

I also believe that this government has to get back into participating in the co-op sector. We all know that all of the housing programs in the province of British Columbia are federally driven; most of the money comes from the federal government. We suggest that, again, you got caught up in ideology and abandoned the co-op sector, and said you were not going to participate financially. Yet, Mr. Speaker, our co-op program has been studied all over the world. There have been problems, and many of those have been rectified. Some of the problems were justly pointed out by this government and have been rectified. But not supporting the co-op program has resulted in major cutbacks in co-op rental homes in the province. That mix of income, that mix of socio-economic groups, has been seen as a model in terms of avoiding ghettoizing people.

[10:30]

One of the problems in the current housing policy is that we're housing all low-income people in one area. That puts a terrible stigma on them. Our view is that mixing incomes in our housing programs is the way to go, and the co-op sector has always done that. I understand that Mr. Peter Thomas, who has been appointed chairman of the B.C. Housing Management Commission, has said he believes the government should support the co-op sector again. I applaud that move, Mr. Speaker, if it happens. I hope this government can remove its old ideology and its past feelings about co-ops.

The deterioration of the federal government commitments to co-op housing in 1986.... They said they would fund 5,000 units of co-ops nationally, which would mean 700 units per year for the province of British Columbia. So far, in 1988, we have only got 371 new co-op units funded in British Columbia, compared with 723 in 1987. In 1980 we had 1,862 co-op units. The 2,800 units that have been funded nationally in 1988 is the lowest number since 1979. A major factor why British Columbia is not getting a decent allocation of co-op is that the provincial government refuses to participate in the co-op sector.

MR. MOWAT: That's not true.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, that's my opinion, Mr. Member. You can have your opinion later.

There are a number of other areas, Mr. Speaker, that I want to address. I've talked about Crown land policy for home ownership and renters. I think we need to take a look at the Crown lands special account that was established some years ago. Last year

[ Page 5680 ]

this government removed $228 million from it. I think we need to authorize and find innovative ways, Mr. Speaker, for municipalities and regional districts to land-bank. We need to reactivate the rental conversion loan program that worked with the private sector, encouraging them, with 25,000 low-interest loans, to convert old commercial industrial buildings — I think a useful way to work with the private sector in converting older buildings. I think we can take a look at RRAP, either encouraging the federal government to expand it or doing some things on our own to help owners of buildings rebuild or make general renovations, or to help homeowners to get their homes in better shape.

In my time left I want to address my concern with what the provincial government is going to do in terms of its program it announced on the development fund. The Premier and the minister have said they are going to work primarily with the private sector in getting more rental homes on the market. I want to give the evidence for what I think will be the old style of tax exemption or tax break for the real estate developer. It's the MURB ARP approach we saw in the seventies, which the federal government, in its wisdom, has quite rightly abandoned because it was extremely expensive.

The real issue is whether our tax dollars are going to benefit ordinary, middle- and lower-income British Columbians through direct spending. Will they be helped or will we, in our programs, provide tax subsidies for real estate investors? My concern is that we're going to have millions of dollars going to the private sector in tax breaks.

The evidence is in now and the studies are done. We know what MURBs cost us between 1976 and 1982. The MURB program was tax breaks for real estate developers. In those years $428 million was spent on direct spending but $1 billion was spent on tax breaks. Those tax breaks for those developers were condominiums, and today they're condominiums. What we'd like to see is this government put its money into direct spending for housing, direct construction of accommodation. The trickle-down theory doesn't work.

The analysis at the height of the MURB program in 1979 showed that average-income Canadians benefited by about $900 on the MURB program, but those earning $50,000 to $100,000 got tax breaks of $3,600. If you were over $100,000, you got a $6,700 tax break, but those in need — middle- and lower-income people — got far lower benefits from housing tax expenditures.

In our view, the way to go is in direct spending rather than tax breaks. It's regressive. Most jurisdictions are now on record saying that the tax break is one of the most regressive forms of government expenditures for housing. In the height of the MURBs –– 1976 to 1982, $1 billion was spent, as opposed to $428 million for the direct spending on social housing. We still have those social housing units today at a good price, but the $1 billion spent on tax breaks for real estate developers went to units that have now been flipped over to condominiums, and yet the taxpayers paid for them. Direct spending is the way to go, and most financial economists have recommended that and have looked at that.

There are many things we will be suggesting for housing in the weeks ahead, and I'll leave that there today.

MR. MESSMER: I'm pleased to support the throne speech delivered by the Hon. David Lam, our Lieutenant-Governor, on the opening of the third session of the thirty-fourth parliament.

In my short period as a member of this Legislative Assembly, I see the throne speech as one which highlights the past and gives an insight into the government's intent toward the coming year. Having spent considerable time in municipal government, I also know that until the details of the budget are announced we will not know to what extent the throne speech will or can be followed. However, I did say that the throne speech gives us the intent of the government for the coming year, so on that basis I would like to formulate the position that may take place in rural ridings such as Boundary-Similkameen. We in Boundary-Similkameen have a keen interest in every ministry as changes within a ministry affect a portion of my constituency.

I support, as I'm sure all members of the Legislative Assembly do, a stronger Canada and the promotion of Canadian ideals in the world and the recognition of the values of international peace and cooperation and equality for all. This statement will continue to encourage those who wish to do business in Canada with the United States under the free trade agreement. Promotional trips, like the one to Switzerland, to the world economic forum focusing on British Columbia will lead to business, which in turn means jobs to all areas of British Columbia. I would encourage the Premier to take further trips such as the one he led to Switzerland. Because of that trip we now have a great interest by European people, certainly in the interior of British Columbia.

I would like to say a few words on regionalization and the economic development that's taken place in the Okanagan because of regionalization. In the short period of time that regionalization has been in effect we have seen some direct benefits within Boundary Similkameen. The Beaven's cannery in Summerland would never have been able to operate this year if it had not been for the assistance of this government. I think we all know that in Princeton the mine probably would have been closed, which I believe would have meant the closure of Princeton. Today that town is healthy. The mine is healthy. The debt that was committed to the government has been paid by the company, and free enterprise is doing well, thank you very much.

I would like to tell you about a little town called Oliver, population 2,000, and the initiative of the mayor and the council of that community in working along with government. The mayor, on his own initiative, got a trade magazine from Europe. On his own initiative he managed to phone a company by the name of 3 Richter, which makes a stomach bitters,

[ Page 5681 ]

and asked if a representative could come to British Columbia, to this little town of Oliver, 15 miles from the American border.

MR. MOWAT: What do they make?

MR. MESSMER: Stomach bitters. It's what you can drink when you listen to the opposition.

The 3 Richter company sent a representative, and we met this gentleman at Penticton. The mayor of Osoyoos showed him around the city of Penticton, drove him down to have a look at Osoyoos, drove him back to Oliver to look at the site that was available, an industrial site consisting of about 12 acres of land. He decided that he would build a plant in the village of Oliver. His only problem was that under a municipal act, Oliver did not have the right to sign over the papers which would give him title to the land. In other words, a municipality has to advertise for a specified time so that they can own it.

I think about this time the negative people were saying: "Oh well, it's a German outfit that came in. They're going to buy the land. It's all for publicity. Nothing will ever happen." I'll tell you what did happen. This gentlemen decided to buy the land, and he did. He also decided to go down to the United States to find out what the market was like for his bitters plant. While he was down there he found out that it wasn't a small market. It was a large market. So he came back to Oliver to say that he was going to double the size of the plant that he originally intended to build.

Back in Germany he told other people about Oliver, British Columbia. In return, a Bavarian brewery called Schloss took a look at Oliver and decided to open an apple brandy plant. This plant will use 30,000 bins of apples annually to start with, which is 21 million pounds. In the Okanagan especially we have a problem with overproduction of fruit, and here's a company that's going to come in and use 21 million pounds of apples annually. The first building, started roughly a week ago, will cost roughly $1.5 million. By this August the plant will employ 180 people. To many in Vancouver I suppose 180 people doesn't sound like much, but if you use the same proportions as Oliver in Vancouver or Victoria –– 2,000 in the community and a plant employing 180 people — it would probably make headlines in any newspaper.

Unfortunately, we had the press to Oliver. The Premier was there to take out the first shovelful of dirt with a big backhoe that he was operating. Our Vancouver press gave us about two inches on one of the back pages, even though their reporters had been there for the whole day. So we do have trouble within the Okanagan. Or possibly the Social Credit Party has trouble getting good press from those people who call themselves reporters for all of British Columbia.

[10:45]

Those are good news items. I'll tell you another good thing about this little community of 2,000 people trying to help themselves and not bitching about government. They came to government and asked for some assistance for downtown beautification. They not only got the support of Municipal Affairs for a loan of about $500,000; they got the assistance of the Ministry of Highways to completely redo their main street.

Next year this town of 2,000 people is going to have more new industry within its community than any other within the Okanagan. It's going to have a re-beautification program for the downtown area, which I think even the critic for municipal affairs will agree is a good program, and a new highway within that community. That's the plus side of what's happening within the Okanagan.

We're also very pleased to see the small business forest enterprise program, certainly within our area where we are using pine-beetle-infested wood. We've had two majors, Canwood and Greenwood. In both cases they've had a problem obtaining the fibre to go ahead with these plants on two operations a day rather than one. Under the new small business forest enterprise program, we now see the means and ways for both of these companies to be able to bid on and receive fibre on a long-term basis, so that they can in actual fact increase the operations and the added value to the product we're taking from our forests.

The program on reforestation, of course, has expanded to one billion seedlings planted in the next three years, again good news for the Boundary Similkameen country because of the silviculture plants we have there.

Due to the privatization of silviculture in the province of British Columbia, we have seen the size of the plant in Oliver almost double. I'm sure that by next year they will have tripled not only the amount of capital expenditure they've made on their own property but also the numbers of people hired and employed within that area.

MR. G. JANSSEN: What's the unemployment rate in that area?

MR. MESSMER: Actually, it is fairly good in the summertime and very high in the wintertime.

MR. G. JANSSEN: What is it?

MR. MESSMER: Seventeen.

Under Highways, as you are aware, we have the review of transportation needs and have begun in the Thompson-Okanagan region. As such, the public will be making recommendations to the committee for a regional plan.

We're very pleased in Boundary-Similkameen with the cooperation we have received from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways over the past few years. We see the Coquihalla as a great asset to our area.

I'm pleased to say that the ministry is spending $15 million to four-lane in the Summerland area. They have announced a day-labour job to the tune of about $2 million just outside the city of Penticton. The Ministry of Highways has also placed money for two bridges in the Grand Forks area.

[ Page 5682 ]

We hope they have in this year's budget the funds for repaving from Osoyoos to Okanagan Falls. As I said recently, the Ministry and Highways has also assisted Oliver in the revitalization of its downtown core to the tune of about $360,000. So it's not doom and gloom when it comes to highways projects within the Okanagan. As a matter of fact, they have created a lot of jobs.

Highways 3 and 97 are top priorities within the Boundary-Similkameen area. Highway 3, of course, links the Kootenay area to the Boundary country through the Okanagan and over the Hope-Princeton to Vancouver, our major port. We see Highway 97 as a connector to our Trans-Canada, the Coquihalla, and because of free trade, to the entrance to the United States.

As you know, the rail lines are becoming fewer and fewer. There's a lumber reconnect in Grand Forks which ships lumber from the northern part of the province by truck to the American railroad, which goes to eastern United States markets. This is becoming a big business in the Grand Forks area. Lumber that until recently was shipped by railroad from the Penticton area is now going to be shipped by truck to reload on the CP at Kamloops.

We don't see this as a negative thing at this particular time. We see it as a change in the market, but we're pleased that the Ministry of Highways is going ahead to improve the highways so that they can handle the extra traffic that we see happening within Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. MILLER: Lots of wear and tear on those highways.

MR. MESSMER: It's going to be heavy.

Talking about education, we're pleased with the announcement yesterday on degree-granting status for Okanagan College. Our government, I believe, responded to the wishes of the people for the opportunity to obtain advanced education close to home. Having received their education at home in the Okanagan, hopefully they will be able to stay and work in the Okanagan. The percentage of students presently going to university today from the Okanagan should rise, giving us truly equal access to advanced education.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has already placed funding for schools in the Greenwood area and major renovations to other schools in our area. We look forward to the increased capital expenditures on schools, because of increased population caused by the free trade agreement and, I believe, the opportunity for people to move from the lower mainland to the Okanagan where it does not cost $400,000 to buy a house, nor is it $500,000 to buy a piece of property. We are very fortunate in that we have access to the ports and to the United States, and here you can still buy affordable housing and live an affordable life in a great climate.

I am also pleased to see that government task forces, including business and labour representatives, were up to recommend initiatives to reduce unemployment. I am the first to say that unemployment in the Okanagan is extremely high in the winter months. I am not sure if that is completely due to a shortage of work, or if it is because it is such a great place to live that people come to spend their winters in a very nice climate.

We do have a shortage of job-training programs, and I am pleased to see that the apprenticeship program will be strengthened. That is one area where I give full credit to the construction union people, because it was during their reign that the apprenticeship program had its strength. I now believe that it is a role that government must get into, in order to have some tradesmen in the field and to be able to carry on.

What happened, of course, was that in the early fifties we had a mass immigration of trained apprentices from Europe. We now find ourselves with a shortage of tradesmen, especially in the area of construction. Part of that is due to the age of the trained people. Because of that age, it is dictated that they either slow down or retire. With our unemployment figures running in the 17 per cent bracket during one of our best years economically since the eighties, there is no doubt that something is wrong, and that there has to be a fix to that situation.

Some years ago a study was done in the Okanagan, and a recommendation was presented to government for the establishment of a trade school for the south Okanagan. I am hopeful that in the next little while we will be making that approach again to government on that same basis.

The task force on the environment and the economy will advise how to continue economic growth while providing environmental integrity. I can say that in our area, the Boundary-Similkameen, we have been very aware of pollution and environmental problems for many years. The Okanagan water basin board has been looking after the milfoil in the Okanagan chain. It has been jointly funded by the provincial government and the respective communities. I believe that at this time we are at a break-even.... I don't think we are gaining nor are we losing, but we are holding our own, and that is something we should be proud of and should continue to do.

The condition of our lakes is our number one concern. It is a must to reduce the amount of phosphorous entering the valleys, the lakes and the streams from the septic tanks, agriculture and the forest industry. I am very pleased that this year Penticton has received the go-ahead with its new $18 million plant which will introduce new standards of nitrogen and phosphorous removal.

I take great pleasure in seeing this, because while I was the mayor of that community for many years, I called on almost every minister — including the Premier, who at that time was the minister involved — trying to get this great project through. It started out as a project for $6.7 million; today it is being built for $18 million. It is probably a good thing that we waited, because the technology has changed so much in the last ten years. If you are looking for the positive

[ Page 5683 ]

side of it, we now have the most up-to-date and modern plant in all of North America. I think you will see that the results from this will be proven; it is what we will look for when we are looking for other plants to be built in British Columbia.

If you talk about the Okanagan: Osoyoos hopes to begin construction this spring on a new $1.3 million effluent storage lagoon, which will advance theirs. Christina Lake has a group now getting together and studying the future plans for sewage collection. While they don't expect to do this in a short while, they know that in the next five to ten years they are going to have to take some action. Summerland is currently preparing a waste management plan that will lay the groundwork for waste management in that area for the next 20 to 40 years. The south Okanagan now has a draft report on waste-water conditions for the south Okanagan.

In all, I believe the government, along with the taxpayers, will be asked to spend roughly $50 million in the next few years on that project in the south Okanagan — in Boundary-Similkameen.

We in the Okanagan have always looked for pollution-free industry for the south Okanagan, and this desire is still there. We must look that much harder to find industries that can operate without upsetting our very sensitive system.

Agriculture is a major source of economic well-being within my constituency. I know that the only thing some people hear is the fact that agriculture needs to be subsidized in order to keep operating. But I would like to tell you that it's a very difficult and a very tough industry that they're in. Last year they got caught up in the Red Delicious, for example, where there was dumping from the United States, and our government took the initiative to assist them with 2 cents a pound for apples so that they could continue. I am pleased to say that they've now tried to expand their market, and Red Delicious apples are being shipped to overseas markets in the United Kingdom and the Far East. In January of this year export sales in total are 15 percent ahead of last year at this time. It speaks well for the Ministry of Agriculture and the people who are concerned with the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association. They do not wish to be subsidized; it was thrown upon them and there was nothing they could do.

[11:00]

I'd like to talk a little about the grape and wine industry. If you watch the news, you will see the wine crop being torn out of the ground in the Okanagan. It appears as if the politicians are insensitive to what is happening, but that is far from being the truth. The grape and wine adjustment assistance program was probably the salvation of the people in that business. The Canadian wine industry was singled out in the free trade negotiations as the sector most severely impacted by the FTA. The assistance program was introduced to cushion the effects of the FTA and also the effect of the adverse GATT ruling on provincial liquor policies. It was through the cooperation of the federal government, the provincial government and Alan Brock, the chairman of the

Grape Marketing Board, that this whole deal was able to be put together. It was compensation to growers who were forced out of the industry, at an average of $8,100 per acre for about 2,500 acres. It was compensation to the wineries to purchase the 1988 crop, in view of their existing surpluses. That was action that was taken by this government immediately when the announcement was made. There is money set aside to help those left in the industry to market the product that they have.

While we have torn out 2,400 acres of grapes within the Okanagan, the 1,000 acres that are left will, I am sure, give us more than an ample start towards a tremendous industry.

I'd like to tell you that Boundary-Similkameen wine-makers can produce top-quality wines. They took top honours at the 1988 PNE. Gehringer Bros. Estate Winery and Bright shared the top award of the show by winning the grand prize. Gehringer Bros. also took a best-of-class, three gold medals, three silver medals and one bronze. Bright wines won two gold medals, one silver and an honourable mention. Divino wines were the winners of two gold medals, one silver and an honourable mention.

While we are starting again, we are looking towards a great future for the wine industry in British Columbia and a strong, viable operation in Boundary-Similkameen. As of today, the wineries in Boundary-Similkameen are shipping wine to the eastern United States, to the New York market, on a marketing scheme. They are very hopeful that they will open up new markets that have never been touched before by B.C. wineries.

On the seniors, I welcome the task force which will meet with seniors across the province to form the policy and program options. We in Boundary Similkameen look forward to matching startup grants for non-profit senior houses. According to the 1988 census, 21 percent of the population of Boundary Similkameen is over the age of 65, compared with the provincial statistic of 12 percent. I believe that our seniors are probably the most active in British Columbia, and that's why we require more golf courses, more seniors' activity centres and, unfortunately, possibly more health care facilities than other areas of the province. And we do need additional assistance for care units and funding for seniors' housing.

We have a tremendous amount of grey power in Boundary-Similkameen — some of it's a little bald, but most of it's just grey — and we need to tap that available source of experience to assist us as government in meeting the financial demands on our system.

MR. MILLER: First of all, I would like to point out that I'm wearing the new pin of the provincial bird of British Columbia, the Steller's jay. I think it's an excellent pin. I'd like to see more members in this House and more people of British Columbia wear it. It reminds me of my youth, working in logging camps. Out in some of those hillsides in the morning sometimes that was your only company; those

[ Page 5684 ]

Steller's jays used to come around and take half your lunch.

I'm surprised the member for Boundary Similkameen, who is, I understand, an excellent ball player, didn't talk about the need to continue to try to attract major league ball to Vancouver. It's something that I would welcome. Maybe we can get together on that at some future date.

I have a number of riding issues that I would like to address, Mr. Speaker, but I'm not going to take the time in this throne speech response. I particularly have issues I'd like to take up with the new Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant), but I'll deal with them with the minister during his estimates.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the throne speech is a testament in some sense to the power of political persuasion that the electorate can exert. I've been dealing in the last month, and actually longer than that, with the question of conversion of forest licences to tree-farm licences, which has sparked considerable debate in this province — and I'll get into that a little bit later. There certainly has been a conversion on the government's part, in terms of the kinds of messages they're giving out now to the people of this province compared to ones we have previously received.

Perhaps that has to do with the message the government has received in some recent by-elections. Certainly the voters in Boundary-Similkameen.... I'm sure the first member, who just spoke here, is understandably nervous about the message he received in his constituency. We're pleased to see that he's now sharing his constituency with a member of the New Democratic Party. The message from Alberni.... We have a new member in the House from Alberni, whom I'm sure is a welcome addition to our ranks, and we'll shortly be joined by two other new members, one from Point Grey and one from Nanaimo. There was a very clear message from the voters of this province, and really from the supporters of the Social Credit Party, in all four of those by-elections. Some would conclude that the message was aimed solely at the Premier; I think otherwise.

The government has been on a bit of a roller coaster ride since they were first elected — this administration at least — in 1986. We've seen some real ups and downs in the performance of this government, and some changes in style and rhetoric.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Although there's still lots of rhetoric from the minister of culture.

The province and the government have been on a bit of a roller-coaster ride in terms of the kinds of messages the government has been sending out. The people of this province know that they are still on the roller-coaster. As usual, what happens on a roller coaster is that you're either climbing up a hill waiting to go down or you're hurtling down a slope. The emotions generated by that ride waver between sheer terror and hysterical laughter, which has been the reaction of the people of this province to the activities of this administration. When the roller-coaster stops, when people have the opportunity to get off, to dismount and to register their opinion, I'm confident that that opinion will be the same one that was registered in four by-elections in this province.

HON. MR. REID: Don't bet your seat on it.

MR. MILLER: I'm quite prepared to bet my seat on it, Mr. Minister of Culture, any time you want.

At any rate, we've seen a great conversion on the part of the government. They've suddenly discovered environmental issues, they've suddenly discovered women's issues, and once again they've talked about native issues. I recall the first throne speech in 1986, and in fact in my response to that throne speech I congratulated the government. The words of that throne speech went something like this: "...that we will attempt to develop a new and meaningful relationship with the native people of this province."

MR. PETERSON: We've established a ministry to look after it.

MR. MILLER: Yes, yes, we've now established a ministry to look after it, and what has the ministry done? I've stated in this House that I've always been prepared to congratulate the government on initiatives I think make sense and are worthwhile. I congratulated them in 1986 for putting those words in the throne speech, but I'm deeply disappointed, because I haven't seen any results from those words.

It's fine for the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) to get up and recite a litany of successes that that ministry has achieved, but what do they really amount to? I particularly noted that the minister cited the recent resolution of cut-off-lands negotiations. He said that they've sat down with individual native bands in this province and resolved some cut-off-lands negotiations. That's fine; I don't mind the minister taking credit, but give credit where credit is due. That initiative came out of the administration of 1972 to 1975.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, tell those members to check the Hansard. I wonder whether those members still in the House today supported that initiative? Why wasn't that kind of initiative undertaken many years previously? The claims ring a bit hollow, Mr. Speaker. I have many native bands in my community, and as I've travelled around this province since I've been elected, I've seen the kind of despair and hopelessness that exists in some of those native communities. I've seen the consistent refusal of this government to deal meaningfully with those native issues.

It struck me, during the last federal election, when I saw the Premier of Alberta — who unfortunately lost his seat in the recent election in that province — negotiating directly with Bernard Ominayak of the Lubicon to resolve a land issue, and it strikes me,

[ Page 5685 ]

when I see the government of the Yukon arrive at what appears to be a fair settlement in that territory, and when I see the government of Ontario sitting down and arriving at settlements with native people, that this government has still got its head in the sand.

I followed the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) around to six of the eight public information sessions, and time after time native people got up and, in emotional terms sometimes, tried to explain their position and to explain that they wanted to become more meaningfully involved in the economic life of this province, to beat the cycle of despair and poverty. The response they got was that the Minister of Forests, who at least by the last meeting should have memorized the little statement he was given by someone: "This is our position...." In response to these kinds of submissions from native people in this province, we got the Minister of Forests reciting: "It's not our responsibility. It's not our responsibility. It's not our responsibility." That's the message that was taken around to the native leaders of this province, despite the words of the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs.

The courts are increasingly telling the government: "You have to deal with this issue." I think the litany of lost appeals by this government is as long as your arm, and we continue to have this head-in-the sand refusal to deal with this serious issue in our province. So I'm not happy. As I said, I congratulated the government in 1986 but I withdraw that congratulation. They have not delivered on their promises. Empty rhetoric in a throne speech will not suffice.

Mr. Speaker, we've had a conversion in the Premier. I don't know if some people take comfort in the fact that the handlers have now sent the message out: "We've got the Premier under control; we've got a blanket on him. Don't worry, folks. You can relax, because we've got a lasso around the Premier." Are we supposed to take comfort in that? In a modern democracy, the message from the handlers of the Premier is, "Don't worry, folks; we've got him under control," and somehow the voters of this province are supposed to take some comfort in that.

[11:15]

I asked a member of the Social Credit Party in Prince Rupert — and I get along well with the people in my constituency, Mr. Premier, whether they are New Democrats or Social Crediters or whatever.... People are entitled to their political beliefs, and I ultimately respect them for their political beliefs. I'll fight them on it, but I respect them.

I asked a person who was a delegate to the Social Credit convention: "In hindsight now, tell me, did you really expect this to happen?" There was a fair amount of euphoria, as I recall the 1986 leadership convention. In fact, I recall the Premier prior to that convention saying: "I'm a changed man. I'm not the same guy anymore. I'm not the guy who led the brutal attacks on welfare recipients in this province, who didn't have the understanding inside of what it's like to be brutalized by the welfare system, who made jokes around this province and sold shovels at Social Credit conventions." The Premier said: "I'm a changed man." I guess the Social Credit delegates bought it. They obviously did, and there was a great deal of euphoria. I asked this delegate: "Did you expect what happened to happen?" He said: "Yes, when I actually sit down and think about it, I did expect this to happen, but my judgment was clouded by the euphoria."

Now we have the Premier, who in the initial term of his office, in the early days, talked about being Premier as being a piece of cake. You know: "Maybe I'll try a second career. I'd much rather be in the movies." As someone in my constituency said: "Is that cartoons? Is that animated movies or real ones?" Now he's talking about it. He had a little chat with Bob Hope, I understand, and now he's reconsidering. He might go into show biz after all.

Really, the Premier is but a symptom. I don't think we can blame everything on the Premier. The Premier is a symptom of the kind of malaise that has infected the Social Credit Party and the Social Credit administration.

I've been active in politics for about 20 years, despite my youthful appearance. I have participated in many campaigns and have run for office. I've lost a few times; I've won more than I've lost, and I thank the people who supported me. I've been around long enough and think I understand people and how they vote and why they vote, and I have a great deal of faith in the sense of the electorate. Ultimately, they do make sensible decisions. The electorate is telling me that this party has been in power so long that they are like the federal Liberals. They've grown arrogant. They've lost touch with the people of this province.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: They know it. The minister of culture is trying to heckle to hide his real feelings. He knows it — they've lost touch. The Premier is but a symptom, a symptom of a deep malaise within the Social Credit Party. The voters have a cure for the disease that has infected that party: they're going to vote them out of office. They need some time in opposition, a long time. I will make a prediction now. The minister of culture wanted to bet his seat — I'll bet my seat. Whether you get rid of the Premier or not, you're history. It all depends on when you want to call it. I hope for the sake of the people of this province that the government decides to go to the people as soon as it can.

I was somewhat dismayed — I suppose I should have been flattered in some respects — to hear the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) describe me as a true-blue CCFer yesterday. I'm proud to be a.... I always get a laugh out of my colleagues from Victoria when I say this, but I'm just a working person who took an interest in what's happening in life and felt that working people should have a little more say in their destiny. They had something to offer. Politics wasn't necessarily the purview of used-car dealers or real-estate people. We had to have a good cross-sec-

[ Page 5686 ]

tion of people representing the interests of the people of this province. I am quite pleased to be put in that light.

I find this curious, Mr. Speaker.... Obviously half an hour is all too brief for me to try to get my message across; I have much more to say.

Let's deal with the question of log exports. We've seen again a great switch in position by this government. Curiously, despite the announcement yesterday or the day before by the Minister of Forests, we have the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) popping up in question period. Now if ever there was a member who should say adamantly and flatly that we don't want log exports in this province, it should be the member for Cowichan-Malahat. What does he do? He pops up in question period and says, in a very timid way, to the Minister of Forests: "Would you please tell us what the negative impact will be? We're really concerned about the negative impact." Mr. Member, let's show some backbone in terms of this issue. Let's show some defence in terms of the production jobs of the people in your constituency.

Similarly, yesterday the Solicitor-General — I wish I had the Blues in front of me; I'd quote it — points to me, the member for Prince Rupert. He knows about the value of log exports, right? I can say categorically that as the member for Prince Rupert I'm totally opposed to raw log exports in this province, and so should every member of this House be.

HON. MR. REID: All log exports.

MR. MILLER: That's right. Totally opposed, If anybody can tell me that by exporting logs we are not exporting jobs, I'll be happy to listen to the argument. Just because we do not have sufficient processing facilities on the north coast is hardly a rationale for exporting logs. The logical conclusion that should be reached is the development of facilities to process those logs and create jobs in this province on the north and mid coasts. To offer this lame excuse that there's not sufficient processing facilities, therefore we've got to cut them down and export them, is the most ridiculous proposition I've ever heard. We know all about what happens when logs are exported.

In a very real way, I suppose I could argue that we've seen that for years. Logs have been exported off the Queen Charlotte Islands to southern British Columbia, not creating processing jobs on the Queen Charlotte Islands, but exported to southern British Columbia. We'd like those logs to stay at home. We now have a little sawmill in Prince Rupert. I'm not sure of the exact number of jobs, but it's about 70. People would far prefer to have that kind of ability to make a steady income processing the raw materials of this province rather than cutting them down and shipping them out. I've worked on log ships and in sawmills, and I know the difference. I've talked to longshoremen, and they much prefer to load lumber, not raw logs.

That gets me into forestry, and it's a big issue. I can't really cover the full range of issues that need to be covered in forestry in this brief time, but there's clearly a need. The people of British Columbia have expressed their opinion on the need for a royal commission. The people right across this province have been saying: "Something is wrong in the woods."

I had the privilege — and I did enjoy myself, even though it was quite rigorous in terms of travel — of travelling around this province and listening to large crowds in places like Smithers, Prince George, Kamloops, Nelson, Vancouver and Parksville. The citizens of this province came out and expressed their position on the forest industry of this province, and it was pretty well universal. I'd like to briefly quote some of the people who spoke. A tree planter in Nelson, whose name I unfortunately didn't get, said: "We need a ministry that is prepared to accept more responsibility for forest management, not less."

People like Irving Fox in Prince George talked about corporate concentration and asked the minister if he had done an analysis of corporate concentration: "Is there a degree to which it's not good for the industry in terms of the marketplace? Have you done that kind of work?" No.

These intelligent questions are consistently asked by distinguished British Columbians. One thing that struck me is that despite the differences in the individuals, whether it was a fellow in blue jeans and cowboy boots in Smithers or respected academics like Dr. Bill Gibson, they really were expressing the same sentiment. They were saying the same thing: "There is something wrong with our forest industry. This government has not done its job. They have not been the stewards of the resource, and we have some serious problems."

Amazing similarity. I was struck by the accuracy and intelligence of some of the submissions from the Truck Loggers' Association and the Federation of Independent Business. There's a group that I would think the members opposite would pay some attention to. They are the ones that use the rhetoric "free enterprise." I commend the members to read the submission of the Federation of Independent Business. They are your colleagues; probably some of you are members.

An old gentleman who obviously cares for this province.... British Columbians of long standing.... A Mr. John Hayward, who had given submissions to the Sloan commission.... His recommendations were logical and sensible. It struck me, as a new member in this House, that these kinds of submissions were not acted on previously. I was reading a submission last night from the early 1900s, from a prominent civil servant. I guess those were the days when we had civil servants of some stature who had feeling for this province and spoke out on issues.

MR. KEMPF: No gag order.

MR. MILLER: That's right, no gag order.

I was struck by their feeling for the province. The people of this province take great pride in the forest lands. They are in a very real sense our heritage — a

[ Page 5687 ]

great natural heritage. We have done a poor job in managing or being stewards of the land.

[11:30]

I was disappointed.... That's not the right word, Mr. Speaker. I was angry when I read of and sat down and talked with officials of Fletcher Challenge Canada regarding the recent activities on Vancouver Island, tree-farm licence 46 and the announced layoffs and cutbacks. I was angry because I'd asked some of those questions previously. Are we over cutting our forests? I'd asked those questions in this House and continued to get those non-answers. I look at the information supplied to me by Fletcher Challenge Canada; I look at the depletion of volume on their private lands, From 1974, with a volume of about 3,750,000 cubic metres — that's what they took off in 1974 — in 1989 we are down to about 400,000 cubic metres. Mr. Speaker, that land was creamed. And the Minister of Forests, and I think the Minister of Forests before him, is saying there's nothing wrong. "Don't worry; we're watching." As the tree planter said, we need a ministry that's prepared to accept more responsibility, not less.

I look at the other figures supplied. In an independent study, Reid Collins talked about the coastal log balance. What is our annual cut on the coast of British Columbia? It is 26 million cubic metres. What was the 1987 usage? It was 33.7 million cubic metres. And they tell me nothing is wrong, that we are on a sustainable cut. What's the 1989 usage forecast? Thirty-six million cubic metres. Mr. Speaker, we have a 10 million cubic metre deficit on the annual cut of coastal British Columbia, and this government is saying nothing is wrong,

The people do not believe them; there is a crisis of confidence in this province. It is unfortunate because forestry is our most important resource. The people of this province want to become more involved in managing that resource. They don't want a government that is going to shed responsibility; they want a government that is going to take more responsibility and is going to look after their interests. They are disappointed that that has not been the case.

We look at the question of value, and we compare ourselves to other forest jurisdictions. Mr. Speaker, I am constantly struck.... You want to talk about rhetoric. Growing up in British Columbia, I have heard this rhetoric about free enterprise. Yet there has not been a Forests minister who has not made the trip to Mecca — the Scandinavian countries — where they clearly are much superior to us in terms of managing their forest resource. Every Forests minister makes the trip. Those countries have been run by social democratic administrations for about 50 years. They are one of the most successful economies on the world stage. They do one of the best jobs in terms of managing their vital resources.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

All we hear from the other side, Mr. Speaker, is that empty rhetoric about free enterprise. Well, we are going to pull the plug on that empty rhetoric. As soon as you guys take a chance and go to the people, the plug is going to be pulled, and you are going to be down the drain.

You might have time to notice which way the whirlpool is turning, Mr. minister of culture, but you are going to be sucked down the drain — clearly.

Mr. Speaker, I have two minutes left, so I want to touch very briefly on one final issue. I want to quote the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker). He was addressing the Social Credit convention in a "bear-pit session." I don't know if the bears were like the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), but they did ask a few questions. Here is the Minister of Forests for this sovereign province of British Columbia in this sovereign nation of Canada — which one member talked about earlier. When asked about stumpage fees and the fact that the Americans are now determining our stumpage system, and what he was going to do about it, the Minister of Forests said: "I can't discuss stumpage matters at all, because the Americans subscribe to newspaper clipping services, and if I do they're going to be on my back." That's where this government has placed the people of this province today, I think it's a shame; I think it's a scandal. I'll hopefully be dealing with many more of these forestry issues as this session unfolds.

I hope some of the members opposite.... I see the heckling has been kept to a minimum, and they probably have paid attention to what I said.

MR. ROGERS: This is the fourteenth throne speech debate I've had the honour to sit through and listen to. The more things change the more things tend to stay the same.

I was reflecting earlier when I was making some notes that perhaps what we should do is speak about last year's throne speech this year. We could therefore actually not just speak about what the government is going to do but about what it said it was going to do and what it has or has not done during the year.

Perhaps next year there will be a report card on this year's throne speech, because it is rather lengthy. There are a lot of vague and not so vague promises in there, and several things that.... If they do do them, I will be most pleased to stand up and speak on their behalf. However, reviewing last year's throne speech, the members of the government may wish to consider reading it again to see that there are a few things they undertook to do that they rather missed doing during the last calendar year.

One of the things I am pleased about is the enhanced discovery of the environment, not only by politicians in this province but also, it would seem, by politicians worldwide. It was interesting to see the American presidential race when Mr. Bush and Mr. Dukakis were discovering environmental issues, many of which they had only very recently been briefed on. Of course, when they were asked some interesting questions, they had very simple answers for what is a very complex issue.

During the recent federal election, it was also a pleasure to see the newfound awareness of the environment. Having once had some responsibility for

[ Page 5688 ]

the environment in this province and having felt there are still a large number of issues to be dealt with, I thought I would comment on it here. I'm pleased to see that the government mentions it in its speech, but I really think that the public now is ahead of the politicians, and the public wants action on a number of diverse issues.

One of the things that we have talked about is the issue of dioxins and pulp mills. I had recent occasion to be out of the country and visiting a country where as a matter of national policy they had decided to offer their consumers unbleached kraft paper. When I've ever toured a pulp mill, I have asked them why it is that once they have actually created the paper they spend so much time making it brighter and brighter if it's only going to be used for such mundane tasks as toilet paper, paper napkins or other things. As a national policy other countries don't do that, but I'm told by the pulp and paper industry that the consumer would not purchase such goods, I don't believe that's the case any more; I think consumer awareness is growing exponentially. I think people are avoiding Styrofoam containers; they are avoiding cans with chlorofluorocarbons in them. I think that given the opportunity to purchase paper products that were made with unbleached kraft, they would be pleasantly surprised at the volume of the sales.

Perhaps there isn't as big a markup in it. There are probably not quite as many chemicals involved in doing it, but I would be curious to know what would happen if they actually offered such products for consumption. I have a feeling that they would have to be priced a little less because they would use less in the way of chemicals, and perhaps the chemical industry would be upset about that.

Not all of the people would like to make that decision, but some of them would, and I certainly would, having seen that the brown-coloured kraft paper works perfectly well for almost all of the functions that we normally see these things being used for.

I took amiss that some of the things I think the government is doing very well at are not mentioned. One of the things that was started by Dr. McGeer when he was a member here, and for which this Legislature went into an enormous, long tirade and debate, was the Knowledge Network. There were great cries — I'm afraid from the other side of the House — saying that this was going to be nothing but a vehicle for government propaganda, and it was certainly not going to meet its expectations.

This one division of government has not only met its expectations but it has exceeded the expectations that I or anyone else had for it. It is probably the best value for a dollar that the government in British Columbia gets from any program that it's involved in. I would like to think that if there were a requirement for the Knowledge Network to be enhanced by the government that it would be, because it clearly has demonstrated over the years that it's been in operation that it has not a political bias; in fact, it does a very good job of avoiding getting involved in politics and conducts itself in an exemplary manner, mainly dealing with issues of education. However, we in this province are also the beneficiaries of very good quality public television that is broadcast from the city of Seattle, and I think the government would be wise to invest some of its surplus lottery funds in a grant to KCTS in Seattle. It is enjoyed and viewed by people in most parts of this province. When the recent CRTC hearings were on in Vancouver, it was clear that the people of the city of Vancouver have much more affinity and affection for KCTS than they do for the national broadcasting corporation, which received almost no sympathy at all. Therefore I think the government should consider giving some assistance to this publicly funded institution in the United States.

I'd like to speak briefly on the issue of native education. Much has already been said, during this rather short session of parliament, about native education. From my experience as a previous minister responsible for natives, one of the things I found most alarming is that native education has failed, not in our failure to educate natives but in our failure to educate the non-native population; not only the indigenous people of this province — that is, indigenous non-native people who were born here — but also the new Canadians who have moved here from other parts of world, or even other parts of Canada. I would like to see a basic education and understanding of the native communities in this province included in our basic K to 12 educational program.

Far too often, people view natives as that the word "Indian" will cover them all. It's a bit like saying European will cover them all. I don't think we view a Scot or an Italian in exactly the same light, and I don't think we should view natives in the same light. I think the feeling is that the mass and electronic media — mainly from south of the line but nonetheless even in Canada — have bombarded us with an image of the native people which is, to say the least, not very complimentary. We would have a much better appreciation of the natives, of what land means to the natives and what native values are, and of the vast difference between the various groups of these people if only we would start at.... We have to start somewhere, and I think we should start in the educational process. We appreciate their music, their art, some of their culture, but we don't seem to appreciate them very much. I think we would greatly enhance that if we made it part of our educational program. It is certainly something that needs to be addressed.

One will say that the native situation is a federal responsibility, or a provincial responsibility, or someone else's responsibility. I don't think so. I think it's a responsibility of all the public, and the best place to start working on it is in the educational system.

In terms of my constituency of Vancouver South, it's interesting and somewhat frustrating to see what's happening with the real estate situation. People have talked about the price of housing in Vancouver. Actually housing doesn't seem to be the problem; the price of land seems to be the problem. The

[ Page 5689 ]

reason I say this is because so often when a house is purchased, it is immediately destroyed by some type of machine that comes and puts it in a box and takes it away to the dump, and the so-called "monster" houses are built in its place. The city of Vancouver has done a good job in addressing that in terms of more restricted zoning, but I think it should be encouraged to put a price on a demolition permit. We are seeing in some cases houses that have been there for a long time, where not even the salvage is permitted. Where many parts of our history, architecture and other goods are involved, they're absolutely and completely destroyed.

I suppose the overheated housing market in Vancouver is in part a result of the success of Expo. I think it's also a failure on our part to expand our transportation network fast enough to meet the expanding population in the lower mainland. Therefore I think that we should work in government on the things that need to be worked on, and that includes expansion of the transit system in all likelihood to Surrey, the area seeing the greatest growth in the GVRD. But if Mayor Sekora could just contain himself for a couple of weeks and be polite briefly, I'm sure that the government would see the wisdom of expanding the ALRT out into his vicinity as well.

[11:45]

The transportation crisis in the lower mainland is really a reflection of the time it takes people to travel to and from work. The Ministry of Highways is currently working on a program to have public input, but the crisis is upon us, and I really think that they could speed up that process and make a decision to get underway reasonably soon, because the real problem is access to new land for the expanding population base of the lower mainland. The overheated market will do what all overheated markets do: it will cool down. Several people will get burned; many people will wonder how they've paid such preposterous prices. But it will stabilize, as it has in the past. Before we get into a large review of how to solve the housing crisis — we've had four housing crises in the 14 years that I've been here — it might be nice to reflect on what ended those housing crises in the past.

The government was invited to be a representative in Davos, Switzerland, at the world economic conference. I think they did a very good job there. It was the one opportunity they had to impress those people who really do make decisions. From the reports I have from non-government people who went there, it was extremely well done. I trust that there will be some suitable follow-up to that, because while ten years ago we were wondering how we could get the world's attention, it seems that between Expo and Davos and a few other things we have more than gotten the world's attention. Now having got its attention, I trust that we'll have the correct follow-through so that we can have the economic diversification that this province would like to have.

There are some minor items I thought I would bring up in terms of privatization. The government has done a commendable job. I would recommend that they consider privatizing their Challenger 600 jet, and that while there is a market for such equipment, during this overheated market, this aircraft, which somebody advised them not to buy — I won't mention who — it could possibly be disposed of, and we would all be the richer for it.

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: No. You can go on a scheduled airliner though.

MR. LOVICK: It'll never fly.

MR. ROGERS: Well, it does actually, at great expense. If you only knew what it really costs to operate that aircraft. However, that's for other people to worry about.

While I'm on the issue of aviation, I'd like to talk briefly about Vancouver International Airport because.... I should probably declare that I have a conflict of interest, as my chances of using the airport more frequently than the rest of you seem to grow on a daily basis. However, having made that disclaimer to start off with, I really believe that the window for British Columbia, internationally, is still Vancouver International Airport. We are stuck with one runway capable of handling aircraft going on international destinations. The need has been demonstrated technically; what has not been demonstrated is the political courage to make the decision to expand Vancouver International Airport.

There must be a new parallel runway constructed. The technical people will tell you that the time-lag to do so is phenomenal and quite extensive, because runways that handle the capacity of aircraft that would go into Vancouver take some time to do. We have a lineup and a crisis now; we see waits as long as 40 to 45 minutes at some times of the day. It's unnecessary. It's something that in almost every other jurisdiction.... The airport wasn't big enough in the first place. The land was expropriated many years ago. The need is there to do it; all it requires is the political courage. The people have been displaced, the schools have been closed, the land lies fallow, and the need is there.

The employment generation for both Richmond and Vancouver that would come out of an expansion of Vancouver International Airport is very substantial indeed. The number of carriers that wish to fly into Vancouver that can't get slot times now is growing, and this one simple 8,000- or 9,000-foot strip of concrete would make an enormous difference to the economic viability of the airport, which is going to be our window.

There are a number of issues I plan to talk about during the estimates of the various ministries, which gives us a more focused scope. I think I would like to talk just briefly in advance of the budget speech and congratulate the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) on some very worthwhile changes. I want to predict here — having never seen the budget — that he will remove the

[ Page 5690 ]

first-time homeowner purchase tax. I'm just going to predict that one right off the bat.

There might be some other things he does that are popular because....

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: I'm absolutely psychic. He's probably busy now downstairs changing it because I've predicted it. But funnier things have happened.

I do think the economy has expanded, and the management of the budget has been done very well. I think if they can restrain themselves in terms of their fiscal promises, we won't be faced with the difficulty the federal government is faced with, where they don't have a particularly strong, expanding economy and where they have this rather noticeable crisis of financial squeeze.

In fact, the amount of money federally that goes to retire previous debts on previous borrowings has now become an alarming issue. The federal government, who chastised this government when they went through a downsizing when they had to do it — and we certainly took a lot of grief, those of us who were here at the time — should now have a look at what happened in British Columbia. Programs that were cut, personnel that were dismissed, reductions that took place were painful. They're never very pleasant.

The rewards are there. Now we're going to find British Columbia in good economic and financial shape. Interestingly enough, our neighbour province of Alberta is busy promising itself into the kind of problems the federal government is getting itself into. Nationally it doesn't bode well. It takes courage to dispense with government programs. It takes courage to downsize government. It also has great rewards in the end. While the people who largely did the job are no longer in this Legislature, they have the comfort of knowing they did the right thing.

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: There are a few of them around.

However, since it's pretty close to time for lunch, I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.