[ Page 5691 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Security at Wilkinson Road jail. Mr. Sihota –– 5692

Public advisement of prison escapes. Mr. Sihota –– 5692

Bob Quinn camp closure. Mr. Guno –– 5692

Resignation of David Poole. Mr. Williams –– 5693

Dioxin testing at Woodfibre mill. Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 5694

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Rogers –– 5695

Mr. Lovick –– 5695

Mr. Crandall –– 5699

Mr. Barnes –– 5702

Mr. B.R. Smith –– 5705

Ms. Smallwood –– 5709

Mr. Long –– 5712

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House of the tragic passing yesterday evening of Barry Sullivan, QC, and perhaps to use the occasion to say a few words of tribute to Mr. Sullivan.

Barry Sullivan came to the attention of the Ministry of Education during his successful prosecution of the Robert Noyes child sexual abuse case. Previously he had headed a committee to advise the government on amendments to the Human Rights Act. During the summer of 1986, Mr. Sullivan prepared an interministry report on sexual abuse of children by school board employees, and that report set the direction which government has taken in dealing with the abuse problem.

It was Mr. Sullivan's manifest concern for children, together with his professional ability, that subsequently made him the government's choice to head the Royal Commission on Education. He combined the objectivity of a non-educator with the trained mind of a lawyer. As a one-man commission, Mr. Sullivan wisely assembled a broad-based support staff of educators and others.

From the start of the royal commission's work, his common sense and human qualities were displayed in his direction of the research. As well as holding formal hearings, he made sure that he and his staff went out to meet the public in their places of work and study. In one instance, he even held a public meeting aboard a Gulf Islands ferry, and he certainly went out of his way to talk to the students in the system.

Before many months had elapsed, it became evident that he had succeeded in eliciting widespread enthusiasm for the work of the royal commission. It is a tribute to his abilities and his personal integrity that in the midst of strife and much cynicism, he was able to establish his credibility and his genuine interest.

Mr. Sullivan's health began to deteriorate during the course of his research, yet he continued to devote himself to the work to the limit of his strength. His personality animated all his staff. He was assisted in particular by Dr. Arthur Kratzmann, who became Mr. Sullivan's deputy and oversaw publication of the report. To Dr. Kratzmann, the professional staff and the technical staff, we owe a great deal of thanks.

Barry Sullivan leaves a memorial that many would envy. A Legacy for Learners, as his report is titled, suggests many improvements in our education system. The wide acceptance it has already received is a testament to his wisdom, his common sense and his love of children.

On behalf of all British Columbians, I extend our sympathies to Barry Sullivan's widow, Dawne, and their four children: Lianne, Lana, Ryan and Shannon. I also wish to recognize and thank the family for their significant contribution, because I know that Mrs. Sullivan read much of the material, assisted and was able to give the input of a mother and children into the report. So I wish to recognize that and thank them for their work and contribution to the royal commission as well as their support for Mr. Sullivan.

A Barry Sullivan memorial bursary fund is being created. Details will be provided shortly, and contributions in lieu of flowers have been requested by the family. The funeral service is tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m. in Vancouver.

I know, however, that the major tribute to Barry Sullivan will be an education system that meets the emerging needs of the twenty-first century. His lasting memorial couldn't be better expressed than through the title of the royal commission report, A Legacy for Learners.

Perhaps the Speaker can, on our behalf, convey the sentiments of this House to the Sullivan family.

MR. JONES: We on this side of the House also wish to express our regrets on the untimely death of Barry Sullivan.

Although best known for his work in education in British Columbia, Mr. Sullivan had a successful 14-year career in the legal profession. As well, he served on the B.C. Utilities Commission. In 1982, after only ten years at the bar, he was appointed to be regional crown counsel and was responsible for many of the high-profile prosecutions in this province. He was described by Denny Boyd in September 1986 as the top lawman in the province, in terms of effectiveness and high-profile prosecutions.

Despite the royal commission's slow start after his appointment to it, his personal, warm and human style eventually attracted a strong public response to that commission and gave credibility to its work. Mr. Sullivan became a symbol of the end to a very negative past in education, and a symbol of hope for the future.

I think everybody knows that as commissioner he set up a very rigorous and demanding schedule of hearings and meetings in every corner of this province. I had the privilege to attend a number of those hearings and was most impressed with his incredible patience and sensitivity to all those who wished to be heard by the commission.

Barry Sullivan made an important contribution to British Columbia, particularly in education, and as the Minister of Education said, his legacy is symbolized by the title of the royal commission report, A Legacy for Learners. I know the House wishes to express to the family of Mr. Sullivan our sympathies and condolences on behalf of this House to a very special British Columbian.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank both members. A proper message will be sent by the Chair on behalf of all members.

HON. MR. REID: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House today the chairman of the Public Service Commission, Mr. Graeme Roberts, who is in the members' gallery.

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd ask the House to make welcome today Bruce Hallsor of Terrace, British

[ Page 5692 ]

Columbia. Bruce is the former premier of the B.C. Youth Parliament and a UBC student.

MR. MOWAT: I'd ask the House to make welcome Sharon White, a commissioner from the Public Service Commission.

MR. SIHOTA: In the gallery today are a number of students from Esquimalt Senior Secondary School. Everyone knows Esquimalt Senior Secondary; it's probably the best school in the greater Victoria area, maybe in the whole universe. At least, it's known for its outstanding jazz band and its rugby team, which is off to Japan later on. Joining us are approximately 30 students from the social studies 11 class, together with their teacher Mr. Taylor. Would all members of the House join me in giving a warm welcome to the students from Esquimalt.

MR. B.R. SMITH: Also an educational visitor today in your gallery is the senior inspector in special education from Hong Kong, Mr. Tsui, who is here with his wife on a Canadian tour. Mr. Tsui works with learning disabled and emotionally disturbed children, and he is here looking at B.C.'s excellent programs promoting integration of handicapped children. He is also here in the gallery with my wife Barbara. Could you make them welcome.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

SECURITY AT WILKINSON ROAD JAIL

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the Solicitor General which relates to the escape from Wilkinson Road. The government has had several inquiries, and it appears that it hasn't learned from those inquiries. Some time ago the outside night prowl position was eliminated through government cutbacks at Wilkinson Road. Would the minister not agree that in order to protect public safety, that outside night prowl position should now be restored?

HON. MR. REE: No.

MR. SIHOTA: I see that the minister has little or no respect for maintenance of public safety. But I'm sure the minister is also aware that in the original design for the building, there was a second outside perimeter fence to cover the entire area. Again as a cost-saving measure, the government chose not to put in that second outside fence. Does the minister now agree that that second fence should be put up as a way of further ensuring public safety?

HON. MR. REE: The minister does not agree with the presumptions raised by the hon. member, and the answer is no.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll question the minister again about Wilkinson Road. The night before this escape occurred, management was tipped off that there was an incident about to happen at the facility. Instead of holding an immediate search that night, management chose to defer a search until the next afternoon shift. Of course, in the ensuing time the escape occurred. Will the minister who has announced an inquiry be requesting that the inquiry investigate the reasons behind that deferment?

HON. MR. REE: If there was such a deferment, yes.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the minister again. One of the reasons that it takes up to six hours to detect an escape is insufficient staff at night. I understand that since the escape — after the horse has left the barn, so to speak — the government has increased the number of guards looking after inmates in the units. We have gone from a ratio of 1 to 4 to, I believe, 1 to 2. Will that increase in staff at night shift be permanent?

HON. MR. REE: That will be one of the options to be considered when the report is brought down.

PUBLIC ADVISEMENT

OF PRISON ESCAPES

MR. SIHOTA: Another question to the minister. After a rash of escapes at Oakalla and other institutions, the former Attorney-General, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith), indicated that the government would consider advising the public when escapes occurred. Could the minister explain why in this instance the public in the surrounding area was not advised of the fact that an escape had occurred?

HON. MR. REE: In "advising the public," I'm not too sure to what extent the member is discussing: the whole public community of British Columbia? I think they have been advised. The media are aware of it; they have been advised. The local police were advised. The local prison people were advised. If the member would set out some perimeter of area or designation as to what he includes in "public," I'd be happy to consider it.

BOB QUINN CAMP CLOSURE

MR. GUNO: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways — no, it's not about a highway advertising matter.

Last Friday, NoRoadco told the 11 workers at Bob Quinn camp that the camp would be closing. These workers voted for the privatization of highways maintenance when they were assured that the camp would be kept open. Is the minister aware of the situation? Has he decided to see to it that the contractors honour the commitment they made to the workers?

HON. MR. VANT: At this time I am not aware of the details of that, so I will take that on notice. 

[ Page 5693 ]

RESIGNATION OF DAVID POOLE

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Premier, yesterday in the House you advised us that Mr. David Poole, your principal secretary, had resigned. Outside in the corridor you said that in effect he had been fired. Could you advise us what you have to tell the House today?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What I said was that the resignation had been asked for.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would note that the House was not advised of that, and I'm pleased that we are now getting a little more of the story in the Legislature itself.

Mr. Premier, an additional question. On November 24 last year you said: "The decision was Poole's alone, and I deeply regret that he made it." Today you're now telling us that he was asked to resign. Which is the true story, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, first of all, it's not unusual for the question to be asked after it appears in the media. Frankly, the question wasn't asked yesterday, and it was asked by the media; as I say, that's not unusual. However, with respect to your question, I did regret accepting the resignation. No one ever likes to accept these resignations, I'm sure. The Leader of the Opposition is presently faced with a similar situation and is being sued, as I understand — or at least the NDP caucus is — for wrongful dismissal, and I'm sure he suffers similar regrets. I suppose we won't know the exact cost of that until the court rules on it.

As the member is aware as well, oftentimes severance is based on advice from people knowledgeable in the field as to what the court might decide. This undoubtedly, as I say, will be a matter of regret for the Leader of the Opposition as well, so we do regret things like this.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to shovel money off the back of a truck for his assistants. Can we get it clear that the Premier is now saying that what he said on November 24, which was that it was Poole's decision alone, was indeed not the case, and he knew that when he said it?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, again I must say that obviously there is a procedure which is regularly used in government and in the private sector with respect to severance, and a resignation alone is not always the cause of severance.

As I said, I think the Leader of the Opposition is well aware of this; he is now faced with a similar situation. We don't hear a whole lot about that; there's very little said by the opposition regarding the matter of the principal secretary to the Leader of the Opposition who is now suing for wrongful dismissal, and what the consequences of this might be. I realize the comments made by the first member for Vancouver East.... He said: "The Leader of the Opposition doesn't want to shovel the money off the back of a truck." Again, we can only assume that given the NDP record, which in part was to pay $80,000 plus to the first member for Vancouver East after serving one month in the House and putting the taxpayers to a tremendous expense for a by-election, this could well happen again. Your record isn't that great. Your own demands and the response that we've seen from your party in regard to that are not that great.

MR. WILLIAMS: You're saying then, Mr. Premier, that you're entirely satisfied with the $172,000 payoff; that that's quite acceptable to you?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've said it previously, and I'll say it again: I am not happy with severance policies as they exist, not only in this government but as they are in municipal governments, in regional governments, in all governments. Perhaps they reflect in part what's happening in the private sector as well. I am not happy with that, and I have said that this whole matter will need to be addressed. I'm not happy with it now. I wasn't happy during the NDP years when they were paying someone from Winnipeg who had served about a year or so a tremendous severance as well, namely Cass Beggs. We know of other examples during the years 1972, '73, '74, '75 and beyond that I'm not happy with.

I agree that this whole matter needs to be addressed. I think people who work in the public service may be getting too large a benefit when it comes to severances, and I agree that this may be based upon what's happening in the private sector and the decisions from the court based on what has happened previously. I can't do much about what's happening in the private sector, but I do believe that I and members of government have a responsibility to see this addressed in the public sector. And we will address it in the public sector; it will be addressed adequately. Hopefully we would not have to worry about addressing it for city governments or municipal governments, but I appreciate that there's a problem there as well. If need be, perhaps we can address that in consultation with them.

I'm concerned about it, yes, and not only for one person, as the opposition tends to zero in on. I'm concerned as to how it affects what happens when a settlement is finally arrived at between the Leader of the Opposition and his former principal secretary, and the consequence of that. As I understand it, already there have been overtures, on behalf of the NDP caucus, I must presume, that this cost be picked up by the government or by the taxpayers.

I am concerned about these things. I believe it needs to be addressed, and I will see that it is addressed, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Government Management Services. In view of the fact that the Premier is unhappy with this golden handshake and this fat settlement, are you prepared to rescind the order-in-council? Are you prepared to take it back to

[ Page 5694 ]

your cabinet colleagues? In view of the fact that you said yesterday you were a rookie and didn't have the signature of the pension commissioner and other signatures from the A-G's office on it, are you now ready to ask for the approval of the senior staff in this administration to sign something they were clearly unwilling to sign before?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I thank the member for his concern on this subject, and I can assure you that this government will be looking in depth at the severance policy — past, future and current — once the report is tabled with me and my cabinet colleagues sometime in the future by the former Chief Justice. We will be examining the policy thoroughly to see how it compares with other jurisdictions in the Dominion of Canada — other provinces and the federal jurisdiction. We will be looking at this thoroughly and making a judgment decision in the interests of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

I might add one key element that should be remembered by all members of this House, and that is that it wasn't that long ago that the auditor-general, the independent person of this province, gave advice and offered his comments and opinion that, indeed, the severance arrangements with employees of government, whether they are senior, intermediate or junior, should not be discussed in public. It is a personnel matter.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Finance. On this very issue the Minister of Finance said: "There is nothing unusual or abnormal beyond what would normally be expected in terms of this golden handshake for Mr. Poole." This man was employed 18 months; he got $10,000 a month in terms of the golden handshake. Do you still think that's normal, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Like my colleagues, I thank the hon. member for the question. In addition to the points that have been made by the Premier and the minister in charge, I think we might add a few more points to the official record.

[2:30]

First of all, the quote the hon. member used is what I'm speaking to, which is the normalcy of arrangements made when severing public sector employees. As the Premier said, if you examine the severance arrangements of most local governments, school boards and other publicly financed authorities, you will find in the jurisprudence dealing with those court cases the precedents, the parameters under which people are paid. That's a matter of public record, and as the Premier said yesterday, if we were to examine the severance records of the city of Vancouver while it was led by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, we would undoubtedly find that there were exactly similar situations in that jurisdiction which, by virtue of the lack of parliamentary procedure that we enjoy, don't get the public examination that they should.

The fact that we are discussing this in the public forum is proper and correct, and I'm very pleased that we have the opportunity to tell the people of the province that what we have done in this respect and in others.... You were told yesterday, let me remind you hon. members, that this was not the highest settlement in recent years of a departing public service employee, the point being that the opposition has zeroed in on one high-profile person for the purpose of making a political point. That's what we pay them for, Mr. Speaker, and I really can't be too critical of that. But surely....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister must finalize his answer.

DIOXIN TESTING AT WOODFIBRE MILL

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order. I'd like to respond to a question posed to the ministry yesterday and taken on notice by the Premier. The question was asked by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore).

My first observation is that the NDP has really reached a new low in courage when they have to wait until they know I'm going to be absent before they ask misleading, technical questions.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was just wondering whether it's customary on a question of notice to have these peripheral remarks, and rather political ones. I'd urge the minister to just answer the question. Leave the commercials out of it.

MR. SPEAKER: The point is well taken.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The opposition is advised every day at 11, Mr. Speaker, if ministers are going to be present or absent.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Okay, 12. Whatever.

The question posed yesterday was about testing done at Woodfibre by Beak Consulting. First to Beak Consulting.

Tom Beak is a former scientist with Environment Canada. I believe biology is his discipline, and since 1965 he has operated a consulting firm consulting to the pulp and paper industry across Canada. I'm advised that Beak Consulting is one of the best in the business and has been employed by the pulp and paper industry for many years. In fact, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association has asked Beak to do dioxin testing for some time now, which is in reference to the paper the member presented yesterday. In order to test for discharge in a pulp mill, you must have controlled measurement over the process which creates the discharge.

For that reason and in the consulting employ of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association acting at Woodfibre, Beak Consulting advised Woodfibre that they must achieve certain processing standards on order that there could be meaningful measurement of the discharge.

[ Page 5695 ]

This is empirical methodology, and if the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam needs further explanation, he could probably talk to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) and receive some assistance.

What I find most disturbing is the second question posed yesterday by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam: "Is it true that your government gave Woodfibre mill extra time to pretty itself up and get these tests in late?" In that question, the member implies that the government was doing the particular testing. In fact, the document it refers to indicates that the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association was doing the testing. He should know better than that.

There's a further flaw in the member's allegation, and it is the flaw I wish to discuss. As I've said, Beak was working for industry. More serious, though, is the knowledge that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam knew that Beak was working for the industry. He visited Woodfibre on Friday, March 10, and he was advised of the change of the process and of the testing by Beak that would accompany such industrial information. This information was made available to the member by management and by union personnel. I really find it despicable to use question period to bring misinformation to the House.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order. I was just wondering, Mr. Speaker, if you find the word "despicable" unparliamentary or offensive to the Chair. I would urge that he withdraw.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The word "despicable" is unparliamentary, and I withdraw it.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. ROGERS: I'm so pleased to be able to stand in my place this afternoon. This morning when I stood in my place, I don't think we had a quorum. I wish the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) would stay for my one brief closing remark about this thing, so please sit down, top gun, and I'll be with you in a minute.

I'm going to have to send a copy of the Minister of Finance's answer to the former member for Columbia River, because Jim Chabot would be very proud of it. I thought for a moment there that we were actually sitting through the budget speech, because it had that ring to it that I'm becoming familiar with.

There's only one brief thing that I want to bring up. Since the chamber is full for these few minutes, I would just like to mention, Mr. Solicitor-General, that more enlightened jurisdictions — Ontario, for example, and others — have followed the leads of the airlines, bus companies and railway companies by banning smoking on the vehicles that are known as taxis. It's going to come to this province as it comes to every other province, and it remains in your jurisdiction as the minister responsible for the Motor Carrier Commission. My last plea to extend the life and health of all the people in British Columbia who don't smoke — and perhaps extend the life of those people who do smoke but will refrain from smoking while they're in public transit — is to ask the government to get ahead of the public again and this time ban smoking in taxis.

MR. LOVICK: And in the ministers' offices, too.

MR. ROGERS: There's absolutely no question of that, but I'm not so sure that that would be terribly practical.

Mr. Speaker, I know the budget is going to be terribly fascinating; I've given many of the members who are here today a little insight as to some of the things they can expect — and so the budget probably has to be changed — but I'll look forward to speaking again during that time and, of course, having a little more fun during estimates, when there's a more liberal chairman who will allow greater flexibility and chiding.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to participating in the debate on the throne speech with some eagerness, enthusiasm and alacrity. I want to begin by saying that it's nice to be back. I'm sure that it hasn't escaped the notice of many people that we have been away for a period of about nine months. Understandably, many individuals were speculating as to whether the government might be pregnant with new ideas, insights and concepts that would take us to the heights. Unfortunately, that has not proven to be the case. Behold they have laboured and brought forth task forces, and not much more. That, of course, has led us to the amendment, and it is my pleasure today to speak to that.

To begin, I want to remind all members of the House just what that amendment says. Because what happens traditionally around here is that in the heat of debate we tend to lose sight of what we are supposed to be discussing — not so much on this side, but certainly on the other side. The amendment to the gracious speech we heard from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor was that we would add the following words:

"And this House acknowledges that the throne speech was an admission of mistakes by the government on issues of critical importance to British Columbians, including forestry, the environment and housing, and that rather than providing a strong and clear commitment to immediate legislative action on these important concerns, it is an agenda of further studies, promises and delays."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The first thing that strikes me when I review the amendment and examine the words is that this statement ought not to require debate. It is a statement of fact, and I would submit that the record would prove that rather conclusively. I detect a little disagreement on the other side — it's nice to see some sign of awareness and alertness over there, and a little sign

[ Page 5696 ]

of disagreement. All I can suggest is that members opposite recognize that yes, indeed, they did not say enough. Because just as this throne speech has been an admission of failure on matters of environment, forestry and housing, so too is it an admission of failure in certain other areas critical to the well-being of this province.

I would refer specifically to two, Mr. Speaker. The first would be highways. Let's have a look at the throne speech. Let's see the reference to highways on page 7, for those who might be following along. The reference we detect there is as follows: "The Minister of Transportation and Highways will initiate a comprehensive highways redevelopment program in the coming year." Well, one doesn't need any advanced training in logic to recognize that embedded in that statement is a clear admission that we have been neglecting the province's highways for a very long time. In fact, it is precisely that conclusion which comes across very clearly in that huge transportation study, some 18 volumes recently commissioned by this government.

One is also tempted to speculate on the reasons for that predicament. I would remind members that one of the reasons we have a state of disrepair in the province's highways is because of the rather skewed set of spending priorities. What we did, you will recall, with the Coquihalla was suck all the money out of highways provincewide and place it in one spot. We are still paying the price for that.

I would remind us also, in terms of the predicament of not having enough money to work on rebuilding and maintaining our highways, that we saw clear evidence of that in last year's budget when, you will recall, there was a 14 percent reduction in the Highways budget. An admission of failure on the part of government? You bet, Mr. Speaker: clear, definite evidence of an admission of failure.

The second point I would draw — for the attention of the members opposite — has to do with education. Again let me quote from the throne speech. I am referring specifically to post-secondary education here: "My government believes that advanced education is an investment by society in its future." Talk about a self-evident truth, I would add parenthetically. "Improved access to advanced education will be a priority for the government in 1989." Obviously it hasn't been a priority to this point. "The Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training will introduce programs to strengthen our post-secondary system." Obviously it is a little weak at the moment, parenthetically. "My government will enhance access to university programs in all parts of our province" — places where they haven't had it thus far — and will "improve coordination between institutions, and expand capacity within our existing systems."

[2:45]

Pretty clearly, Mr. Speaker, again we are dealing with an admission of failure, remember, from a government that has been in power for two and one-half years, from a political party that has had the control of government for some 30 years. That's an admission of failure from a government whose record clearly, demonstrably in post-secondary education is abysmal.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members to recall that we have a very low percentage of young people in this province going on to post-secondary education. We have a very low percentage of young people receiving university degrees in this province. We have a low level of student assistance, and we have high tuition fees.

We recognize, then, that if we are being asked to believe, as the throne speech seems to suggest, that all is for the best in this — the best of all possible worlds; shades of Voltaire — we are also being asked to forget our sense of history. We're being asked to forget everything that's happened. I'm not talking about ancient history; I'm talking about recent history, as recently as one year ago today plus a month.

At that time, the Canadian Federation of Students — I would remind the Premier and others — produced a document called "The Quality of Post-Secondary Education in British Columbia: A Consumers' Report." The burden of that report was, and I can quote the letter from the research director for the Canadian Federation of Students, just this: "In a nutshell, the report indicates that years of inadequate funding, far below the rate of inflation, coupled with increases in enrolment, have created serious problems for institutions in trying to maintain the quality of the educational experience they offer students."

Less than a year ago, the research project comes up with the conclusion, prima facie, that the system is in trouble, that we're having difficulties. Now we're being promised this huge infusion of dollars. We're going to make all kinds of great things happen; and that's good, I won't deny for a moment. But, please, I would admonish this government, don't try to tell the rest of us that we should forget what the record has been, because the record, as I suggested, has been abysmal, and to pretend otherwise is simply dishonest.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: No, no. Somebody opposite suggests that I am sailing close to the wind, and to make him feel rather better I will tell him that I am now about to take a different tack.

I want to suggest to the minister opposite and to all others of like mind that their sudden embracing of the cause of post-secondary education, ipso facto, amounts to an admission of failure. It's just that simple. Our amendment, if it's flawed, fails only in that it is perhaps not inclusive enough. Our sin is not commission; our sin is perhaps omission. I would offer that observation.

Now that we see this sudden embracing of what some have euphemistically referred to as the triple-E — environment, education, economic development — some of us, I hope, can be forgiven for toying with the conclusion that perhaps what is happening is that this government and this Premier have peered over

[ Page 5697 ]

the abyss, and maybe they see, in fact, that their own demise is imminent and therefore have made this sudden, dare I say, almost deathbed repentance.

"Deathbed repentance" strikes me as an appropriate phrase, and I don't think I am exaggerating. I don't think I am stretching the point. Let me suggest why I think that's a fair conclusion to draw. The evidence, I would suggest, is in, and the evidence was given on March 15. On March 15, the electors of Vancouver–Point Grey and the electors of Nanaimo, my own constituency, were asked to judge the record of this government.

They did so, and they made their decision very clear. Indeed, they rejected overwhelmingly this government, this political party, this Premier. Let me remind members opposite, and I notice they are all trying to avoid grappling with the evidence....

MR. SERWA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member consistently refers to this side and that side of the House. There are 12 staunch, stouthearted members of the government seated in this corner of the House. Would you ask the hon. member to refer to that corner of the House when he's talking?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair appreciates the comments from the hon. member, but may the Chair suggest that we would hope the members know which side of the House they belong to.

MR. LOVICK: I'm delighted to allow my friend from the Okanagan his brief flirtation with immortality by interrupting my speech — happy to give you that.

I was about to give you some evidence, Mr. Speaker, because I don't believe that the majority of members in this House — indeed, in all corners of this House — are entirely aware of precisely what happened some weeks ago, and the magnitude of what happened. Let me remind them: in Point Grey the Social Credit candidate received 23.5 percent of the popular vote; the New Democrat received 52.5 percent of the popular vote. The win in Point Grey was by a margin of 7,721. Less than one in four voters in the constituency of Point Grey could be found who were willing to support that government. You can smile, friends, and laugh and say, "It's just one of those things, " as the song says, but you ought to be responding with fear and trembling — and I suspect that you are.

In Nanaimo, similarly, the Social Credit candidate garnered an amazing 35.3 percent of the vote, and his New Democrat rival, the soon-to-be-seated MLA Jan Pullinger, garnered some 57.2 percent, a margin of 5,456 votes. Now, folks on the other side, however you cut it, however you want to play it, that equals humiliation, repudiation. It's just that simple. Nobody, I think, can dispute that conclusion. In Nanaimo that hapless candidate was butchered like a lamb at a slaughter. So it happened in Point Grey also, despite the fact — and I want to emphasize this — that the government pointed with pride to all of the economic indicators going their way; despite the fact that the government stated with depressing regularity that everything was wonderful and their track record was beyond compare; despite the fact that they also made some specific efforts in my constituency to leave behind some money, some evidence of the government's generosity. Despite that, these things happened.

I would remind members that the Social Credit candidate was assisted at the beginning of the campaign. In fact, we had a visit by the Premier and the cabinet. Not only did they visit, but they decided to make some announcements: they left some money there. They left quite a bit of money, as a matter of fact, and of course we're grateful to receive it. But what's important to note is that it apparently didn't make any difference in terms of changing people's regard for this government. The campaign was announced the day after the cabinet visited Nanaimo. The Premier was the star performer, of course, in Nanaimo on E minus 29, but you'll never guess what happened on E minus 28: the Premier disappeared in a puff of smoke, or something else, and we never saw him again for 28 days.

Moreover, the selfsame Premier was not even mentioned by the candidate. Indeed, the literature from the candidate pretended, it would seem, that the Premier did not exist. Worse than that — for the attention of members opposite — is the fact that the same campaign literature, the same signs, the same paraphernalia one uses in campaigns, was conspicuous by the fact that the name of Social Credit itself was buried. You had to look closely to see the sign of Social Credit. You tell me those folks aren't worried, Mr. Speaker? I suspect that they are.

The campaign in Nanaimo got even better. Just in passing, ere I forget, let's juxtapose that brief history with what happened two and a half years ago. In that particular election we had billboards in the community that featured the name of the Premier and suggested that the two candidates in Nanaimo, who were almost nameless, were going to be part of the blank-blank-blank team. But this time, everybody wanted to pretend that blank-blank-blank didn't exist. What a marvellous turn of events in the short space of two and a half years. Marvellous and amazing it was. Despite the fact that the government continues to produce glossy little pamphlets called "B.C. Update" in which we have a separate page devoted to something called "economic indicators" telling us how wonderful the world is, despite the fact that they visited my community and left a considerable amount of money there, and despite the fact that there has indeed been a turnaround in my community's future and fortunes, the message of the government was rejected peremptorily, pointedly and patently. Let there be no mistake about that. I think it's fair to say that we're looking at a government which perceives its own demise and recognizes that it's on the brink. I don't think there is any other explanation for that kind of sunshine throne speech we had.

[ Page 5698 ]

Let me just share one other observation about these election activities. Like most members of this chamber, I was interested in what happened in Alberta the other day. In that great Canadian stronghold of Social Credit, where the philosophy of the party was pioneered and had all its successes, I noticed that Social Credit is still alive. There are 83 seats in the province of Alberta, and guess what? There were five Social Credit candidates running. I thought you might like to hear what they received by way of votes — or at least a couple, to make the point; an omen, I suggest. The margin of victory in one constituency was some 3,100, and the candidate for that party received 329. Similarly, we had another constituency where the margin was almost 6,000, and there the candidate for Social Credit received 599 votes. If you have any sense of history, you know that that's where it began. That was the bastion of Social Credit support in Canada. I wonder if we are seeing some kind of historical progression which will be subtitled for future generations as: "How the Mighty have Fallen." I suspect that that may indeed be happening.

[3:00]

I see I have enjoyed this brief rendition of recent political events rather too much and therefore have not left myself sufficient time to talk about a whole bunch of other matters. Happily, I can defer many of those to estimates debates and other opportunities.

The question, of course, is why all of this happened. Why, despite the fact that the government spent all that money? Why, despite the fact that the economic indicators indicate — pardon that pun — that things have indeed turned around from the difficult times we have been through in this province? Why, despite the fact that Social Credit continued to trot out its old slogans and rhetoric and try to use the old scare tactics about not dividing the free enterprise vote, and all those kinds of things? Why, despite all those things, was the Social Credit government so unsuccessful in those two constituencies?

The answer to that is probably that the people of this province have been told once too often the old song. They've heard it too many times, and it doesn't play anymore, friends. They remember the record of this government. They know what has been done to them, and they also know what hasn't been done for them. In passing, they also remember the scandals, the dirty tricks, the insider trading and the favours to friends, all of those things. But I don't think those minor matters are sufficient to cause that repudiation we've been talking about. Rather, we're looking at an attitudinal shift. It's a growing perception on the part of British Columbians that we've been there before. We've listened to the old songs enough times. We aren't going to get conned the same way we've been conned before.

We are dealing with folks who maybe say something more like this: "The government must think I'm stupid if it believes that by walking into my constituency and saying they're are going to spend all this money" — implicitly "if you get on-side"; that certainly was the message we heard in that campaign.... They're arguing that kind of case, and more and more people are saying: "Wait a minute. My intelligence and my sense of fair play is offended by that kind of stuff. Therefore I am going to protest in the only way I know how." I would suggest that that's exactly what happened in the constituency of Nanaimo.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I began at about 20 minutes to. Therefore I am close to my time. How sad!

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: I can tell as I gaze across the floor that that is a universal sentiment.

A couple of examples will make the point. One of the things the Premier announced when he visited my constituency on the eve of the by-election was that the government, in cooperation with the federal government, was going to put up about $4.5 million for a ferrochromium plant. The Premier also said at that time that.... He read into the record of the meeting — or at least I heard it on the radio — something that sounded suspiciously like a direct quotation from a so-called environmental study by an outfit called Rescan. The study, unfortunately, was not prepared for the Duke Point location in Nanaimo. It was prepared for another location, which had been rejected. Moreover, that study had some holes in it, I'm afraid.

Let me just emphasize the conclusion to it, and why we get scared. Let me make the point to the government House Leader.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I hear some sniping and jibing on the other side. Of course we want it, but we don't want to be conned, and we don't want to be told that everything is in place to protect the environment when it is not.

The point I would make is that the city council of Nanaimo, in response to information it was getting from concerned individuals, said: "We need more information." The city council of Nanaimo, therefore, passed a motion emphasizing that there must be a site-specific environmental study by an independent body, not one based on the developer's own data; and moreover, that the study had to give the people directly affected an opportunity for input. How sad that the city of Nanaimo has to take that initiative because it doesn't have confidence in the Ministry of Environment's activity.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Don't tell me it's the law. That's a bogus argument, and you know it.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: It will happen because of a federal government western diversification fund agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on one other brief example of the fact that the constituents in my area looked at the government coming bearing gifts in its

[ Page 5699 ]

hot little hands and said: "Yeah, but...." We were also visited by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) a short period before the election was called. He carried in his hand the promise of a $25 million expansion to Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, and we all said: "That's wonderful, but it doesn't do a darn thing to solve our problem." The problem in Nanaimo is the longest waiting-list in the province for elective surgery — 2,000 names.

Believe me, Mr. Speaker, that point was made again and again and again during that campaign. The people of Nanaimo said: "Yes, we want your money. We want what we as taxpayers should be given, but we do not buy for a moment that this sudden conversion, this sudden commitment and concern for our welfare after we've been neglected all this time, is going to make us forget that history and suddenly say: 'Come home, dear, all is forgiven.'" We are not going to do that.

I see my time is just about done. Let me conclude by saying only that I want to give notice to this government. When you have the temerity to say in a throne speech that you have the most impressive and largest privatization program in Canada, and brag about it, but you don't have the courage to reveal the details of one single contract or to answer our questions in the Legislature about what it is actually costing us, then I submit that your claim doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny; rather, it's pious, blatant hypocrisy.

I also want to give notice to this government that when we talk about highways.... I'm intrigued, by the way, Mr. Speaker, that despite the fact that we had a huge transportation study released only a few months ago — 18 volumes long — it isn't even mentioned in the throne speech. I wonder: did it get lost?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we proceed, the second member for Vancouver East has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CLARK: I've been informed that we have 41 pre-employment students in the gallery today from Templeton Secondary School in my constituency. 1 ask the House to make them very welcome.

MR. CRANDALL: Mr. Speaker, I found the remarks from the previous speaker interesting. It impresses me that he sounds a bit like a former statesman in this country named Tommy Douglas. It seems almost like he's trying to emulate him, and I find that interesting since his leader is trying to do much the opposite.

I'm glad also to hear him talk about the commitments that were made in Nanaimo. Perhaps if he would talk to the related ministers, those commitments would be kept, and they wouldn't have to be made again. The riding up there would get some benefit from his representation.

I want to talk today about some of the good things that have happened in Columbia River in the last few months. Since we've last been engaged in a throne speech debate, we've had many good things happen in Columbia River. It's been a privilege to represent that great constituency in this House over the past 12 months.

We started off the year in good fashion in Golden. In April 1988, the Premier and I were able to announce a new high school to serve that community. The previous high school was built in 1956 and is now nearing the end of its lifetime. In a few short months, we will be able to see the construction begin on a new high school to serve that community for the next several years.

We're also in the process of working on the final blueprint drawings for a new hospital in the community of Invermere. The construction year for the present hospital was also 1956, and the previous MLA for Columbia River was able to secure approval for a new hospital for Invermere. That hospital will be started later this year to serve the people in that riding.

I might also add that in the southern part of our constituency, 1988 saw the beginning of a road that will join the east and west Kootenays. Our good member for Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Dirks) and I worked with the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) and secured funding for a road to join Kimberley with Gray Creek over by Kootenay Lake. That particular road is now half completed and will serve the residents of both the east and west Kootenays for the years ahead.

I appreciate the support of this government and the respective ministers involved in seeing that these needed facilities have been started and will be completed in our constituency of Columbia River.

I also want to mention that our constituency was the host for the B.C. Festival of the Arts in May 1988. 1 salute the Kimberley community for their very excellent job of putting on that Festival of the Arts. We will expect the city of Chilliwack to keep up the fine work that has been done by other communities in previous years in hosting the Festival of the Arts.

Those are some facilities issues, at least in terms of the new Golden high school, the new Invermere hospital and the Gray Creek pass. Facilities, however, aren't the major issue in Columbia River, although they are appreciated. Many of the services we have for the people of our constituency are equally important and perhaps more so.

[3:15]

1 was pleased in the last few weeks to be able to officiate at the opening of the Golden Day Care Centre. This small community of only 4,000 people has been working for the last 15 years or more to establish an effective day care centre. With the help of some funding from the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, we've now been able to open a day care centre which we expect will serve our community for many years and provide the needed service that many single parents need — and indeed, many married couples as well.

I also want to mention that in the last few months we've seen a new residence for the mentally hand-

[ Page 5700 ]

handicapped started under construction in Invermere. That will replace the use of a former hospital in Invermere by providing some good housing for several residents. It too will provide a service there for many years.

I want to mention a particular item that I worked on in the last few weeks in the city of Kimberley which, in fact, involves a young man there who is deaf and was needing some educational programs not available in our small communities. This young man's name is David Bell. As a result of some excellent efforts on the part of several people from the Ministry of Education, we've been able to move this young man to a better program in the city of Victoria. This is just one example of many individual services that we have been able to provide for the people of Columbia River in the last year.

Those are just a few highlights, and I can tell you that there are many more that have happened in Columbia River in the last year. It's good to see that part of the province receiving attention, and, again, it's my pleasure to represent that riding.

I also want to mention that in July of last year I was one of five members of this House invited to represent British Columbia at the Canadian Parliamentary Association. Along with me, of course, was our Speaker and the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong), the member for Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Dirks) and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota). That particular parliamentary association meeting was held in Charlottetown. We met with all the other provinces in Canada and, indeed, some members from Britain and other parts of the Commonwealth. Our Speaker was a very able host, and the conference was a benefit, I'm sure, to those of us from this House as well as those from the other Houses. I might add that if the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) is invited to attend that association meeting, I'm sure he will attend, and I would encourage him to do so. The one this year is in our great neighbouring province of Alberta.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In terms of our throne speech this year, I'm very pleased to see many of the issues that have been highlighted there. I think it's tremendous that this government has highlighted three major areas of continued economic growth, the preservation of our environment and an education policy to meet our future needs. This particular throne speech outlines this government's commitment to healthy growth for the future along with judicious expenditures of the taxpayers' money. As we focus on those three issues during this coming session, I hope that each of our members in this House will contribute to the achieving of those goals.

The government recognizes that one of the major things we will accomplish in this term of office is to balance the budget. As has been said in this House in the last few days, there is a great temptation when times are good to spend out of control and then not be in good financial health when times are not as good. I think we all recognize that because of the general economic health in the country and in the world, our province's economy is healthy. I would suggest, with all sincerity, that this particular government has set a tone for investment around the world and that our economy in the future will benefit from the investments that are being made in this province today.

The throne speech has forecast that our budget will be balanced. It also says that this achievement will be matched by no other province. I concur heartily in that. It is an achievement of significance, and I also believe that it will be matched by no other province — I would rather say by no other government, because I'm very sure the federal government will not balance their budget during this year.

I think it's important to recognize that good financial management now is what we need to set the tone for a healthy economy in the future. I'm also delighted that the government has embarked on the regional diversification program. I think that members such as me, from the interior, appreciate this initiative in a greater way than members from the lower mainland and the Island may, because our economies stand to benefit from this particular policy. Indeed, I know that there are already initiatives undertaken in my riding because of this policy and plan of our government.

It's not only an important thing to have new businesses come into your part of the province; it's also important to have new facilities and new infrastructure put into place so that the economy can grow in the future. That is happening in Columbia River. New companies are looking at investment there, and our facilities are receiving the attention of government and will continue to do so.

I'm also delighted to see the new value-added emphasis on the forest products industry. We have some companies and some sawmills in our constituency that participate in this value-added industry. I believe it's one of the roles of government to provide some direction to the private sector in terms of policies and programs whereby the private sector will work towards a greater utilization of our workforce, and this particular policy does that very thing.

Part of what I mentioned about facilities growth, infrastructure development, is happening in Columbia River as well. A couple of nights ago I was able to announce an airport improvement grant of $95,000 for the community of Golden that will provide some needed funding for lights, terminal buildings and other facilities for that small airport. That airport is not one which has a scheduled airline, but it's very important in terms of protecting our resources, fighting fires and those sorts of things. This particular grant will assist us in developing that small airport. We also have improvements planned in other airports in our constituency, such as the one near Fairmont Hot Springs; we are considering some additional improvements to that airport as well.

[ Page 5701 ]

I'm also pleased to see that this government and our Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) are continuing our focus on energy development. In my particular constituency, the energy issue of most concern to me is in the small community of Field. Field is in Yoho National Park, very near the Alberta border, which, because of the high mountains in Kicking Horse Canyon, is not connected to the B.C. Hydro electricity grid that covers most of the province. The ministry and I are working extensively trying to connect Field to the Alberta energy grid to improve the source of supply for electricity for that community.

I would suggest that Yoho National Park and the tourism facilities that operate there will, in the next decades, provide one of the most attractive tourism facilities in British Columbia. Field is the first community on the B.C. border to welcome residents from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the rest of Canada on the Trans-Canada Highway. It's very important, therefore, that they have a secure source of supply for electricity. Just in the last few years we've seen an excellent tourism facility developed at Emerald Lake, and we will see other facilities developed within the community of Field and along the Trans-Canada Highway in that national park. So we are working and will continue to work to see that a secure source of electricity is available to the community of Field.

I am also delighted that in energy we are paying serious attention to the idea of co-generation using waste products from industry. In Columbia River the major industry, of course, is forestry, and a good deal of waste products are generated which could be used in the generation of electricity. To some extent that's happened in the past, but the initiatives underway right now within B.C. Hydro and the Ministry of Energy will assist in developing that particular source of energy. It will be a benefit both to the province as a whole and to our environment in that particular part of the province, because if we can use waste products in ways other than simply burning them, it will improve our environment, especially during the summertime when we want to attract tourists from other parts of the country and the world.

I'm also pleased to see the throne speech deal extensively with the environment. Our government has always been concerned about the environment. I might add that in my part of the province, as in most of the province, the environment is in fact an industry. Tourism is a significant industry in Columbia River. It has been in the past, and it will continue to be in the future. It's because of our environment that tourists come here. So I'm delighted to see the things that are happening in the throne speech to encourage the protection and enhancement of the environment.

I'm pleased to see that a new game-farming act will be introduced. The residents of my constituency have expressed significant interest in game-farming. As time goes on, I'm sure that this new game act will enhance that industry and possibly provide for a game-farming industry in our constituency.

I'm also glad to see that the throne speech pays a high degree of recognition to the social programs that are available to the people in our province. In particular, I noticed that the handicapped British Columbians have received attention here. I want to compliment our Premier and our government in having formed the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities. We know that British Columbia is comprised of many different people, with many different kinds of abilities. The people with disabilities are a very important part of our province. Certainly there are far more people with disabilities in the lower mainland and the Island, but we have people with disabilities in our smaller communities as well. I might, in fact, mention that the people in those communities may have an even more difficult time of moving about the community and the province than they do in the more populated areas.

Just recently I've had a meeting that lasted for several hours with some of the disabled people in my constituency, and I want you to know that I was very impressed and educated. I think it's important for us to recognize what the handicapped people of our province are asking for. As I met with these folks that day, I thought it was important to notice that they were not asking primarily that things be given them; the number one request that I picked up was that the handicapped people in our province more than anything else want us to help them discover and develop their skills and abilities so that they can play a productive role in our province. So I'm glad to see the concern for the handicapped as part of the throne speech. I think it does behoove us as a people to assist our handicapped people in playing productive roles within our province.

[3:30]

1 was also glad to see that there will be amendments to the Workers Compensation Act. I believe that these are due. I'm sure that there will be a good deal of thought put into them. I think it's important that our Workers Compensation Act is up to date and is serving both the employees and the employers of our province.

I'm also looking forward to the continuing care act. I'll speak more about that tomorrow, in private members' statements. Continuing care, though, is an issue. In particular, I might say, it's an issue in our smaller communities. We have many continuing care facilities in the larger towns and cities, but our small communities often have to go outside their community to receive the continuing care services.

I was delighted also to see that the members of this assembly will be asked to provide their views with respect to the reform of the Senate of Canada. I'm not sure of all the options that we will discuss; however, I hope that one of the options is to abolish the Senate. I think that it has been there for years and has provided....

MR. G. JANSSEN: That's the NDP policy.

[ Page 5702 ]

MR. CRANDALL: Well, it's the federal NDP's policy; I'm not sure that it's a provincial NDP's policy.

One of the options should be to abolish it; if not, I would hope that there will be an option where the Senate can be reformed to an extent where it will provide some effective representation for western Canada.

The throne speech also mentioned some appreciation and admiration for the provincial government employees. I would like to say that the provincial government employees form a very integral part of my constituency. And I might say that in the Columbia River constituency we benefit from the services of a great number of provincial government employees. It's my privilege to work with them almost on a daily basis. Their work is very professional and their services serve our area well.

Interjection.

MR. CRANDALL: The member for Alberni laughed when I praised government employees? Well, he may. The member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) may not hold provincial government employees in as high regard as we do on this side of the House. And I might mention that our side of the House is not just one little corner of the House; it's three corners of the House. Most of this House is represented by our side, and we're delighted with the services that our provincial employees give us. I'll say again I'm delighted and impressed with the service that I get from the provincial government employees in my constituency, and I look forward to working with them more in the future.

MR. BRUCE: They have good employees in Port Alberni, too.

MR. CRANDALL: Well, I'm sure they do.

Mr. Speaker, I'll just mention that in addition to our provincial government employees, we have a good number of employees who work with the highway maintenance program, the privatized employee highway maintenance services. Throughout this past winter they have done an excellent job of taking care of our roads in Columbia River. I might add that our roads very frequently have a large amount of snow and ice, and those employees as well have provided excellent service to the people of my riding.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the continued opportunity to represent Columbia River in this House. I look forward to the remaining days and weeks and months of this session. I look forward to the legislation which will assist the people of our province in progressing in this great province in the next few years. This time next year I will make a similar speech in the throne speech debate and will report some more good progress for Columbia River.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre. [Applause.]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I am very, very pleased to accept that warm welcome. After all, we're here to do the people's business, but there's no reason why we shouldn't have a little compassion and friendship every now and then.

Before I begin, I just want to relate a little story. It's not often that I do this, but this story is really.... Depending on how you look at it, you could say it's too bad; but in a way it could be a blessing in disguise. I will say, though, that it is unfortunate that my assistant — two assistants, as a matter of fact, Thelma Pankiw and Sharon Boyce — missed the opportunity to hear the speech from the throne on the 16th. They were at the ferry in Tsawwassen for the 9 o'clock and missed it by 15 cars. But that happens. They didn't have preferred boarding. Not only that, their lights were left on while they were waiting for the 11 o'clock. They went back out to catch the 11 and the battery was dead. But that's not the end. The attendant at the ferry terminal rushed over to give them a booster charge, and the cable broke on the battery. Now they can't charge the battery because the cable's broken, so they have to call in a towing truck. They had to be towed to a place to get the battery fixed. It cost them lots of dollars — I won't say how much, but a lot of money — to get towed out. They came back and they finally did make it here that evening.

The thing is, what people will do to come and see what we are doing for the people of British Columbia. I think we should send them some kind of expression of regret.

I always have difficulty saying things that are not complimentary. It's my nature that I like to say complimentary things. So first of all I want to pay a few brief respects before I get into the other stuff.

We know that the amendment that we are speaking to is because of the government's failure to be in touch with the people and look at the priorities that they had on their agenda. But that's not news. We're used to that. This amendment is really not that much different from any other.

Before I get started, I would like to congratulate the Lieutenant-Governor upon his appointment. I think it is a sign of things to come — him being of Chinese descent and making his first speech here, which I thought was delivered very well, under considerable duress. But I must say, in all fairness, I've heard Mr. Lam on other occasions express himself as a man of the heart and a very conscientious man. I'm sure he now realizes something about the problems of being in an official position, because he had to speak words that he himself did not write. We won't get into that. The words that he did speak, however, are the words that concern us today.

The other thing that I'd like to say, which is more to the point, is the unfortunate passing, suddenly, of Dr. Joseph Katz of the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies, who was for a long time a proponent of human rights and diligently struggled to bring sanity to a seemingly fast deteriorating society, as far as human concerns go. We certainly will miss Dr. Katz. I would like to dedicate

[ Page 5703 ]

to Dr. Katz, in a sense, some of the concerns that I will be talking about briefly here.

To show you how much work we've got to do, yesterday was designated by the United Nations as a day to eliminate racial discrimination. I doubt if very many of us are even aware of it or understand the significance and importance of it. We've got a lot of work to do. That's really why I am speaking to this motion. I had considered perhaps letting it go until we got to the budget and had a better sense of the government's intentions — not what they were saying in terms of trying to improve their image but what they were actually going to do. We still don't know that. We don't know, for instance, how much of what has been said in the throne speech will, in fact, become reality, be materialized in terms of dollars and cents.

There was just one thing that had me somewhat concerned, and that's why I'm standing here today. I may be wrong, but I looked at the throne speech very carefully, and nowhere could I find any mention whatsoever of multiculturalism. If I'm wrong, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid) will stand in his place and correct me.

Considering the state of affairs in the province of British Columbia right now, I think that is a very unfortunate omission. It is one that surprises me in light of recent pronouncements by the minister when he had quite a large celebration in November 1988 in announcing the appointment of some 25 heritage cultural advisers to the government. I attended that event, as a matter of fact, and I was quite elated. After many months of raising the issue of multiculturalism and what it really means and what the government should be doing about it, it was finally going to be addressed.

To show you how optimistic and hopeful I tried to be with respect to the government's good intentions, I ignored, for the most part, a similar excursion into the multicultural community by the government in 1979. Some of you may remember that the government sponsored a conference in 1979. Something like 80-odd organizations and individuals attended that conference, which was entitled "Toward a Provincial Multicultural Policy."

You had quite a few hon. members from the government attend that conference, including: Grace McCarthy, who was the Minister of Human Resources at the time; Alan Williams, I think, was the Minister of Labour at the time; Hugh Curtis was a minister as well; and Bill Bennett, who was the Premier. They all attended this conference and all made commitments to a multicultural policy ten years ago. They all said it was urgent and vital to deal with the dynamism that is always prevalent when you have a diverse community — and I've heard some of the members speak about the diversity of British Columbia on that side of the House.

[3:45]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

But to get right to the point, it is very discouraging to think that here we are in 1989, after we've seen major shifts in the social structure, cultural structure and the demographics. We have known for years that these changes were taking place because ESL — English as a second language — as a major project program has been on the minds of British Columbians for years. We know that we've had to deal with special needs as a result. We've had to deal with a settlement of new Canadians on an ongoing basis to the point that since the very early 1980s we've gone from a predominantly European new Canadian culture to one that is almost between 87 percent and 88 percent Asian. What is significant about that, and what is the reason for any concern? Immigration is immigration; it should be fair and equitable and accessible to all people, regardless of how much money you have and what your conditions are. If we're talking about multiculturalism, about a good immigration policy, then it should be open and available to everyone. But what is happening?

This is why I stood up. When we talk about a multicultural policy, what are we talking about? Are we talking about song and dance? Are we talking about ceremonial dress? Are we talking about annual events where we go and say: "Hey, we're going to do it for the Ukrainians today, the Blacks tomorrow and for the Chinese the next day, and have a dragon dance"? We're talking about a culture that has to be constitutionally founded in terms of fundamental rights and freedoms and accessibility. That's what's missing.

When we talk about a multicultural policy, we're talking about making a reality of this great mosaic of ours, and we can't do that by gosh and by golly. We've got to address it. That's what we're talking about. That is not what is happening. It can't happen by having someone advise you on the events of the day. We're talking about the education system, teachers who are capable of addressing a changing, dynamic society — who are themselves upgrading and understanding what's going on. We're talking about people in the workforce who realize that they're going to have to learn to see the people of visible minorities in reality and not just have some kind of back-door proposition.

The government has to begin to realize that although it doesn't lack expressive terms like "affirmative action, " there is going to have to be something more tangible, something more constructive, something more realistic and believable to address these needs. But having done all that, then there is a question of education, of citizenship. The dangers that people fear are the erosion of their culture; and the existing culture, the aboriginal people — the indigenous of this province — have concerns.

Some of the things I'm hearing, the chit-chat on the streets, concerns me not because it's happening but because we are, by default, allowing it to happen. That's a concern. We are not addressing these issues. The kinds of things that are happening in Chinatown are a tragedy. It has become commonplace to talk about Asian gangs now, but who understands what

[ Page 5704 ]

that really means? What are we talking about? It puts a lot of people at risk who are not in the Asian gangs, but the fact that they're Asian makes it difficult for them. Not everybody is from Hong Kong. There are a lot of people in Chinatown and the surrounding area who are third-generation Canadians and are suffering as a result of these demographic changes. So it's not just race; it's cultural, it's values, it's the fundamental things that we care about that we've got to document and show constitutionally.

We've got to begin to talk about what we mean as Canadians and what we mean as British Columbians; not just how much money you have, but whether you are committed to the things we are trying to develop in this country. We are a country that has a heart. We care about people; we have compassion; we're not just trying to make the dollars. Anything that impacts on that should be addressed at the government level. We should have a ministry; we should have a department out there dealing with it on an ongoing basis. That's what's missing, and, Mr. Speaker, that's really the main reason I stood. I am very disappointed that nothing was mentioned in the throne speech, notwithstanding the fact that we've just named a heritage advisory council to the minister and the government. Why wasn't it mentioned? Why was there no reference to the recommendations that were made ten years ago?

We don't need any more studies. I've been patient; I've tried to watch. But it seems to me that there is a cynicism on the part of the government, and I think the government should come clean. Perhaps the government doesn't really believe that there is anything it can do. Let's be fair. Because I must agree that when we do get into the field of definitions about what multiculturalism really means, when we do talk about how to legislate on something as complex and diverse as a society of people with so many different values and ways of life, etc., it isn't easy, but we'd better start doing it, and we'd better take it seriously, because society is changing.

MR. JONES: How are we doing on settlement services?

MR. BARNES: Okay. If we want to get down to specifics in terms of the government's contributions.... Mind you, when I was talking about 1979, I was talking about prior to the great effort by former Premier Bill Bennett and the restraint program of 1983. It was an election leading up to that next election, and the government was of a different mind. In 1983 the government wiped out everything.

HON. MR. REID: That's yesterday.

MR. BARNES: No, it's not yesterday when it comes to government attitude, because what have you done since?

HON. MR. REID: Lots. You know better.

MR. BARNES: No, I do not know better. I will ask you — and I have some questions on the order paper and will be asking you these questions during the budget debate — to specify those multicultural service agencies that your government is funding. Name them. I know that prior to 1983 you were giving at least a pittance to some of them, but right now you have a minuscule grant that you give to Mosaic — only one agency.

If there are others, you tell me what they are. The minister is suggesting that there are a whole bunch. But a study was done just a few years ago that showed that British Columbia, compared to other provinces, pays $9, whereas it's over $200 in Manitoba. In Quebec it's about $140; we pay $9. If that's wrong, you stand up here. I'd be more than happy to be shown where I am wrong.

I can tell you that those agencies need support. Unless you have the dollar value, unless there is a money commitment, all this other talk about advice and communication, etc., is not sufficient.

HON. MR. REID: Money doesn't do everything.

MR. BARNES: Money doesn't do everything, and that's why I said we need a cultural policy that deals with the principles of Canadian citizenship, that talks about accessibility, citizenship, responsibility.

I agree with you. The Canadian people, the British Columbians here right now, who have been struggling are asking these questions. These are not questions that I am inventing; these questions are what they are asking. Some of their questions are fraught with concern, desperation, cynicism and lack of confidence because they don't get anything from the government.

The government isn't coming out and saying: "Look, here is what we're doing. This is what we did in 1986 when we had Expo 86 and said we were going to have all these new people coming in." What were your impact studies; where were your plans? What did you have in place in terms of adjustment or funding or settlement programs?

The people here are suspicious; costs are going up because of dollars. Fine. That's free enterprise. But what are the consequences? When does free enterprise stop and look at the impact? What are your responsibilities to the people in the West End, for instance, in my riding, who are finding that their apartments are being converted into condominiums? What do you do when the builders no longer want to build apartment buildings because there is more money in condominiums?

HON. MR. REID: What's that got to do with multiculturalism?

MR. BARNES: It's got everything to do with the stability of society, the integrity of communities. Let's say they are European people, by and large. They see this shift. They see these people of another culture, another world, coming in and buying property, and the prices going up. What's their attitude? Is it fair for them to judge those people?

[ Page 5705 ]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: You talk like the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt).

MR. BARNES: Listen, you'll get an opportunity to speak when you stand up; don't speak from your seat. I'm asking you a question that's hypothetical, but answer the question: what do they think when someone has enough money to pay any price for a piece of property regardless of what it is, and they can't afford to get even a down payment on it?

All right. Should you call that racism? What is it? People don't know. You're not talking to them. You're not saying: "Look, we have alternatives. We recognize our obligations to you as citizens who have been here." I'm talking to you and to the government. Where is your leadership? This is what's wrong. We're talking about multiculturalism in practice. We are talking about recognizing the impact. People do have attitudes out there. They are whispering. Perhaps they are ill-informed, ill-advised, don't know what they talking about. But they are talking, and that's dangerous. You are by default allowing it to happen. Show the leadership. Get out there and show them how it all works. That's why I got up. I think you think that multiculturalism is not that important. That is the future. It always has been the future in Canada. It is growing.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're wrong again.

MR. BARNES: It's not a question of being wrong, It's a question of getting the debate going. I'm not concerned that I'm always right. If I am wrong, you show me where I am wrong. What I want to see is action from you. I want to see results. I want to see something more than talk. If I'm wrong, it's not the first time. I've made so many mistakes, I'll be in debt for the rest of my life. But that doesn't stop us from dealing with these issues, and we are not dealing with them.

I will be voting against the throne speech because I think it is unfortunately a grab-bag of popular issues or issues that have become of concern to people, like the environment, universities, higher education, etc. Those kinds of things have always been with us. Most of them are the result of your government's failure to come up with a commitment, especially in the area of dioxins and the environment.

I just want the government to realize that this is only the beginning of the fight as far as I am concerned. I want to say, however, that I am not attacking the advisory committee or council that you have appointed. Frankly, I don't think they were given much of a mandate. What you have said to them is that they will advise you. They have no real authority. Apparently they are not really holding public meetings where people can have input. You are not really rushing the matter. You should be telling them: "I want something right away." It seems to me that was a one-day wonder when you held a big event and announced the heritage advisory council, and then that was the end of it.

What you are doing is putting at risk British Columbians who believe that they can have a better form of representation at a time when we are getting ready for the twenty-first century, when young people are beginning to drop out of the system, having less and less confidence in their opportunity to participate. I think there are far too many questions that have been left unanswered or neglected because of lack of understanding of the seriousness of the situation.

I would like to see British Columbia have its own multicultural policy, a public policy that addresses both the private and the public sectors, a policy that gives leadership and guidance for the twenty-first century so that our vast society of different cultures and races can coexist, can cooperate and can work together. That will not happen by osmosis or by accident. It is only going to happen because we work at it and show the leadership.

What is going to happen if we don't is that people will go for themselves. We will have a society of individualism, when everyone protects himself and gets rid of anything that is uncomfortable or inconvenient: for instance, social services or a good public system for education. These kinds of things are going to be at risk, because now you have said values are for sale. You are putting a price on things that are fundamentally a part of this society that should be protected in a constitutional law. We should be educating people toward that direction.

What you are talking about right now is that the dollar comes first. I say you have been negligent in not having programs in place, not showing the leadership and not acting.

[4:00]

MR. B.R. SMITH: It's a great pleasure to speak in the throne debate, Mr. Speaker, and to follow my friend the second member for Vancouver Centre, who always has some good home truths and warm-hearted observations.

During the period since we were last in this chamber I have had the very pleasurable opportunity of going back in part to the private sector, and seeing how good and how responsive that sector is, whether you are practising law or doing business. It has been very agreeable.

I strongly support the government's economic initiatives, many of which have been outlined in the throne speech. Particularly I should say that I support the strong campaign that has been launched over the last few years to sell British Columbia abroad. This has resulted in badly needed trade centres opening up in crucial places such as California and Singapore. I have praise also for the province's performance at the world economic conference in Davos, Switzerland in February. I have spoken to business leaders who were over there, and they told me that our delegation was extremely successful and hard working. I also know that the Premier did an excellent job in that forum promoting this province, and I congratulate him.

[ Page 5706 ]

This province has successfully auditioned for, and won its part on, the world economic stage as an international banking centre, and it's also going to win its way as a centre for international commercial arbitration. It is very well suited for both. The news in this province from almost every sector of the economy is very strong. I can see this in Victoria in my own constituency. For years we've had a very slow economy here, and we now have an upswing in construction, in tourism, People have a buoyant, optimistic outlook about the future of their city, which they didn't have a few years ago.

Some cynics believe that economic growth occurs regardless, or indeed in spite of, the actions of government. It is that same kind of thinking, in moments of high prosperity like these, that may encourage the electorate to decide to let down its guard and swing to the left. "Things are so good in this province right now that even the NDP couldn't spoil it, " is something I hear with increasing alarm in business and professional circles. Certainly the opposition is scurrying to present a new image. They are now the friends of business, large and small.

Interjections.

MR. B.R. SMITH: Oh yes, they are — converted entrepreneurs. Not socialists anymore; democratic socialists they call themselves.

They have also, with their penchant for original thinking, discovered the phrase "sustainable development." They use it in every speech. A pretty little platform came out on sustainable development; I'm sure you've got it. They've built a platform around that concept to give bureaucratic similitude to their concept of managing the economy at the same time as preserving the environment. As their leader has this new experience of being invited before sundown to meet with businessmen, an entirely new experience for him, he assures his audiences that.... "Don't fear us, " he says. "We'll keep the economy going; we're not going to kill that goose that lays the golden egg. You can trust us."

But we know differently. We know that the old technocratic agendas are being polished, updated. We know that they're planning the new millennium if they ever get the chance. The new millennium is going to be a time of centralized control, a time of doctrinal pleasure, if they ever get a chance to form a government. They won't need a task force on unemployment; there will be new jobs for everyone — high-paying jobs in the public sector. All those lovely vans with the faded painted flowers on the back, heading westward from Ontario and Manitoba with their high pockets of unemployment and socialists; socialist unemployment is high there right now, and in Alberta.

One of the agendas of the new millennium is to thwart the implementation of the free trade agreement, which so many of their federal members are also committed to. I never could understand their opposition to that agreement. I couldn't understand....

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry to interrupt the member's speech, but it's amazing what a difference a seat can make. He'd never have talked like this when he was a minister. This is incredible.

MR. B.R. SMITH: Oh, I couldn't.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm afraid that's not a point of order.

MR. B.R. SMITH: You could at least do me the courtesy of honouring my maiden speech from the back bench, hon. member. [Laughter.]

I couldn't understand why Jack Munro was opposed to the agreement, and I have to believe that in his heart of hearts he knows how good that agreement is for his woodworkers. But this party is captive of its doctrinal past. These members opposite have a deeply rooted xenophobia about foreign capital and foreign competition, and I wish we could do something about that; I really do. They don't want it coming in here, but if it comes in they want to completely control it. They do believe in building higher walls around the province. They like subsidizing industries, and they would very quickly return the private initiatives to government ownership and management if they got a chance.

We know also what their approach would be to residential land flipping in Vancouver: they would legislate against foreign land ownership. That would be their type of solution. That's the kind of solution that hasn't worked well in most jurisdictions that have tried it. They would also like to stop all resource exportation. I fear they will not have learned any of the lessons of old and that they would restore the monopolies to the unionized sector of the workforce. Sure they would! Mr. Speaker, these are the sorts of things which would happen if those ladies and gentlemen opposite were ever successful at the polls; not the nice, bland, bureaucratic reassurances that flow from the lips of the Leader of the Opposition and from his policy paper on sustainable development, which goes down so well with hot toddy at midnight.

None of this needs to happen. If we, as a free enterprise movement, have a dream and a sense of our destiny, we have the energy to achieve it, because despite the dire difficulties this government has suffered within the past year, British Columbians are not anxious to turn to the New Democratic Party. In the face of the recent advantages the Leader of the Opposition has had, he has not been doing terribly well in the polls. The public does not particularly want you, hon. member. It's important, though, that they don't get you by default.

Interjections.

MR. B.R. SMITH: He's absent. I don't know where he is, Mr. Speaker. He's in court in the lawsuit brought by his executive assistant.

I believe this province is moving toward a new sense of self-confidence. British Columbians want to

[ Page 5707 ]

believe in the future. They want to know that under free enterprise we can move forward with confidence; that we can enjoy unparalleled growth and yet be environmentally sensitive; that we can have new immigrants entering our borders, but that they can enhance, nourish and strengthen, not weaken, the fabric of our society; that we can have the finest education system in the world but can do so without stretching the taxation resources of an urban homeowner on a fixed income; that we can have investment in land without driving our own children out of the urban housing market.

We must know where we're going and how to get there. Otherwise, as a government, we will become too anxious to please in all directions. Otherwise, we will be targets of every special-interest group that wants all manner of concessions from the public purse. Otherwise, we will become a cow to milk, to satisfy every demand. What I am saying is that we must be fiscally responsible; otherwise we will move away from our conservative roots.

We know that the party opposite has been and will again be rabidly promiscuous on fiscal matters. Despite what they're telling us now, we know they will. We cannot, as a government, however well motivated we are, spend our way back into popularity. That popularity will come by giving British Columbians a strong sense that we speak for their destiny and that we know where we're going.

I want to see this province have the finest educational opportunities for our young people, and I applaud many of the major reforms that will be implemented from the Sullivan royal commission.

I just want for a moment to pay my own little tribute to Barry Sullivan, QC, with whom I worked when he was regional Crown counsel and I was Attorney-General. I developed a very strong admiration for Barry Sullivan, for his ability and also for his courage and determination — and that was never more evident than when he had this terrible ailment. In the mid-eighties he expressed to me a very strong interest in running for the Legislature at some time in the future. This province is the poorer that he never had that chance, but it is still the richer for the legacy he left us in his royal commission.

I want to commend the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) for his very consultative approach and for the hard work that he has put into implementing reform. His commitment to enhancing literacy and his willingness to make available more computer technology are only two of the many important measures that he has undertaken.

What I'm frankly concerned about, Mr. Speaker — and I can say this from this perch; I can't say it from that perch — is the announcement made some seven weeks ago that the government is pledging to spend an additional $1.4 billion to implement the new educational reforms over a ten-year period. Regardless of the merits of some of those excellent reforms, I must caution against future promises of such magnitude. Trumpeting large future spending commitments in education will certainly raise expectations in teacher bargaining. It's unfortunate that at this very moment, when we're experiencing a broadening scope of bargaining and the use of strikes as an ultimate sanction, we as a government are raising expectations with large future spending commitments.

My sense of foreboding tells me that we may be heading toward a local taxpayers' revolt in some school districts, many of which are going to experience budget increases in excess of 20 percent. A distressed homeowner from Coquitlam wrote me the other day that his school taxes were up 36 percent this year. Herein lie the seeds of strong discontent.

I don't feel quite the same concern about the post-secondary announcements which took place this week and which I was pleased to attend in Vancouver. The Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen), I thought, carefully crafted his access announcements to meet specific needs and waiting-lists by creating 15,000 new student spaces and by announcing immediate new operating spending increases of $35 million.

In the field of transportation, we also put out high aspirations, a few months ago, that we would be spending massive amounts of money in the field of highway construction.

Mr. Speaker, because I was one of those who soldiered through the difficult economic period in this province from 1983 to 1987 as a minister charged with operating a sensitive and intricate justice system with lean manpower and less money, I caution you that we as a government must not move headlong down the trail of spending. We must avoid another cycle. Remember the cycle that we had in 1974 and 1975 of inflationary spending and public sector wage increases. The very moment that we are raising spending aspirations in this province, the federal government is about to bring the long-overdue measures of curbing spending and tackling the massive accumulated federal debt.

[4:15]

Our fiscal house in British Columbia is currently in better order by a long shot. We should not be marching in a direction diametrically opposed to that which they're going in, in Ottawa to bring their spending under control.

I am reminded that the tragedy of Premier Getty's personal defeat in his own riding this week on an evening when his government easily won re-election is surely not unrelated to the fact that he made major spending promises in the latter part of a campaign which probably seemed out of character with his government's traditional creed.

It is vitally important that our free enterprise coalition remains true to its history and origins of being generally fiscally conservative. As I have said before in these remarks, we as a governing party must communicate and must have a sense of where we want to go and what we want to be as a specific society at the end of the next decade.

Let me mention the initiatives on the environment. We are actually making major environmental strides in this province as a government. We have a record of improving standards under the Waste Management Act. We have made some very major

[ Page 5708 ]

moves to demonstrate the province's commitments to preserve wilderness. I would point to the creation of the park on South Moresby. That's an enterprise in which — controversial as it may have been at the time — I take a great deal of pride for the work I did to bring it about.

There is no doubt that we can have modern, productive pulp mills, a new petrochemical plant and a ferrochromium plant without pouring toxins into the water or into the air. There can be no question that the pulp mill conversion on Vancouver Island has to take place, and that the conversion to natural gas will bring strong environmental benefits as well as benefits to industry on this island. You will find that most industries are prepared to cooperate with government in its goal to ensure that they are clean and that they meet high pollution standards, which they can do without impairing their productivity in any way.

Much has been said about oil spills. The first oil spill in these parts occurred in the early seventies in my community. It was a discharge of bunker fuel, and I remember it well. We didn't sit around and wonder whose jurisdiction it was to do something about it. We — the mayor and council and everybody — got our whole public works crew down and started to clean the place up. We sent the bill later. It was never paid by the federal government; it still hasn't been paid to this day. The fact is that we were proactive. I think a lesson has been learned here. There is a very strong dedication on the part of this government and the federal government that next time there is an oil spill, not only will they do things on the ground, as they all did this time, but they will be there in the front line. They will be seen to be giving leadership, because on this coast, oil spills really threaten the whole fabric of our outdoor life and the way we view nature. It is terribly important that we have a commitment to not have that occur.

I don't intend to speak at any length about forest policy, because we have people in our caucus who are extremely knowledgeable and intelligent on that subject. But I hope that as a government we will not turn over the task of articulating our forest objectives to some royal commission. I believe that the harvesting, protection and regeneration of the forest resource are so important and must continue for future generations. That has to be our abiding concern. I also believe that we must ensure that the forest resource is carefully managed, that small business and individuals have access to logging and that the entire resource can never be dominated or owned just by a few.

I believe also that we have to remember that the forest resource is not and cannot be there solely for harvesting. Some areas should not be logged. I am speaking of stands that protect the estuaries and the streams, which may have inestimable value for recreation or tourism. I am speaking of large stands of unique trees of the Cathedral Grove variety or the redwoods in California. These should not be logged, because they are unique and are a resource for all our people.

To recognize these important values is not to put the forest resource under some kind of glacial stop work order — as the opposition would do — and to halt productivity. That's not what we are talking about.

I want to praise the throne speech for acknowledging the need to provide assistance for the renter and to deal with housing shortages, which are very acute in our major cities. I've been supportive of the federal-provincial social housing programs; I think they're excellent. Recently we opened Dowler Lodge in Victoria, and I was able to represent the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond). I believe the government should strongly assist these housing initiatives. I think the municipalities sometimes need a bit of a prod so they can be a little more proactive in zoning. The tendency is that everybody wants these projects, but "not in my back yard, " so we have to have municipal cooperation.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this government needs to return to its roots and address the housing problem in a larger way; that is, by incentives towards home ownership. I'm not talking about tax incentives or increases in the homeowner's grant. I'm talking about something entirely different: finding ways that these people who are renters and who are dependent on rent can somehow become owners of the premises they occupy.

The initiatives that I'm suggesting were most dramatically brought about by the Thatcher government in Britain, which converted thousands of Britons from row-housing, subsistence tenants into homeowners with renewed pride in their premises. The change was remarkable, not only in the way they looked after their premises but in their attitudes and in the way they felt about where they lived, about their homes, and in their pride in them. They have transformed renters into owners in a very positive way. That's the kind of thing we've got to do; that's the kind of future we've got to point our children to. I'm saying it's got to be an article of faith for this party and this government to encourage more and more citizens, including young homeowners, to own their accommodation. We have to support the virtue of ownership.

I note with a good deal of pride that the government will incorporate many of the recommendations contained in the report of the Justice Reform Committee. The mandate of that committee, along with its composition, was something that I put a great deal of time and thought into. I'm proud that during my tenure as Attorney-General law reform legislation was passed each year, and I'm particularly proud to have pioneered the most advanced victims' rights legislation in this country and to have piloted our excellent family maintenance legislation through the Legislature last session. I shall be standing in my place when the Justice Reform Committee legislation is introduced in this House, and I shall be supporting those initiatives.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

[ Page 5709 ]

I note, Mr. Speaker, that there will be another round of constitutional reform discussions in Charlottetown in September. I believe I attended on behalf of the government every set of major constitutional discussions, ministerial or first ministerial, from 1981 to 1988, so I know how important those talks are.

British Columbia has always fought consistently for a stronger voice in national decision-making and in key central institutions. High on the agenda is certainly going to be Senate reform. I intend to speak on that subject later in this assembly, and not in any depth today. But I should say that I do understand the frustrations that produced the proposals of the Canada West Foundation and the good work that has been done by the Alberta government with their roving task force, which has finally driven them to introduce legislation in their assembly to provide for the mechanism of electing Senators.

I feel that none of this is the right way to go, however. I believe that we shouldn't have a triple-E Senate. We should have a single-E Senate, and the single E we've got to have is the E of being effective. Unless the Senate is effective.... It doesn't matter a darn how you choose them or how many you have if it has nothing to do. If it's just a retirement home for people to sit around and review House of Commons legislation, kick up their heels once every four years and then go away, it doesn't matter how it's composed. The important thing is to give the senators a job to do and to make it meaningful.

It should have specialized areas that it works on exclusively. It should people the parliamentary committees, like the one on banking. It should be given exclusive authority to deal in the field of dominion provincial relations, I think. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that equality is going to produce a desirable Senate; it's a desperate solution that has been advanced to break the dominance of Ontario and Quebec in the Upper Chamber. It is surely not terribly appropriate to have British Columbia and Prince Edward Island both having the same number of senators. At the same time I find it very inappropriate that we've now got six senators and New Brunswick has ten.

I do not believe that electing senators will make the Senate work effectively, although it would be more fun to have an elected Senate, and you'd have people who were alive going down there. What would worry me is that when they got down there.... If you have an elected Upper House and an elected Lower House, we know the elected Upper House is going to start to try to use the power of the purse and clash with the Lower House.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It would be Australia all over again.

MR. B.R. SMITH: That's right. And then, to whom is cabinet responsible? It can't be responsible to both at the same time, particularly if you've got a Liberal Upper House and a Conservative Lower House. So it has always created problems when we've had an elected Upper House.

The important thing, Mr. Speaker, is that British Columbia has to make a commitment when it goes to Charlottetown to ensuring that the Senate is reformed, if it's going to stay at all; that it be made more effective; and that this province have a stronger and more relevant voice in the Upper House. But it's going to take persistence to bring about any reforms, because the great tendency from the centre, as the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) knows, is to pay no attention to talk about Senate reform, to leave it as it is — Ontario and Quebec have all their members — and to let sleeping dogs lie. But I do hope that there will be a commitment in September.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and I compliment you for allowing me to speak today.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to start off by acknowledging the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head in his leadership speech. I think that many of the members in this House enjoyed it, and I notice some of the other members on the government side were enthralled as well.

I'd like to start off my comments on the government's throne speech by sharing an experience that I had yesterday when I spoke to some caregivers, some students at Douglas College involved in social services. I was recapping some of the government's initiatives over the past two to five years, looking at the trend in the government's social service initiatives, first to privatization and second to relinquishing its responsibility for the provision of services, both in a direct capacity and in funding.

While it was quite interesting and informative for me to share some of the exchanges with the students, one of the young men asked me: "If the government has gotten out of the delivery of services, clearly not only in social services but in other areas as well, and if they are cutting the funding for those services that are being fulfilled by community and private enterprise, then what is the purpose of government? What role does this government have if they are shirking their responsibility not only to the delivery but to the funding of services?" That really brought home to me, in light of the throne speech we had just heard, what this government is all about.

One of the things I did in preparing for the throne speech, and bringing some of the issues that I have been working on in my constituency together, was to begin to look, first of all, at the definition of "govern." I think it is interesting and important for us at this point to see where this government lies in all of this. The dictionary says: "To govern or to rule. To govern implies the aim of keeping in a straight course or smooth operation for the good of the individual or the whole." I thought, yes, that's consistent with our philosophy; that's consistent with the aims of the New Democrats. However, when I read further, I saw that the definition says: "To rule may imply no more than laying down laws or issuing commands that must be obeyed, but often suggests an exercise in despotic or arbitrary power."

[4:30]

[ Page 5710 ]

I think that when we look at the government's history, when we look at what the government has done over the last couple of years, very clearly this government has abandoned its responsibility to govern, and is, instead, following the definition of "to rule."

I'd like to talk a little about the throne speech, and how I feel this government has failed miserably. It is reflected in what has happened in my own constituency. First of all, the constituency of Surrey, for those members not familiar with it, is possibly the most rapidly growing area not only in the lower mainland but in all of the province. Surrey's population growth is twice the provincial rate, and three times the rate of Canada and the GVRD. That says to me that if a government is indeed looking after the welfare and concerned for the good of the individual and the whole of the community, the government would be dealing with the services, the growth and that impact, and would have different systems in place that would help alleviate the pressures brought to bear on communities by that growth.

Unfortunately, this is my third response to a throne speech, and each time I've had to bring to the government's attention the sad lack of attention that has been paid to the community I care so much about. I think it is unfortunate that the ministers responsible have not seen fit to pay attention to the important issues in our constituency, and that we have not heard from the two ministers represented in cabinet from the municipality of Surrey.

Again I want to point out that for any municipality, infrastructure is of crucial importance. The infrastructure, the need for consistent support for upgrading of roads, drainage and water, is mandatory. For such a rapidly growing community, it is all that much more important. Let me point out to you some of the problems that Surrey faces. I would like to first give a bit of an overview — for the third t time — of who lives in our municipality.

Surrey has one-third of the GVRD's population of children under the age of 19. That, in and of itself, causes a tremendous demand on services for education, recreation and family support services. I'll talk a bit about the state of those services later on. We have seen quite an increase over the last few years from 1981 to 1986 in single-parent families. That again points out a real need for community services and support. We have seen, in some schools in my constituency, a tremendous turnover of the school population. One school in Guildford, Holly Elementary, sees over 100 percent turnover in their students in one year. That again points out the need for services. Unfortunately we have not seen that support forthcoming.

I am glad to see the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) here, because I want to talk in the House about some of the concerns that I have raised with him and about the crisis in health care faced by my municipality. I'd like to start by talking to the House about a press statement carried in one of our local newspapers on March 8. It's headed "Emergency Ward Overflows." Early this year I went to see the minister and asked him to pay special attention to what was going on at Surrey Memorial Hospital. We have a crisis situation, and this particular story in Surrey-North Delta Now really emphasizes that crisis.

A week prior to the story, the hospital was on what is called "diversion." That means that the hospital is at 100 percent capacity. They cannot deal with any more patients; at this point in time, they had used all possible overflow options. They had sent people home prematurely, and they recognized that — senior doctors recognized that people were asked to go home prematurely. They were in a process of diverting emergency cases to some other local hospitals. This in itself is not an exceptional situation; it happens a number of times in Surrey because the hospital cannot service the community's needs.

In this particular incident, the hospitals that they were diverting to were also on diversion; they were at capacity. Royal Columbian, Langley, Peace Arch — all the hospitals in our region were no longer able to take emergency patients.

I have brought this situation not only to the House's attention, but I have brought it personally to the minister's attention. I have intervened on several occasions on constituents' behalf, trying to help them deal with family health crises. And still we have not seen any concrete action from this government.

HON. MR. DUECK: How many millions of dollars of construction is going on right now?

MS. SMALLWOOD: The Minister of Health — I'm glad he is listening, because I was getting a little concerned — points out that there is construction underway at Surrey Memorial Hospital. That construction will not alleviate the problems facing our community, will not provide one new bed for at least two years. By that time, when we already have a situation where our region cannot take emergency patients, it begs the question: what kind of crisis are we going to face? What I have asked for, and will continue to ask for, is emergency response from this government. Someone is going to die.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: That shocks me. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) responded by saying: "You got it. Somebody is going to die."

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be ridiculous.

HON. MR. DUECK: We've looked after the emergency approach to that. Check with your hospital.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Well, I'll be very pleased to hear during the estimates and during the budget....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. member to address her remarks to the Chair. Thank you. Please proceed.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'll be very pleased to hear during the budget deliberations and during the estimates what kind of support

[ Page 5711 ]

the Ministry of Health is prepared to give our hospital, because we do have a very serious problem there. That problem has repeatedly been brought to the government's attention; that problem was predicted. The government has been warned over a ten-year period by the planners of health care both in our region and, I believe, in the ministry as well, and it has been ignored until such a time as people's health and our community health care is in serious crisis.

I want to further point out that our hospital has a catchment area for some services equal to and in excess of Vancouver, and yet we have a fraction of the beds available, a fraction of health care workers available to provide services, and a fraction of overall support. What we are facing at Surrey Memorial Hospital is something like 200 visits a day to the emergency ward.

During this crisis that I pointed out just a couple of weeks ago, in that one day there were 219 people that came to the emergency ward at Surrey Memorial Hospital. That sounds like a large number of people, and I assure this House that it is a large number of people. When you look at the busy emergency ward at Surrey Memorial Hospital, what it tells you is that we are the busiest emergency ward in all of British Columbia.

I think that it's important for this House to understand that through the neglect — and I say neglect — of this government, Surrey Memorial Hospital has 20 beds to serve 219 visitors to their emergency ward. I think that is criminal. The people of our community have been paying the taxes for a good health care system and this government and governments prior to this government have ignored our need and ignored our call for help. So I'll be looking forward to the budget and looking forward to hearing what that emergency plan is. I'm putting the minister on notice, through you, Mr. Speaker, once again in hopes that he can provide the kind of information that will alleviate some of the concerns the people in our community have.

I can go on. I think that it's worthwhile to talk about some of the services that are provided by our hospital. There's a tremendous amount of concern expressed by many of the people who find themselves having to rely on our hospital. The bed ratio is worked out by beds per 1,000 of population. The Surrey Memorial Hospital bed ratio by population is 1.7. The average for the province is four. While the residents of my municipality, my community, pay taxes, they only get half the support of other hospitals in the rest of the province. Surrey Memorial Hospital delivered 2,400 babies in the fiscal year 1987. We have a young community. It's expected that young communities have family needs, and the hospital and medical services should reflect that.

In addition to that we have a large number of seniors now taking up beds in Surrey Memorial, and the minister will point out that some of that construction will help alleviate that pressure. Again, I want to take this opportunity to point out that this government is the political party that in previous governments cut community supports to seniors. They cut community support for in-home care and some of the actual preventive programs that could keep seniors in their homes, support them there and prevent long-term illnesses. What I have been calling for — and will continue to call for — to alleviate the problems, to help relieve some of the pressure, is the return of some of those services. Bring back some of those projects, as we are seeing in other municipalities such as Victoria, that put the kinds of teams in place in the emergency ward that provide supports for people at home. Instead of sending them home to discover on their own what the medical problems are, put the supports there and really deal with the alternatives, the prevention and with a wellness model rather than a sickness model.

[4:45]

1 am looking at some of the information that has been provided to me over the years from Surrey Memorial. I brought this to the attention of the Minister in previous throne speeches, but I want to do it again. I want to remind the House and the Minister, Mr. Speaker, that things have gotten progressively worse. We are in a far more desperate situation in Surrey with our hospital than we were in 1987. In 1987 we did not see stories like this one I have just shared with you.

However, in 1987, Surrey Memorial said that they were only meeting 48 percent of the needs of the catchment area that they were servicing — 48 percent, and this government had those numbers. What was the government's response? The government's response at that time was to allow hospitals to come begging for additional money to deal with deficits.

Surrey Memorial, like many other hospitals, came begging. They provided the information to the ministry, they explained to the ministry that their experience over the last six months was that they had an increased workload, and they provided the numbers. They again pointed out that Surrey Memorial was the most efficient and effective hospital in their peer group, and they provided the numbers. They again pointed out to the ministry that Surrey Memorial's bed ratio was the lowest by population in the province. That was the ministry's own criteria for accessing that additional money. Surrey Memorial's argument was recognized, and the Ministry of Health provided them a band-aid solution to deal with their deficit in 1987.

Instead of dealing with the crisis, which this government had to be aware of, they allowed it to get to this desperate stage where, for the first time that we are aware of, every hospital in the region was in a situation of not being able to take one additional patient. Think about that. Think about your child being seriously injured or seriously ill, and being turned away from hospital after hospital. And why? Because the government has neglected to fulfil its responsibility, its mandate to govern.

Let's take a look at some of the other services. I'd like to point out the school system: what we have seen is a Ministry of Education that has been receptive at least as far as providing a royal commission to hear the concerns of communities and to begin to

[ Page 5712 ]

recognize that Surrey has a special need, that it has experienced tremendous growth and that the kids in Surrey need schools. It has in some way fast-tracked some of those capital expenditures.

They have not recognized the total picture. I want to share that with some of the members of this House. I am sorry that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) isn't here; I will send him a copy of my speech.

I introduced my response to the throne speech by pointing out that Surrey has one-third of all children under the age of 19. 1 want to talk a little bit about the recommendations of the Sullivan commission. One of the issues concerning the parents, the school board, the teachers and the children in my community is that if the ministry insists that we go ahead with the dual entry for kindergarten next year, it will mean that we will need 18 new classrooms and 18 new teachers in my municipality.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'd like to ask this government — this government that rules instead of governs, this government that brings down edicts — where the money is going to come from. Where are these 18 new classes going to be found? Where are these 18 new teachers and these corresponding 18 wages going to come from?

I want to point out that it costs Surrey $15,000 to equip a classroom, and that is not covered by the money that comes from the ministry. That must come out of the money that is collected by taxes in the municipality. The revenue-sharing formula put in place by this government does not recognize the needs of new and growing communities, communities that are major contributors to the welfare of this province. Again and again this is brought to the attention of this government, and again and again it is ignored. I have to ask why.

The Minister of Education, were he here, would say that the ministry has provided a 10.7 percent increase. But this does not recognize the 5.4 percent growth in the number of students and it only begins to deal with the 4.5 percent inflation factor. So as you can see, this 10.7, while it may help communities with declining enrolment, does nothing for growing young communities. In fact, it further penalizes them.

I think it's important to recognize that even though our municipality has these tremendous needs, through dedication, caring and a tremendous amount of hard work by good managers, this school board is bringing forth a school budget that has the lowest increase in the lower mainland. I think it's very important for us to think about that, given the fact that we have a crisis because of the tremendous pressures of growth, because of the increased costs that school boards must face, and costs that other municipalities and school boards do not have to face.

I want to talk a little more about these increases. I've talked about how much it costs to equip some of these new classrooms, and I've already touched on the fact that while the province is providing some of the capital costs for new buildings, it does not cover the costs for the moving of portables; that has to be picked up by the school board. It doesn't cover the costs for equipping classes; that $15,000 has to be picked up. That growth factor is reflected by costs borne by the taxpayers in our municipality. In addition to that, because we are a young community and because the school system in and of itself is young, we have a large number of junior teachers, younger teachers. What this means is that their increases in salaries, which are more or less across the board.... Every municipality, every school board has to deal with this. We have an increased number of young teachers, and therefore an increased amount that has to be dealt with as far as teachers' salaries are concerned.

I've touched on the portable costs. The shortfall estimated for this year for portable costs is something like $700,000. In addition to that.... For the minister who has just arrived — and I am very pleased that he has come, so I can share this with him — I pointed out earlier that I would provide a copy of these numbers and the content of my response to the throne speech to the Minister of Education. I look forward to my opportunity during the estimates to again bring some of this information to the attention of the Minister of Education.

MR. LONG: I rise to speak against the amendment and for the throne speech. It's good to be back in the House and to carry on with the positive legislation which this government has put forward to make British Columbia a better place for all of the people. I know that the throne speech has given the people of British Columbia a positive outlook for the future. I know that the negative "poor me" attitude which the opposition has taken towards this positive upbeat throne speech.... I would like to ask the members present: where is your leader? I want to speak to your leader. He hasn't been in the House since he answered the Premier on the throne speech. He should be in here doing his job as a member of the House, but here he has all you people sitting around bickering for him. You have a non-leader. It's the only political party in all of Canada that has a non-leader.

I would like to bring up a few of the things that our government has done in the riding of Mackenzie. If, over the 14 years prior to '86, they had asked, they probably would have received a lot more. But they neglected to ask the government to help them because they like the old adage: "I can't do anything for you because I'm not part of the government." They used that against their own people just to get sympathy in the newspapers so that they can say: "We're not part of the government, we can't get anything." That's foolish, because Nanaimo has shown that they can get things if they want. The government has put a lot of things in Nanaimo; it has helped Nanaimo a lot. They have two opposition members — and they're not even good ones.

First I would like to bring people up to speed — the spaniel has given me the nod — on my riding and where it is. I'm from the riding of Mackenzie.

[ Page 5713 ]

MR. MILLER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would seek the advice of the Chair. I distinctly heard the member say that the two members for Nanaimo were not good ones. That may be a matter of opinion, but I wonder if that is suitable for this House.

[5:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Without appearing to be avoiding the issue, I must say that I didn't hear what the member said. I'm sure the member is well aware of what is required in this House in decorum, particularly with respect to language. So I would caution him to proceed and use moderate language, please.

MR. LONG: I will use moderate language in the future, seeing they've got such touchy feelings.

To get back to what I was saying, some of you don't know — I wish some of your newer members were here so that I could bring them up to speed — that the Mackenzie riding really covers the Sunshine and central coast of British Columbia all the way to Bella Coola. There are many towns in this area, starting with Port Mellon, a pulp-mill town, and on through Gibsons and Sechelt to Powell River, another pulp-and-paper-mill town; and so on right up to Bella Coola, which is in logging and very close to the north coast, where one of your colleagues resides at this time.

MR. BLENCOE: Have you got anything good to say? Give us some substance.

MR. LONG: You'll get the substance. I've listened to some of your gibberish so far, and at least you're going to get some substance, my friend.

Let's go to some of the positive things that have happened since this government has been working with me in my riding. In Port Mellon, for instance, we have a nearly billion dollar investment in the pulp and paper industry, with the Oji company hooked up with Canadian Forest Products to form Howe Sound Pulp and Paper, which is giving direct jobs to a lot of the forest industry people. When it's completed, it will be one of the cleanest, most up-to date mills in all of Canada.

We have, I hope in the near future.... The main issue up in Gibsons in the Highways department out of that area, one which impacts on the whole riding right up to Powell River, is the Gibsons bypass for unloading the ferry, which is essential in the transportation system on the Sunshine Coast. In Sechelt just last year we opened up the extended-care hospital for our seniors, which has been put in since this government has been in. Also, we are helping to fund the new seniors' retirement centre — not a live-in centre, but a centre for people to use. There are in the neighbourhood of 900 to 1,000 retired people in the Sechelt area. They're super, good people, and I'm honoured to be an honorary member of that retired group.

One other area of Sechelt that I'd really like to bring to your attention and which the opposition here have ridiculed our government for is native affairs and things to do with natives. We have in Sechelt one of the most progressive native groups in all of British Columbia, and this government helped with that in giving them self-government and the opportunity to become a municipality and to take part like every other town in the whole of British Columbia. I commend our government and them. As well as self-government, they have a gravel project; they're in business. They're now starting to realize that they can get into business and compete right here in the market with the rest of the free enterprise system. And if you get into it, you guys can compete as well.

Interjection.

MR. LONG: It takes capital, and that's something you have to learn how to develop.

Also with the natives there, I hope we can get your backing to help us fund a native centre that is integrated with Sechelt, Gibsons and the whole Sunshine Coast. It will be built on band land. They're looking forward to having a theatre and to having a cultural centre of their own, bringing in people from Sechelt and Gibsons and all the white communities so that we get an integrated system in this province rather than the type we have now, where we have reservations here and the whites here, and so on. This is another good part. I hope you can back me on this project, to help with the funding through Go B.C. for this native group. I know you can help.

MR. JONES: We'll do that instead of the golf course.

MR. LONG: I'm getting to you in a minute, sir.

Now we're on to the upgrading of the highway through Pender Harbour and on up. Some of you have been there fishing and so on. A great little community. Good B.C. fish. You can come on up and go fishing. Pender Harbour is a good little community, and the highway will make it easier to get there; this government is progressing into that, and ongoing. One thing I have to say: they're not going for the great big contractors; they're going for day labour so that the little guy, the small guy with the drill and the truck and the other things, can get in there and work, so that he can make a living up there and update his equipment and also survive.

MR. G. HANSON: Buy a plane.

MR. LONG: If you get into good business you can do as well.

Now we're on to Powell River, probably the biggest centre in the whole riding. I have to draw your attention to the terrible health care that is given throughout this province, as you would put it and let everybody believe. We're just in the process now of going through and opening in June an extended-care hospital for seniors. Imagine the Social Credit government doing that! The Social Credit government is helping seniors. They're good people, and it's needed. It's well designed, well laid out. I have to thank my colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) for his help in this as well.

[ Page 5714 ]

We're now at the point where I'm looking forward very shortly to a brand-new 80-bed acute-care hospital for the pulp town of Powell River. Fifty cents of every dollar in this whole country is produced from all the pulp mills and paper mills in this province, so that we can sit here and run this Legislature. Fifty cents of every dollar — keep that in mind for a few moments; I'll come back to it. That hospital is going to serve Powell River. It's needed, and it will be done. Again, I talked to my minister. These are the terrible people who are doing all this stuff for our working people. It's incredible. I don't know where you guys get your information.

Now we get down to something that helps: a $600,000 grant towards a golf course. Do you know why we put in a golf course? Because we have retired people. We bring in people, and they play golf and have a good time. But as well, it freed up a whole new industrial park. Where the golf course is today will be turned over and worked with by MacMillan Bloedel — that terrible company that you think is always polluting the whole world — and the municipality of Powell River and, I imagine, our own provincial government and myself, to bring into being an industrial park that will bring industry to Powell River. That's why we put money in a golf course; we could see the spinoffs down the road. You've got to understand that chain reactions do happen. As well, it frees up the area to put in the pollution control devices that will clean up our environment.

MR. JONES: What happened to free enterprise?

MR. LONG: Free enterprise flourishes. MacMillan Bloedel is free enterprise. Maybe you should check on that.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Why didn't they build a golf course?

MR. LONG: The $600,000 was one-third of the funding. The rest was put up by members, the company of MacMillan Bloedel and the other people. That's free enterprise.

MR. BLENCOE: What happened to free enterprise?

MR. LONG: Nothing happened to free enterprise; it flourishes in this province. You should know that full well; you're the newfound capitalists.

Now we're in the northern part of the riding, in Bella Coola....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have the feeling you have forgotten that I'm here.

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, I'm very sorry that I shunned you. Mr. Speaker, it's very hard to forget you, and I assure you that in the future I will not.

Mr. Speaker, we're on to Bella Coola. This is a small community at the head of an inlet which connects by road through to Williams Lake and has a flavour all of its own. It's very different from the other parts of my riding.

MR. G. JANSSEN: You call that a road?

MR. LONG: That's a road. Some of the things that have gone on in Bella Coola are exciting because these people, being pioneers and independent people, have asked and have received. One of the major things they've got is due to the fact that they have only two ways of transportation: either by road out or by aircraft. This government put money into the airport, put systems in so that people can get in and out, and have improved the road in as well. We look for more improvements to Bella Coola in the future.

HON. MR. BRUMMET. They must have a good MLA.

MR. LONG: We've got great ministers and a good government.

In Bella Bella, $180,000-plus was put into the airport project there — a 1,500-strong native reserve in the northern part of my riding. I have to thank the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and also the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) for their help in this matter, because they supported me in this....

MR. MILLER: So when does it come back? What's the other side of the coin?

MR. LONG: I'll tell you how it comes back, and I'm glad you asked that question. How it's coming back, Mr. Speaker, is that both these members have people who fly between North Island and Prince Rupert, and right in the middle is this nice little airport for the safety of your constituents — both of you. I'm glad you backed me, and it also added a real dimension for our native people in Bella Bella. It gave them air ambulance out at night. In the future, I hope, if they want to go after more microwave approaches, they can get in and out at night with government jets; they could get evacuation. They have a small hospital there, but they don't have the accessibility which a lot of our towns do. So that's where we're at there.

I'd like to encourage my government.... Another thing needed in the future at Bella Bella is a ferry dock for unloading roll-on, roll-off traffic. They do have a problem with the process of getting their goods in there, and they don't have roll-off, roll-on. So we should be doing that.

As well, in the whole riding, we're in the process of putting in our natural gas pipeline — a real positive.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's clean up the environment.

MR. LONG: Well, when you get down to the natural gas pipeline and when the pulp mills come on stream, it's going to clean up the environment. It

[ Page 5715 ]

gives a cheaper fuel source to the working person, cutting it by anywhere up to 50 percent and cutting the emissions from heavy oils down from three million to 600,000 gallons a year, and that saves our environment. I'm looking forward to this great project in our riding — and on to Vancouver Island.

Interjection.

MR. LONG: Well, you've had it all along, sir, down here in coddled little Victoria where you sit. But live up there where it's tough.

Mr. Speaker, they say that education has not been looked after. I have seen nothing wrong with the education system. We've got a lot of great teachers out there who work very hard. Some of the tests that I've heard about show that our B.C. students are some of the best in the world. Recently I've noticed — not in the throne speech — things coming out by the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) that extend education for the people. All they have to do is read this, and they'll see what is being done in education for the people of British Columbia. If you sit down and read your notes, you won't have a problem with it, believe me.

[5:15]

One of the things I really want to get into is the fact that the forest industry — back to what I was saying earlier — produces 50 cents of every dollar in this province. It covers mills in Port Alberni; Nanaimo — two members for the NDP — the riding of the good member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) ; North Island — another member from your left-wing side of the House; me from Powell River...

Interjection.

MR. LONG: No. Socialist, period.

...and, of course, my good friend — probably the only one in the whole group who understands the working man — from Prince Rupert. He worked in the mill, and he said this afternoon: "My God, I'd rather be here than working in a pulp mill."

There are many other towns throughout British Columbia that depend on forestry. I am appalled at your leader's insinuation a few days ago when he made his speech in the House, condemning the pulp mills, knocking them for the pollution and so on, saying that they are the biggest polluters, and carrying on, when 50 cents of every dollar in this province comes from that industry.

This government realizes that we have to be responsible, we have to take care of the pollution, but we don't kill the jobs that these people base their dreams on.

I haven't heard the union leaders step up and say, "Let's shut down the pulp mills, " because they know better. They know that the jobs, the people's dreams and everything else depend on that very thing. We'll clean up the mills, but we're not going to shut them down.

I will tell you another thing: we're not going to fine them a million dollars. You guys are like the Americans: a million dollars for every time you're in pollution.

MR. MILLER: You're contradicting the minister.

MR. LONG: Not a million dollars, my friend. If I'm contradicting the minister, so be it, I guess. [Laughter.]

Obviously these socialists don't realize that there are jobs to be made. You should be ashamed of yourself for knocking your own people in Alberni. That's terrible. They've got jobs; they've got kids; they need those jobs. Mills pay their way all the time, and they pay wages and a lot of other things.

Interjection.

MR. LONG: Government is addressing the problem. They are addressing it in the right way, not just going out and fining them.

In my wrap-up I'd like to ask something. The Leader of the Opposition was chairman of the housing and environment committee in Vancouver from 1972. He was an alderman at that time, from '72 to '80. He was the mayor of Vancouver from '80 to '86. He was mayor of half the population of the province, which resides in the greater Vancouver area. That's a lot of people. The level of air pollution in the greater Vancouver area, just by the numbers, is horrendous. You can see it. Fly into Vancouver; there it is hanging over there like a cloud, and that's because everybody's concentrated downtown. Those industries should get out and be diversified through the regional system. They should get back out into the people that count, the Powell Rivers, the Port Albernis — mind you, Port Alberni's pretty polluted right now — and a lot of other communities through the whole of the province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask where the Leader of the Opposition was when he was mayor of Vancouver. Where was he when all the effluent from the whole city and the lower mainland was pouring into the ocean, millions of gallons of excretion from the people of Vancouver? Where is it going? Untreated sewage. This is the man who's condemning the pulp mills. What's he doing? They're pouring millions of gallons of sewage. Do you know where it ends up? It ends up on the Sechelt Peninsula, on our beaches and in our towns. When did he take the time to clean up his own back yard before he came after the pulp mills?

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 45A, we'll call the question now.

[ Page 5716 ]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 14

NAYS - 36

On the main motion.

Mr. G. Hanson moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just before adjourning, I would just remind the House that, by agreement, tomorrow the sitting will be as a normal Friday. We will sit from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Also by agreement, there will be no question period, but there will be private members' statements.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:29 p.m.