[ Page 5717 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Bank of Canada interest rate. Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 5717

Mr. Clark

Private Members' Statements

Long-term-care facilities. Mr. Crandall –– 5718

Mrs. Boone

Highway billboard advertising. Mr. Guno –– 5720

Hon. Mr. Vant

Forestry practices. Mr. G. Janssen –– 5721

Hon. Mr. Parker

Environment ministry discussion paper on solid municipal waste.

Mr. Rabbitt –– 5723

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Bruce

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. G. Hanson –– 5725

Mr. Kempf –– 5728

Mr. Serwa –– 5731

Ms. Edwards –– 5735

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure, on behalf of our colleague the first member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Messmer), to welcome some 34 grade 11 and 12 students from King's Langley, England. They are the special guests of Southern Okanagan Secondary School, and they are accompanied by their teachers Mr. Hall, Mrs. MacLean and Mr. Abbott. Would the House please give them a warm welcome,

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming my son, Greg Edwards, who is here today with his wife, Lori Edwards, and my grandson, Ryan Edwards. Please join me in welcoming them.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the House also to join me in celebrating a group of people who serve faithfully and very well in British Columbia. In case the rest of you are not aware, this happens to be Physiotherapist Week; I consort with them regularly. And I ask you to recognize this as their week.

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd like the House to welcome today an MLA of years gone by, a good friend and a predecessor Forests minister, Tom Waterland.

Ministerial Statement

BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATE

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of great importance to every British Columbian who has a mortgage and every business that has to borrow money. As most hon. members will know, the Bank of Canada rate rose yesterday from 12.18 percent to 12.4 percent. This gave the five major chartered banks the green light to boost their prime lending rates to 13.5 percent from the previous 12.75.

The last time the prime rate was this high was in August 1984. Interest rates have risen to the point where I am concerned they are becoming a threat to our continued economic prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, everyone suffers from higher interest rates, except those idle rich who have lots of interest income.

Interest rate increases hurt consumers, They quit buying big-ticket items often purchased on credit, such as automobiles and furniture. Consumers have to cut their spending in order to maintain their mortgage payments. This is particularly difficult for homeowners who are renegotiating mortgages at the moment. It also has a ripple effect on renters, who, as a consequence of higher costs to the landowner, find their rents even further increased.

Interest rate increases hurt business, especially small business. Interest costs eat up more business cash flow and cut into expansion and investment plans, Small business in B.C. will be hurt, because it's been proven time and again that small business in western Canada is the first to be cut off credit by the big eastern banks. Business bankruptcies are almost sure to rise because of higher interest rates.

In a similar sense our export industries, whose growth in recent years we are so proud to see, are exposed to higher risk as a consequence of higher costs of doing business. This, in turn, will be reflected in a reduction of our ability to compete in the world marketplace, and therefore we run the very real danger in British Columbia, being unique among Canadian provinces in being dependent upon export activity~ of having our dramatic economic recovery program inhibited.

It's clear that none of this is good for our economy. Each of the negative impacts I've described creates a domino effect. If consumers quit buying furniture, the retailer buys less from the supplier. The retailer and the supplier both might lay off staff. Our merchants will suffer as disposable income is reduced and jobs are lost.

Mr. Speaker, interest rates are rising for three reasons.

First, until now economic growth in the United States, Japan, Europe and Canada has been much stronger than was expected. While this has pushed inflation up only slightly, inflation expectations have risen much more. This is reflected in the growing use of cost-of-living adjustments in labour and other contracts in Canada and the United States.

The second reason for higher interest rates is government budget deficits. The federal government and many of the provinces are running large budget deficits at precisely the time when they should be running surpluses or, at the very least, have balanced budgets. These deficits are putting upward pressure on interest rates because they increase the competition for credit.

Hon. members, look at the federal situation. My federal counterpart forecast a deficit of $28.9 billion for the 1988-89 fiscal year, a target everyone knows will not now be met because of rising interest rates which boost debt-service costs. Interest on the federal debt exceeds the entire deficit itself. There was no room for manoeuvre.

The third reason for higher interest rates is the Bank of Canada's policies. Its objective of reducing inflation at a time when the economy and the federal budget deficit and other provinces' deficits are increasing inflationary pressures can only have one result, higher interest rates.

In setting monetary policy, the Bank of Canada must take account of economic conditions in all parts of Canada, not simply in overheated southern Ontario. This government will carry the message aggressively to Ottawa and to Mr. Crow. This government will tell those individuals that in their efforts to contain inflation we applaud them and in their success in controlling inflation in this country we applaud them, but that it is not proven that this current tight interest rate and monetary policy need be as onerous as it is. It is not proven that were they to slightly relax their interest rates, inflation would necessarily rise. We do concede that they walk a tightrope be-

[ Page 5718 ]

tween those two alternatives, but we say most emphatically that because of the obvious economic hardship being imposed by this monetary policy of the Bank of Canada, they should relax their current heavy interest rates, because we think they will not necessarily increase inflation rates or exacerbate the inflation problem in this country.

We will be carrying that message very aggressively, and to hon. members in the House we say that the only real solution to this high interest rate problem is for other governments in Canada to follow the path this government is b ' lazing here in British Columbia.

The solution is fiscal responsibility and also sensitivity to current market conditions. Current market conditions in British Columbia demand that the Bank of Canada relax its present onerous interest rate policy, and we will so tell the federal government.

[10:15]

MR. CLARK: One of the problems with this administration is a lack of clarity about their policy objectives and the strategy they're pursuing. We saw last year a dramatic attack on the federal government on issues like procurement. This year we see no mention of problems with the federal government when, clearly, interest rate rises are the greatest threat to the economy of British Columbia.

Today we see a belated conversion to the fact that interest rates are, in fact, crippling to the B.C. economy because this province - more than others - is sensitive to interest rate increases due to our dependence on raw material resources, particularly the forest industry, and on the impact that interest rates have on housing construction. We're happy that we now finally see a reaction to a policy driven by central Canada, which does not support the initiatives that this province needs, in terms of the economy.

We fully support an attack on the federal government and pressure on the federal government to keep those interest rates low. I might say, however, that there is one issue that the minister did not mention which precipitated the dramatic increase in interest rates a few years back, and that was the speculative frenzy in the housing market, particularly in Toronto, and also now dramatically in Vancouver.

Members may recall that the prime motivation for increasing interest rates in the early 1980s was that housing market, again, in Vancouver and in Ontario. It was the failure to deal with the dramatically rising prices of housing which spawned the initial round of interest rate increases then. Again today we're seeing that one of the motivations for rising expectations and the inflationary spiral is the push that housing prices give to that spiral. We see a crisis in that regard in British Columbia and in Ontario.

I would hope that speculative taxes and initiatives which would deflate the price of houses in Vancouver would also aid in keeping the interest rate low and take away an excuse from the central government and central bank for rising prices.

Interest rates are critical to the economy of British Columbia. We see a belated conversion now by the government. We're thankful that they finally made that conversion; they should have done it years ago.

Private Members' Statements

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

IN SMALL COMMUNITIES

MR. CRANDALL: Mr. Speaker, my subject this morning is continuing care in small communities in British Columbia. Before I get on to that, I want to salute our Minister of Finance for the statement he made on high interest rates this morning.

I'm interested in the comment by the second member for Vancouver East that there's a lack of clarity on the part of this government in terms of our positions and policies on financial matters. I want that member and all of this House to know that the country will soon know that there is no lack of clarity on the part of this government about fiscal management. That will be made most clear on March 30, when we hear the budget speech read in this House by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). We'll see there that the balanced budget we introduce will send a message to the entire country.

MR. MILLER: Are you announcing the budget now?

MR. CRANDALL: As it said in the throne speech, there will be a balanced budget. There will be no lack of clarity across this country as this Social Credit government has the first balanced budget in this country in many years.

I'd like to talk this morning about long-term-care facilities in small communities. My concern is that the seniors of our province are very special residents and citizens. We all know that the work they've put in in past years in developing our province has been instrumental in bringing the standard of living we have in our province today up to that level.

I think it's important, in this day and age when we have a healthier economy than we had in years past, that we extend the highest possible level of care to our seniors. I'm especially concerned about this particular topic because I have four seniors in my family who in the next few years will very possibly require some residency in long-term-care facilities. I'm concerned about it in small communities in particular because my constituency is completely comprised of small communities.

I'm also concerned for our seniors, because much of the hard work they did in earlier years was done under much greater difficulties than we have today. Much of our province was developed not with the tractors and big machinery we have today but with horses and a lot of hard physical work. It's important that we extend the best level of care to our seniors.

It wasn't that many years ago that seniors could either reside in their own homes or with their families or possibly, if there was room in acute-care hospitals. We're very fortunate in this ~province today

[ Page 5719 ]

to have a great number of long-term care facilities in both large and small communities. The thrust of my thoughts this morning is along the lines of ensuring that we continue to pay attention to our small communities as well, because there are certainly a large number of seniors in our small communities in British Columbia.

I think it is very significant that over the last year or so this government has been planning about 1, 300 long-term-care beds in this province. In 1988 alone, 525 beds were activated for long-term care. This is a very aggressive construction schedule to meet the care needs of our seniors. We have about another 800 beds in the planning stages or early construction stages. Several of these facilities are in small communities such as Castlegar, Hope, Armstrong and Chilliwack. In addition, multi-level-care facilities are being planned to allow our seniors to stay in one place as their care needs get heavier rather than move to another facility.

While we build facilities for the heavier care needs of our seniors, we are also, however, enjoying a renewed emphasis on supporting our seniors in their own homes, allowing them to keep their independence, to keep the familiarity with their own homes. This has been tremendously successful in supporting the needs of seniors in the rural or small communities that make up a constituency such as mine. While home support has assisted to date, we are facing the reality that facility care is inevitable for our area and our small communities throughout the province. In my particular constituency, we enjoy the benefit of long-term-care facilities in the city of Kimberley and the town of Golden, and one of my objectives in the next year will be to pay some special attention to long-term care in the community of Invermere.

I am delighted to recognize that in the last year we have made great progress in providing care for our seniors in British Columbia. I know that our concern for seniors will not change. I salute and compliment the Minister of Health and his ministry for the work they have done in the past, and I simply ask that they continue this emphasis, as it is an integral part of our health care system in British Columbia and an integral part of the concern that this government has for our seniors.

MRS. BOONE: I'm surprised that the member has used such words as "delighted about the quality of care" given in the long-term care. Quality of care is given very well in the long-term care, but the amount of long-term care is really lacking in this province. I think his concern is justifiable, given the track record of this government when it comes to providing care for seniors. We've seen the increase in user fees in the last budget. We've seen the increase in the budget of the year before in the Pharmacare prescriptions. Despite the minister's constant agreement that home care is a very important and very economic and efficient alternative to long-term-care facilities, we've seen absolutely no increases in the budget to provide those services.

Today we have the situation - and it's not a good situation - where many of our acute-care beds in hospitals are blocked by patients who should not be there. This is a fact. Anybody in the hospital administration will tell you that patients are in there who ought to be either in long-term-care facilities that aren't there - there are not facilities there - or they ought to be home getting the care from homecare workers, or there should be some other form: hospices, respite beds, areas like that. We have seen this province take no action whatsoever in dealing with those things. We have seen no movement whatsoever to increase the support to home-care services.

I have stood in this House on numerous occasions and stated that to me home care is one of the most valuable, most cost-effective and most humane ways of dealing with seniors who are ill. We can keep people in their homes and give them the support required. That is what seniors want. They want to be allowed to stay in their homes. This budget has remained stable year after year after year. The most efficient and most effective way of dealing with people is keeping them in their homes, and we have kept that budget stable.

There ought to be more long-term-care facilities. The long-term-care facilities that we have are wonderful facilities and operating to the best of their abilities. However, when you only have so many of them, you run into problems. The problems are the same throughout this province. It doesn't matter which community you go to; you will find that the bottom line there is that long-term-care facilities are lacking. They require more beds. The movement that this government is taking right now in providing those beds is slow in coming, and in the meantime, while we're waiting for those beds, they ought to be taking measures to provide the other alternatives, such as home care and respite beds in hospices.

MR. CRANDALL: I'm very surprised that we've heard these words from the opposition side of the House - or the opposition corner of the House, I guess we should say.

It seems to me that the member wrote her speech yesterday and didn't hear what I said a few minutes ago. She said there have been no increases in facilities for seniors. We opened 525 beds last year. To me that's very significant. We've got another 800 beds underway, and I think that is very significant progress. I'm proud that our government has been providing those facilities for our seniors.

I'm also delighted to agree with the member that care for our seniors in their own homes is very important, and I want her to know that this government is doing an excellent job of that. I had a conversation a couple of weeks ago with the head of the homemaker program in the community of Golden, and I can tell you that not one resident of that community who has requested homemaker service is not receiving it.

I'm delighted with the long-term-care facilities. I recognize that there are needs that we are still continuing to address, and this government will con-

[ Page 5720 ]

tinue to address them. We will provide more facilities in this province, and I look forward to seeing additional facilities open. I know that the seniors do appreciate the facilities that are there now, and they will continue to appreciate new facilities as we open them. Whether the opposition appreciates those or not will remain to be seen, but I know the seniors in this province do, and this government will continue to make facilities available for seniors.

[10:30]

HIGHWAY BILLBOARD ADVERTISING

MR. GUNO: For lack of a better title, I might use the title: "Zen and the Art of Maintaining Highway Advertising Signs in Victoria."

I want to make a statement about a remark made by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) in his speech in Quesnel about three weeks ago. He said that he did not want to see British Columbia turning into a giant Indian reserve. He made these remarks in the context of expressing concern about the proliferation of highway signs along Highway 17, between Swartz Bay and Victoria, on 0 particular reserve.

I feel obligated to put on record my concerns about the minister's statement. I realize that the minister has since made an apology to those people who, in his own words, he "may have slighted" by his remarks. I would let the matter go if It were not for the disturbing fact that it represents a troublesome pattern of this government. The backhanded apology that was given misses the point.

It is not a matter of mere insensitivity; rather I find that it reveals an ethnocentric attitude, especially towards native people of this province. The minister is a man of some experience, a politician who is now a minister of the Crown, who knows - or ought to know - that every public utterance made by him in his capacity as minister reflects the overall government attitudes. It speaks volumes about the concern, or lack of concern, towards the plight of the aboriginal people of the province. I think we have to look at the context.

The minister spoke at a chamber of commerce meeting. He used an imagery that was bound to excite, to provoke, to foster further misunderstanding and use stereotypes that only furthers misunderstanding about the native people and their aspirations. I can't let that go without some comment and challenge. It has to be challenged. If we're to fight racism in this province - and according to a recent poll, it is growing in Canada - then those kinds of ill-founded remarks have to be condemned.

There is another disturbing aspect to this that I want to highlight, and that is the tendency of the oppressor to blame the victim. For it shows an indifference to the desperate plight of the native people, and the native communities they live in, who suffer overcrowding in housing, who face limited economic opportunities, who experience high rates of suicide among their young people and rampant alcoholism because of the despair that is a daily experience for many of our people. By almost every measure, the plight of the native people in this province is desperate.

So the minister takes on a band for doing what it can to realize a little financial resource to deal with some of the enormous problems it faces in its community. I would suggest that the double standard is breathtaking. The minister might have mentioned the stalwarts of the business community who bought the spaces, but of course they are a tougher lot to take on. He also might have mentioned the growing urban blight we are experiencing in many of our centres in British Columbia.

I also want to turn to the hypocrisy of this government when it comes to dealing with the rights of our aboriginal people. After the 1986 election, we saw the spectacle of the Premier traveling to a reserve in Knight Inlet and putting on, at the gracious invitation of those people, the sacred Indian regalia. At that time the Premier promised to be more understanding and to try to understand the aspirations of the native people. Just several weeks later in Ottawa at the first ministers' conference, the Premier led an effort to stonewall the aspirations of the native people to entrench basic self-government. Even today, the provincial government is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs toward land claims. So it goes on.

Meanwhile we have the spectacle of the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) on Tuesday speaking about a new era of consultation with the native people. I am reminded of a cartoon in 'Togo" where the character alternately offers a lollipop to Pogo and bashes him with a bat. I am reminded of the Hollywood stereotype years ago of an Indian who talks about the machinations of the white man by saying he speaks with a forked tongue. I think it's a more apt description to say about the minister that he speaks with a loose tongue.

HON. MR. VANT: I am very pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the hon. member for Atlin's statement, and I want to assure him and this entire House that I never regard myself as having an ethnocentric attitude. I see myself as serving all citizens of this province, and I am very happy that I have a positive relationship with the first citizens of the province. Everywhere I go, I always make a point of consulting with them as well. Recently I was visiting Kitimat, and Chief Gerry Amos was at the chamber of commerce luncheon there. He very cordially invited me to visit his village, the headquarters of the Haisla nation, and I was very pleased to do so.

In the last couple of years municipalities, regional districts, tourist organizations and, indeed, many citizens of every ethnic background have repeatedly asked that my ministry's signing policy be reviewed and strengthened, to stop the proliferation of signs now appearing on our highway rights-of-way. That is why my staff has been working exceedingly hard to put forth a new policy. Instead of a proliferation of private signs lining the immediate highway rights-of way, crisp new blue and white signs will be installed.

[ Page 5721 ]

Before the policy was accepted, this very open, sensitive, consultative government initiated two pilot projects. We tried the new sip policy out in two areas of the province. Those areas embraced, I might say, some areas where our highways go through lands under federal jurisdiction. These projects, one from Hope to Cache Creek and the other from Victoria to Port Hardy, have been exceedingly successful. Feedback from business operators, municipalities and tourists has been very positive. These signs provide advance notice to travelers of the availability of gas, food, lodging and campgrounds, as well as miscellaneous services such as marinas, boat ramps, sani-stations and picnic areas. The rising dogwood symbol provides instant recognition that a tourist attraction is just down the road.

Signing will vary in different parts of the province. In rural areas, distances between turnoffs are adequate to allow for larger signs to include types of services, business name panels or logos and directional arrows. In urban areas where distances between turnoffs may be minimal, generic symbols are used, as services are usually numerous and are visible from the highway. The good news is that the signs will be produced, installed and maintained by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways with no charge to business operators.

The schedule to implement this new policy is such that all the new signs will be placed throughout the whole province by July 1 of this year, so that at the height of the tourist season, all these important signs will be in place.

Section 13 of the Motor Vehicle Act prohibits the erection of signs within 300 metres of an arterial highway, particularly in rural areas. The Minister of Transportation and Highways has the authority to approve such signs. Legislation of this type has been on our books since the 1940s. This legislation does not apply to lands under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada. This precisely was the point I was making in Quesnel. The member for Atlin mentioned that statements should be put in their context, and that is the context in which I spoke.

Another mention was made of the proliferation of billboards along Highway 17. Indeed, many of us who live at least part-time on this island are very much aware that within one kilometre along Highway 17, there are no less than 52 billboards.

MR. GUNO: It seems that the minister speaks in sign language and entirely misses the point. I was going to say that the minister is well-meaning and meant no ill will, but after that kind of

But even if we talk about the so-called new sign policy, we on this side of the House feel that it seriously threatens the welfare of a number of businesses; and the very people who would question the claim have not been consulted.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that the member has gone through this kind of process. I might remind the House of the important remarks of the minister - then a back-bencher -about the sexual assault victims, when the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) brought the matter up. I think that he must understand that, as a minister of the Crown, he stands accountable to the people of this province for his actions and for his words.

I think it is absolutely imperative that we be constantly vigilant against the spread of narrow bigotry. The challenges that lie ahead, in view of the changing face of this province, require that we - all politicians, no matter what political stripe we may represent - heed our words, call for more understanding and tolerance and respect the dignity of all people. The minister ought to resist the temptation to pander to the prejudices of the bigots.

I would urge the minister to cast his eyes beyond the signs on the highway and look at the more urgent and serious blight: the degradation of our forest resource. Then he will see the blight that threatens all of us.

Ironically, Mr. Speaker, the minister may have been half right about his remarks in Quesnel. Until the government deals with one of the oldest human rights issues - that of the aboriginal claim - the majority of the aboriginal people can legitimately say that this land is reserved for them. I also can't blame them if they say that until that happens, then they don't want to see British Columbia turn into one giant used-car lot.

FORESTRY PRACTICES

MR. G. JANSSEN: I want to thank the members, especially on the opposite side of the House, who have made me welcome here in my first few days.

The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) made reference just yesterday to the fact that 50 percent of the income of the province of British Columbia does come from the forest industry. As the member well knows, in Mackenzie and Alberni, that figure could well be in the 80 percent to 85 percent bracket.

The issue I want to speak on is forestry, and the fact that we derive so much of our income from that resource. On March 10, the day the forestry hearings were being held in Parksville, I had the opportunity in the morning to go down to Kildonan. Kildonan is a great fishing area located halfway between Port Alberni and Ucluelet on the northwest side of the Alberni Inlet. I found that despite the fact that in communities like Youbou and Tahsis, where they have a shortage of logs, where 400 to 500 workers are being laid off, where communities are dying, where people can't pay their mortgages and are having to move, in Kildonan logs are being burned. Logs that are sometimes 40 feet in length, three and a half feet at the butt, that are slightly knotted or have a twist in them, are being burned. Ten to 15 truckloads every two weeks, up in smoke, burning jobs.

[10:45]

Raw log exports have been halted or will be halted shortly. I commend the minister for that. We've been asking for It on this side of the House for quite some time, and finally a decision has been made.

[ Page 5722 ]

I don't want to blame MacMillan Bloedel or Mars Industries, which are contracted there, for burning that wood. They take the wood out of the bush. They have to; otherwise they are fined for leaving it there. They then pay stumpage on it. But because of the massive complex and the processing plants and converting plants that operate in Alberni, MacMillan Bloedel can just not profitably utilize that timber. That is sad to see, but I'm glad to say that since I made the visit there the practice has stopped. A mill is going In there, ten to 15 new jobs are being created, and that is the positive side. That kind of small business and entrepreneurship has to be recognized by the Ministry of Forests.

The take-back program will create a new mill in Alberni. Coulson Forest Products is planning on putting up a small mill at Polly Point that would create 90 to 100 jobs from value-added products. That requires an investment of some $500, 000 upfront money. As the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) pointed out this morning, at the present interest rates that is hard for a small businessman and an entrepreneur to come up with.

We need allocations, Mr. Minister, of between 20, 000 and possibly 40, 000 metres a year so that small businessmen can get Into the business of logging. In fact, before the tree-farm licences were issued in 1955-56, some 30 small operators operated in the Alberni area. Today there are three or four.

I want to quote from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business's study on forestry. Firms with fewer than 50 employees accounted for 150, 000 new jobs in Canada; firms with 50 to 500 employees created 11, 000 new jobs; while firms with more than 500 employees shed about 1, 000 jobs. During these tough economic times of 1981-85 very small firms continued to create jobs while other sizes of firms were shedding workers. From 1978 to 1986, in British Columbia, we lost 5, 600 jobs in the forest industry. During the same period small business created 2, 400 jobs. Lower Vancouver Island is looking at losing in the neighbourhood of 400 to 500 jobs from one large employer during the next few months.

If the government proceeds with plans to grant more tree-farm licences to the major forest companies operating in the province, they will sound a death knell for future job-creating opportunities in the forest industry. jobs in the future will not be coming from major interests but from existing, budding and yet-to-be-born entrepreneurs. The day of big is beautiful is over, Mr. Minister.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business goes on to say: "At this very moment the Japanese are experimenting with a process of producing pulp from sugar cane and banana trees. Wood is becoming only one among many raw materials for future paper production."

Major firms are unable to streamline fast enough to meet changing markets. We're putting too many eggs in too few baskets. The top four major companies cut 59.9 percent, while the top eight firms cut 81.4 percent. But looking at in another way, almost 90 percent of the companies working on the coast cut less than 19 percent of the public timber resource.

In Alberni, across from Kildonan, there's already a small operator working. Jerry Quenville is operating a mill utilizing the knottiest, most gnarled and ugliest wood. But in Quenville's mill it becomes dimensional lumber, down to lengths of three or four feet of clear cedar. He can cut 2, 500 board feet on a good day. He has an investment of $100, 000 and employs 15 people, and his wife acts as a bookkeeper. However, Quenville sees his product going all over the world. He sells his three-foot lengths of cedar to a Duncan broker who in turn ships it to Australia.

We want to convey the vital contribution that small- and medium-sized enterprises can make, and will make, to a healthy, balanced forest industry in this province. We have entered the age of the entrepreneur. Give independent loggers and sawmills access to timber. Create an entrepreneurial industry and the logs will be utilized more efficiently. New specialized products will develop, new employment will be created, and local communities will thrive. Sustainable development will create that.

HON. MR. PARKER: I'm pleased to hear that the examples of our small business forest enterprise program are so positive as enunciated by the member opposite. That's the policy of this government. We've established 15 percent of the provincial annual allowable cut to be available for the small business forest enterprise program. There are many such instances throughout the province as those success stories cited by the member opposite as we get into small business value-added industry. Yesterday I cited - if the member had attended - a number of examples throughout the province of similar success stories. Those kinds of successes only come about because of the policies established by this government and by the government that immediately preceded us as they built a solid small business program.

He talks about communities like Tahsis being closed. He doesn't mention the fact that a brand-new sawmill is being constructed in Tahsis and will be open within the next six or eight weeks; the wood harvested in that area will be manufactured in that area. The agenda opposite is one of negativism rather than fact and reality.

The upfront money he refers to which is required in the small business forest enterprise program is required in a number of licensing opportunities in the province. It's called a performance deposit, and everybody has to put it up. Small volumes are put up; there are one-year timber sale licences and up to ten-year timber sale licences in varying volumes. It's matched to the demands of the timber supply area. It's the responsibility of the district manager to meet with representatives of that sector of the forest industry to make sure we're selling to them a true profile of the forest and that we're meeting the needs of the local small business operators. This is being done throughout the province.

We've been sponsoring small business seminars throughout the province for this past year. Some of

[ Page 5723 ]

the reason we see success in the small business program is the fact that we have provided that kind of information, made it available at no charge to the small business operators throughout the province -those who are already established and those who are seeking opportunities.

It is the policies of this government that make it possible for these initiatives to be successful. I'm pleased that the member opposite has seen fit to bring us examples in his own constituency - which is not a government constituency - that show that our policies are fair and equal throughout the province. Those opportunities are always available.

MR. G. JANSSEN: It's true that there's a new mill in Tahsis, but there's also a reduction in the number of people who are going to be working in that new mill.

What I was referring to, Mr. Minister, is that there aren't enough allocations in the 20, 000 to 30, 000 or 40, 000 cubic metres per year: not enough for the entrepreneur to take advantage of; not enough for him to get a foothold in the door to compete against those large multinational corporations. This government has had hearings around the province, where the minister listened to virtually every aspect of British Columbia asking that a royal commission be established. The Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot came to the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities with a motion that was successfully passed calling for the establishment of a royal commission on forestry. We're asking you to take into account that kind of information so that people can come before a royal commission; so that the public of British Columbia can have input; so that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business can stand up for the small operators and say: "Please, give us a chance to get back into the forest market. Quit handing out larger and larger tree-farm licences to the forestry companies that in size are becoming fewer and fewer."

Control of our forest resource should be kept in the hands of elected representatives accountable to the people and not be entrenched in the hands of major forest companies. The government should put more timber on the competitive market and not into the hands of a few large corporations. If they continue to gobble each other up at the present rate, Mr. Minister, you'll only have to deal with one corporation.

MR. KEMPF: What's wrong with a little free enterprise?

MR. G. JANSSEN: Yes, what's wrong with a little free enterprise? Thank you, hon. member.

Examine the corporate concentration and its impact on the forest industry. Would you rather be dealing... ? Does the government believe that enterprise in this province belongs. in the hands of one or two individuals or does it believe that everybody should have access to the natural resource, the public resource of this province?

ENVIRONMENT MINISTRY DISCUSSION

PAPER ON SOLID MUNICIPAL WASTE

MR. RABBITT: Good morning, Mr. Speaker and colleagues. I feel that this is a special occasion for me because it is the first chance I have had to speak to you in the House since I was appointed by the Premier to be Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister Responsible for Environment. This gave me an opportunity to contribute in a special way in an area which I am both interested in and concerned with. It touches not only me but my riding and my constituents.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In the throne speech I was pleased to see many areas of importance addressed. There were issues on health, education, transportation and many others. One of those was environment. The government, along with societies throughout the world, is facing many problems with regard to environment. There is a challenge there, and I am pleased to say that this government is facing that challenge and meeting it.

[11:00]

The challenge that the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) gave me was to review a discussion paper on the handling and disposal of solid municipal waste. After the minister was given his portfolio' he requested that his ministry develop a discussion paper which would identify some of the potential problems and try and identify some potential answers. As I mentioned, I was given the job of heading a task force to go throughout the province and take this discussion paper to the people. I can tell you that we went from north to south, east to west. We covered every major service community in this province. I believe that it was one of the most comprehensive public reviews that have ever been done.

This was an education to me, because although my riding is unique and offers many great things in a variety of problems as well as the environment, it showed me that as much as my riding is diverse, so is British Columbia diverse. We met with regional districts, municipalities, recyclers, industry - a total cross-section of industry - consumer groups, the public and many other groups, including the UBCM. I would like to take this time to thank the UBCM specifically for its contribution in helping me develop what I consider a very comprehensive report.

We discussed our problem. What is our problem? It is that we as individuals are developing approximately two kilograms, or five pounds, of garbage a day. At that rate we are filling up waste dumps to the tune that within ten years, 60 percent will be full. Within 20 years 90 percent will be full. Obviously we have to develop a new sense of direction. The question we asked was: "How can we assist you with this particular problem?" We listened. We got many answers to the possible solutions.

We've developed a comprehensive report that has been filed with the Minister of Environment. It consists of a total of 76 positive recommendations that I think will make British Columbia the front-runner in

[ Page 5724 ]

North America in the handling and disposal of solid municipal waste.

I believe that when the minister makes the brief public we will receive mixed reviews. The pavers, the typical developers, will say that I have gone too far. The greenies - those people who don't want us to prune the Premier's rosebushes - will say that I haven't gone far enough. But I can tell you this: the report will address the urban, rural and regional problems that British Columbia now faces.

I was asked to attend a conference in Vancouver put together by a coalition of recyclers. They brought in Senator George Kirkpatrick, and he put things in perspective. I would like you all to consider this. Over the past couple of years in North America, there have been over 200 pieces of legislation put before different legislative bodies such as ours. It Is estimated that five or six of those pieces of legislation will pass, and I think that is terrible.

With this in mind, I would ask all the members of this House to read the report when it comes out. If you have any questions, I will try to address them. I would ask you all to become involved, and let's proceed in a positive way toward meeting the challenges regarding our environment. Let us leave a legacy to our children and our grandchildren that we can all be proud of.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out in the beginning that the previous speaker talked about the problem that this province is facing with waste management, but that isn't exactly correct.

The problem that this province is facing is of crisis proportion, and it is a lack of leadership by this government. We are in a situation in the lower mainland and in the province where the lower mainland is now shipping tons upon tons of garbage into this very member's riding, and where we have a significant health threat due to the proliferation of bubonic plague and the import of lower mainland rats. I find this whole situation in this day and age absolutely bizarre.

We have a crisis in leadership in this province, which is pointed out by the fact that we are dealing with this problem at such a late date, and we are dealing with it by another study and another task force. Even though it is late, I believe that the people of this province will be very interested to see whether or not the recommendations will deal with the problems. People in this province have been calling for years upon years.... There have been studies upon studies; there have been hundreds of thousands of dollars spent outlining not only the problem, but the solution. This government has ignored the solutions, and it is time they recognize that we need to deal with waste at the source.

No more mega garbage dumps; no more incinerators. What we need to do is bring in legislation. This government needs to deal with its responsibility to the people of this province in controlling the waste at the source. They have to deal with packaging legislation; consumers are supportive of such legislation. We need alternative options for dealing with packaging.

We need support for recycling - real support. We need financial contributions at the municipal level to allow municipal governments to put in place a program that will really deal with recycling and recovery of that resource.

I encourage the government not to study any further but instead, to bring in real options.

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a third-party view - totally impartial and unbiased -to this whole question and discussion of recycling.

Interjections.

MR. BRUCE: However, I am sure you people in the watermelon patch would like to hear these words written by the B.C. Naturalist in the March edition. Listen very carefully, my fellow members. This is good stuff; this is positive stuff. This is "President's Report" done by Joe Lotzkar. If I could just quote: "Adding to this impressive list" - this being a list of Ministry of Environment initiatives - "of solid achievement was the commissioning of James Rabbitt, MLA, Yale-Lillooet, who performed a flawless" mission to hear us out on our concerns of "the provincial role in municipal solid waste management." He finishes up by saying: "...this most recent invitation for public input to the Rabbitt task force was exemplary."

Now is that leadership? Of course it's leadership. Who is providing the leadership? The Ministry of Environment of this government is providing the leadership. And will we deal with our recycling material? Of course we will. And are there good things happening in this province in that regard? Of course there are. So let's hear it for this government; let's hear it for this provincial ministry. Join with us.

Somebody in the watermelon patch, just a few days ago, said that waste management and environmental issues were non-partisan issues. I agree they are non-partisan issues. It is important that all of us, from whatever constituency - large or small - we come, join together in bringing the people of the province of British Columbia on side in dealing with the recycling of our material and joining with the member for Yale-Lillooet and the Minister Responsible for Environment....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member, time has expired under standing orders.

MR. BRUCE: I was just getting started.

MR. RABBITT: If it was possible, I would gladly have shifted my time-frame off. He was in gear and he was doing an admirable job of getting the message of this government forward to those in the watermelon patch.

One of the fundamental principles that we have to all consider is that the generator of waste must pay for the disposal of waste. Quite often we hear coming out of this corner over here these formulas having the general taxpayer paying for it. I don't care whether it's the taxpayers at the local level, the provincial

[ Page 5725 ]

level or the federal level; they should not be paying for it. We must make that a fundamental basis for any program.

[11:15]

There are many positive moves being made. I mentioned the throne speech. I'm very pleased with the short time that I've been able to work with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan), because I believe he's showing the type of leadership we need in this government, this province. The throne speech has indicated clearly what the direction is. We must use common sense towards providing a strong umbrella to make sure that our environment is protected, not just now in the short future but in the long term, and we must also be able to gear our economy to make the changes necessary to go along with this protection that the environment needs. I was going through the throne speech, and there are many good things that I'm expecting to see come in the budget. I'm expecting to see my colleague, the Minister Responsible for Environment, bring some very good programs forward this year.

I would like to conclude by just making one little comment. Out of the four months that we spent traversing this province, there was only one occasion that we had NDP representatives coming to hearings. Once. Here it is, three and one-eighth inches. That's how much it takes up. It converts into eighty millimetres out of four months. Public hearings throughout the province from north to south, from east to west - where were you when you were needed? You sit in here and heckle and talk. Where were you when it counted? Where were you when policy was being put together? We go through this document here; it's called "Sustainable Development." If we had to build a provincial policy on this document, we wouldn't have anything at all.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

(continued)

On the main motion.

MR. G. HANSON: Before I begin my remarks on the throne speech I would just like to take issue with the member for Yale-Lillooet. The members on this side of the House were not even invited to participate on that particular committee. That was a one-man operation, and everyone knows it. He has no right to mislead this House in that way.

There are five points I want to make on the throne speech. I want to talk briefly about the lack of mention in the throne speech of justice Fisher's report on electoral boundaries. I want to talk about Fletcher Challenge, as it affects my constituency and that of my colleague the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). I want to talk about the Commonwealth Games. I want to talk about the references to native people in the throne speech. And I want to talk about the need for proper sewage treatment and clean water in the Victoria area.

On the first subject: often the most interesting things about throne speeches are the things not mentioned. It was glaringly interesting and obvious that justice Fisher's report, which has been presented to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council now for some three months, was not even given a mention in the throne speech. The throne speech, of course, is to chart the intentions, in general terms, of the government and what its legislative program may be. I'm hopeful that that lack of mention in the throne speech does not indicate a lack of commitment to the work of justice Fisher over the last year and a half, because I think this House and all members should commend justice Fisher for the work and the hearings he held throughout this province. Well over $1 million, probably $1.5 million, of public money was expended in that process. Over a thousand submissions, both written and oral, indicating the extent to which the public was canvassed for their opinions were presented to justice Fisher. A preliminary report was presented and referred to an all-party committee of this House. A final round of hearings was held throughout the province, and subsequent representations were made to justice Fisher. Yet there was not one mention in the first throne speech after that report was filed with this cabinet.

It will be filed with this House, I believe, 15 days after the first day of the session, as provided for under the Inquiry Act. But I think it's important to note that the government did not indicate its intentions. I am hopeful - because this province has lived under a cloud of a gerrymander for many elections, and the people of the province are owed the possibility of a fair and level playing field for subsequent elections in this province. I wanted to mention that.

My colleagues and 1, on southern Vancouver Island in particular, are receiving calls of concern from employees of Fletcher Challenge. They read the Globe and Mail back in June 1988, when the chief executive officer of Fletcher Challenge, Mr. Ian Donald, stated in an interview written by reporter Kimberley Noble that in putting B.C. Forest Products' Crown together with Fletcher Challenge, synergies and savings in marketing, distribution and administrative areas were expected to add at least $40 million to the combined organizations' 1988 pre-tax profit. Mr. Donald said: "Fletcher Challenge will not cut jobs at any of the mills, but wants to trim 100 positions from Vancouver head office, as many as possible through attrition, job reassignment and early retirement." That statement from that chief executive officer rings extremely hollow to the 400 members of the IWA working at Fletcher Challenge operations on southern Vancouver Island.

I am particularly dismayed by the Forests minister, who has a responsibility not only to maintain a productive forest base for the future but to see that the processing jobs are there. When all is said and done, trees are not grown for companies; trees are grown for people. They are to serve the needs of people for housing, employment and so on.

In my own constituency of Victoria, the mill on Gorge Road presently has something in the order of 250 employees - IWA hourly and salaried employees - and many of them started in that mill at a young

[ Page 5726 ]

age. A man called me last night, who started when he was 20. He is now over 50. He falls below the age where the pension top-up occurs, and he is in a particularly difficult situation unless he finds employment without a substantial break in his service with the mills.

The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) has called for an audit of TFL 46 to see what abuses took place over time In the harvesting of that particular TFL. The mill is scheduled to close around the end of June, and yet we will not see the results of the audit until that time. The minister has ordered a tax on the export of raw logs. The impact of that tax will not be felt for some time.

As I pointed out the other day, the minister has put the employees of this mill - which is a substantial, unionized mill with a good wage base in our city - in a classic catch-22 position. The management has decided to "rationalize their operation, " to close the mill in Victoria prior to the audit being revealed to see exactly what the fibre situation is in TFL 46 and what the needs would be to supplement that fibre to keep the mill in operation on the open log market.

That mill will be mothballed prior to that audit and prior to the tax on raw log exports. I think it's a travesty that that minister, who is supposed to act not just for the forest companies but for the forests and for the workers employed in forestry matters.... Yet what do we hear from that minister? Nothing but, "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir, " to the company. That's the kind of Minister of Forests we have in this province.

I am particularly pleased to hear that I get support for that comment from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who formerly held the position of Minister of Forests in this province.

I want to talk now about native affairs. I listened very carefully to my colleague from Atlin, who very eloquently - and I think very powerfully - expressed the feelings of aboriginal people when they pick up the newspaper and see the comments made by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant). But they know that it's symptomatic of a much larger question: that it stems from the position that the provincial Social Credit Party and government has taken over time with respect to settling aboriginal claims in this province.

Land claims is not a concept dreamed up by lawyers or native leadership; it's a concept in British common law that has a tradition dating back to the 1700s. It came about as a result of the colonization of the British Empire and the British Commonwealth and the laws that were in place to deal with the indigenous peoples inhabiting the colonies and the Commonwealth. Those provisions in law were that land claims were to be settled by title, treaty and compensation. British Columbia is an anomaly. It's like a far branch on a giant oak tree. The precedents are obvious throughout the body of the Commonwealth. Throughout most of Canada the federal government is light years ahead of this administration. Other provinces have had the ethical and moral and legal insights to sit down and settle land claims by negotiation.

The courts have sent signals again and again as this government has embarked on a course of proceeding to litigation, to court, on aboriginal matters, whether it be hunting or aboriginal title. They force native people to go to the courts, and on occasion after occasion the courts have upheld native hunting and fishing rights, have upheld the concept of aboriginal rights. Yet this government continues a policy which results in a flow of foolish Supreme Court appeals, one after the other, that cost a fortune in public tax money. Both sides of the Meares Island case alone expended in excess of $4 million on the legal case. I don't believe the decision has come down yet on the case of the marina on the Saanich Peninsula, which again went to appeal by the court. Again and again, this province appeals and loses and pays the bill.

At what time will this government come to its senses and do what every other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth and in this country has done, including the Supreme Court with its signals through Justice McLachlin that the solution is not a judicial one? It is not a win or lose decision of a court; it is a matter of negotiating those past injustices, of bargaining those out in a negotiated fashion so that the native people can take their rightful place in the social and economic fabric of this province. It is obvious that everyone would be served by that policy. Industry, whose primary interest is predictability, stability -to know what is around them and what their future can hold with proper planning - knows the impact of unsettled past grievances.

Continuation of a flow of challenges, of court cases, does nothing for our modern society. They will not go away. Justice Berger has indicated to us clearly that they must be addressed. It is only this particular political party, the Social Credit Party of British Columbia, and its government, that is standing in the way of peace and stability and economic prosperity by resolution of these past grievances. I implore this government to change its position. The present Minister Responsible for Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) says, in a particular article that I have here -this is December 19, 1988: "Given B.C.'s position on aboriginal title I really want to use the McLeod Lake situation as an example. A treaty has been signed there. Yet in this article that minister... I'm not going to read the article; everyone knows what your position is. That land wasn't allocated.

This government is an encumbrance. It's an obstacle to honouring an existing treaty that was signed. In only two locations in this province were treaties ever signed: Treaty 8 in the Peace River country and the Douglas treaties - the Fort Victoria treaties - in this area. Not only does this government adopt the position that aboriginal title was extinguished in the other areas, non-treaty; it refuses to honour even where there was a treaty signed.

How can you expect people to respect a government that doesn't even honour the commitments made legally?

[ Page 5727 ]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: You know better than that.

MR. G. HANSON: It's true. What do we hear now? This government is going to appeal the McLeod Lake situation - back in court, more tax dollars and an overturned.... You know what the problem is. Why don't you address the problem?

[11:30]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Who pays? The province? You know the question. Answer the question.

MR. G. HANSON: It's tax money.

That minister can retort and squirm, but he knows full well that he is not facing his responsibilities. He could do the job. You would have the support on this side of the House.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Answer the question that I asked. Who pays?

MR. G. HANSON: We all pay. We're all paying heavily. Our economy is paying. Native people are paying particularly heavily. The member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) is a very eloquent speaker. He knows the hard reality, and so does every member of this House who takes the time to read the statistics on life expectancy, suicide, unemployment, poverty and housing. Do you know the method that is calculated for support of the reserves? It's so computerized now; it's based on square footage of housing, sewer lines....

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It's Canada that administers those things.

MR. G. HANSON: You've got to face the fact that the province has a responsibility. Everyone - native leadership, lawyers, courts, judges in the federal government - points the finger right over there. You are a part of the problem.

Interjections.

MR. G. HANSON: You don't like it. I think I've made the point. I want to turn to some other question on a different tone entirely.

It has to do with the Commonwealth Games that are coming to this region. We were honoured to win that competition, and in August 1994, 65 nations are going to come to Victoria - nations of every race, culture, every continent, the largest democracy in the world, some of the smallest coral reefs in the South Pacific, people from all over this globe, this very tiny planet.

There are opportunities to promote understanding between these nations. We are a very small grain of sand in the universe. It's time we understood and promoted understanding between our peoples.

The Commonwealth is an interesting historical phenomenon. It contains all of those cultures and races and countries I mentioned, but we all share a common history: we were all colonies. Everyone, whether it's Vanuatu, India, Malta or Gibraltar, were tied together with a network of historical, shared experience.

Another aspect is that all of these countries are English-speaking. There are three bilingual countries in the Commonwealth: Canada, Mauritius and Vanuatu.

I hope the young children of Canada - British Columbia, and Victoria in particular - use this five-year period to gain a greater understanding of other peoples and their cultures and their differences and value them and respect them.

As my colleague for Atlin said: "There are polls that indicate that as a result of economic times, etc., racism and bigotry grow." The antidote to bigotry an racism is knowledge, understanding and education. Our schools must be given the leadership and direction from the government and the community and the church organizations that this window -and I know we use that term often: the window of opportunity, a five-year window - be used to say to the children who are in grade 1 now: "Where is Ghana? What do the Ghanaian children experience? What is their language? What is their culture?" So when we come out of that, there will be a legacy not just in the form of a swimming pool or a track, but a legacy of understanding and knowledge and shared respect on this tiny planet that we occupy. I'm hoping that all of those 65 countries, when they come here, are going to find a tolerant society. The Commonwealth is very sensitive to racism - issues of South Africa, etc, The knowledge is at a high level of consciousness, a sensitivity towards respect for people of different races and cultures.

I hope, when the games are held here, that they will find certain things that presently are not in place. I have particular concern about the fact that we discharge our raw sewage into the ocean. The riding that my colleague and I occupy has only two miles of shoreline; the rest is in Oak Bay, Saanich, Esquimalt. Two short miles, a lot of it in harbour, and then a frontage along a park. What are we doing with that park frontage? We have a pipe that goes out a short distance - not a great way - and discharges the sewage from the Victoria area. There is a plan to bring sewage from Saanich and Oak Bay and Victoria and discharge it off Beacon Hill Park at Clover Point. One hundred million litres of untreated raw effluent every day. I'm hopeful, as a result of the federal election, when the Conservative government signalled they were concerned about sewage treatment and environmental matters, and because the provincial government has indicated its growing interest in environmental matters, that one of the things we could accomplish between now and then as a common goal for our capital, for the place that will be the showplace of the world - people on every continent will be watching Victoria on television - is to facilitate treatment of our sewage so that we don't have a discharge of untreated effluent into our waters.

I've consulted with our friends in Washington State. I've looked at the laws there. No community in

[ Page 5728 ]

Washington State and Puget Sound anywhere has the legal right to discharge raw effluent into the ocean. Port Angeles has treatment; every community on Puget Sound has at least primary treatment. By 1995 every community will have to have, by federal and state law, at least secondary treatment. When I talk to them, they say: "Boy, you are really an embarrassment up there. You are very high on the EPA blacklist."

So I'm making an appeal in my throne speech response looking ahead five years. The local community can't pay for it themselves. No other community has been asked to pay for it entirely themselves, but to share along the lines of 25 percent in a partnership with 75 percent senior government, provincial/ federal. I think the federal government has a responsibility because of its jurisdiction over fisheries, oceans, harbours and so on. I personally don't think the province should have to pay the full 75; 1 think it should be shared In some fashion.

With a 25 percent local, 75 percent share with senior government I think funds could be gotten from the federal government, because it is in Canada's interest to showcase a clean, healthy and safe community environment. We want to show what can be done, not what was done in London in 1866 when they discharged raw effluent into the Thames. The measures that are occurring now occurred in London at that time. We can do better.

just to recap my points, I hope this House will examine justice Fisher's report and proceed with legislation that will give this province a fair electoral map.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Do you still want it to be unanimous?

MR. G. HANSON: There's no committee at the moment.

HON. MR. VEITCH: If there were, would you want It to be unanimous?

MR. G. HANSON: It should be shared by all members.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It should be unanimous.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, hon. members.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, there should be a change of this government's position with respect to their policy on aboriginal land claims. And negotiate; not litigation, but negotiation.

Use our imagination around the Commonwealth Games to promote understanding, and to see the opportunities not just for what Victoria or British Columbia or Canada can gain from having this kind of a celebration but for what we can plow back to countries that are less fortunate than ours. Of those 65 countries, two-thirds of them are very poor countries. Some of them probably have a per capita income of less than $300 or $400 a year, and I think we should be mindful of that. We have a special obligation, as a rich, developed Commonwealth nation, to help and to do things. It's up to each member to think of what can be done. Those opportunities exist.

I would like to ask that members of that side of the House, members in cabinet, give consideration to Victoria having sewage treatment, so that when those 65 countries come to Victoria in 1994, we can all be proud of the beautiful, gorgeous setting that we have for being the host nation. Thank you very much.

MR. KEMPF: It's good to be here after a nine month period.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's good to be anyplace.

MR. KEMPF: That's right, Mr. Member. If I may quote the words of a former Speaker of this House, "It's good to be anywhere, " particularly when you get to be my age.

Mr. Speaker, I would start by congratulating you on your reappointment as Deputy Speaker. I think that bodes well for what goes on in this House.

It's good to be back after nine months, a familiar gestation period. Let us hope that in the months that have just passed, there has been spawned in this province by the Premier a better understanding of the democratic process and what democracy is all about.

The throne speech talks a lot about the economy. We have a strange state of affairs in British Columbia: feast in Vancouver and perhaps the lower tip of Vancouver Island, and famine elsewhere. Hundreds of millions of dollars are pouring into British Columbia, primarily to build Vancouver proper, and driving up housing prices, driving up the cost of rental accommodation. Young British Columbians are mortgaging their very souls, some to the tune of $150, 000 and more, to get their first home. On what foundation is that economy based? I would say here this morning that there is no foundation. It's truly a false economy. "Wonderful, vibrant growth, " says the government. Where? Where outside of the lower mainland of this province?

[11:45]

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Certainly not where I come from, Mr. Member; certainly not in most of the rural areas of British Columbia. In the interior, the spark-plug of any sound - and I stress sound - economic boom in British Columbia, home prices are on the decline. Resource-based communities are standing still, or what's worse, progressing backwards. Small businesses are closing their doors, while others reel under the burden of increased taxes and exorbitant user fees. It's not exactly the wonderful economic picture portrayed in the throne speech.

We see the identical situation cast and west in Canada: a boom in southern Ontario, and the government of Canada itself enacting anti-inflation policy which hurts all Canadians. The member for Burnaby Edmonds (Mr. Mercier) - and I enjoyed his speech, he spoke from the heart - said a few days ago:

[ Page 5729 ]

"Secede. British Columbia should secede from Canada, and we'd be better off."

Mr. Speaker, there are many living north of the 56th parallel in British Columbia who would be happy with the prospect of seceding from the lower mainland. Secede indeed! Keep our resources. You keep your phony promises; we'll keep our resources. You keep your dangling carrots seen only when leading up to and during election campaigns.

To the Premier - and I am sorry he is not in his place, Mr. Speaker - I would like to say: do you really think you can promise your way back to power? Do you really think you can buy popularity? I don't think so; certainly not with the dollars already taken from the backs of British Columbians.

You know, my grandmother was one of the first people who ran a fruit stand in the southern Okanagan. There was a story that used to be told about her: she could take the shirt off your back, sell it back to you and make you think you had a bargain. Well, we are seeing the same thing emerge in British Columbia. BS, Mr. Speaker, and a fund to prove it.

Interior roads and highways - and I am glad the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) is in the House - are worn out, mostly from the madness of transporting logs hundreds of miles from community to community. The game of robbing Peter to pay Paul is commonly called forest management in the province of British Columbia by a Forests minister who pretends to know what he is doing' while, in the process, reducing our resource-based communities - and it is not far off - to ghost towns.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read from the throne speech itself where it says: "It is the goal of my government that the many changes we now witness, and which shape our economy, our population and our communities, will not distort our values and our quality of life, or our dedication for the environment and our natural resources."

Dedication indeed! Dedication to what? To whom? To multinational corporations based outside the boundaries of our province, who actually control our government? Responsibility indeed! I read again from the throne speech: "Recognizing this responsibility, government has embarked on an unprecedented process of consultation." Consultation! I'll tell you about consultation, Mr. Member from Vancouver.

Regionalization. You know the big catchword: regionalization. Let's talk about that. I've heard so many ministers talk so highly about regionalization. You have to know that I am the only one on the opposition side who joined those committees - mainly to find out, on behalf of my constituents, what their tax money was being spent on. Well, Mr. Member, I found nothing. That's what it was being spent on.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Thompson Okanagan and Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Dirks) spoke .highly about regionalization. The Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) spoke about regionalization, and I read from the Blues of March 21, 1989, when he talks about an article - one article, and that's probably the only one he has ever seen - in the Western Report that speaks highly about regionalization. I quote the minister: "It's No Longer a Pipe Dream: Vander Zalm's Decentralization Plans Begin to Bear Fruit." What, lemons? Bear fruit indeed. I sit in on those meetings; I know what's not happening there. I don't know what province you're in. I will say this for the minister: at least he stopped taking credit for completed projects that were initiated by this member over a number of years of serving the people of Omineca.

But what has that economic development committee of the so-called state of Nechako done? Not a thing, Mr. Member. It's just a charade. Consultation indeed. The entire regionalization and decentralization plan is a colossal joke, Mr. Speaker, a cruel hoax on the people of British Columbia. Understand: I sit on those committees. Decentralized - or reorganized, as it's called. We used to all get together around one table; now it's splintered into six different committees, the better to keep people in the dark. A cruel hoax on the rural citizens of British Columbia, an archaic system....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Listen, Mr. Minister, and you might learn something.

It is an archaic system that has been tried in other jurisdictions and has failed, a European mentality -which won't work in British Columbia - foisted upon unsuspecting but well-meaning citizens in order to keep them and local MLAs off the government's back. Democratic process, Vander Zalm style. They're talking to themselves, the people around these so-called committee tables, reinventing wheels, rehashing ideas and proposals put forward by bona fide representatives as far back as 20 years ago. We're reinventing the wheel.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I'm talking about rural British Columbia, which you know nothing about, Mr. Minister.

Super ministers, sneaking around, handing out cheques, holding clandestine meetings with misguided individuals with the hope burning eternally in their breasts that they might be the next MLA. What a charade! Regionalization is a cruel hoax foisted on the people of British Columbia.

And while on the subject of this minister, also responsible for native affairs, I want to say a few words about Indian land claims. I don't necessarily believe that the Indian people are correct in their assumptions of claim, and I'll say that publicly anywhere. But whether you agree or disagree, land claims must be addressed. Mr. Minister, you should be in Ottawa banging down their door, as the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs in British Columbia, demanding that something be done.

Somebody said recently: "Well, it's in the courts." It's the worst thing politicians could ever have allowed, for the Indian land question to go to the courts; but through their inaction it's in the courts.

[ Page 5730 ]

Having the courts decide the matter Is unconscionable. It's a constitutional matter and should be addressed by politicians. It's their responsibility, because they're answerable to all Canadians.

We talk a lot about the economy and economic development. Well, I've got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, there will be no real progress in rural British Columbia until the land claims are settled. There will be no smooth sailing with respect to meaningful development until the land claim question is settled.

I want to talk a bit about the forest Industry. Our primary resource industry is in an absolutely critical situation, an Industry firmly in the stranglehold of out-of-province multinational corporations. I heard the minister this morning speak highly of the small business enterprise program. He actually believes it, I think. I watched his face, he actually believes what he's saying. Small business on the rocks; small business people in the program dropping like flies; entire ways of life going down the drain. And you people over there support a Forests minister who says what he said this morning about a small enterprise program, which isn't working. You've all got constituents; it touches every area in British Columbia. You've all got constituents, albeit there may not be a large number of them, but I might remind you that you represent all of your constituents, not just the multinational corporations.

[12:00]

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

The minister responsible runs around this province holding so-called information meetings, attempting to convince British Columbians that we should give away what remains of the farm; talking out of both sides of his mouth with respect to the small business enterprise program; giving with one hand and taking with the other; making certain his friends in large corporations get it all. Bid-rigging is out of control, waste is a disgrace in our forest industry, our water and air is being poisoned by a pulp industry getting the raw materials for literally nothing and making horrendous profits in the process -profits that are taken out of this province and utilized to exploit some other sucker someplace else in the world. It's an absolute disgrace.

The forest industry, our prime resource area, is in disarray, and this throne speech devotes all of five lines to our primary resource Industry. I read - and it won't take me long - from the throne speech: "My government's small business forest enterprise program will provide additional opportunities to establish new businesses and encourage the production of specialty, higher-value-added forest products." How, when they don't have any raw materials? They don't need government help. Just give them some timber. t Give them access to their own resource. It's a disgrace grace.

The other two lines talk about reforestation, and I'll read them into the record again: "We will expand our reforestation program significantly, and one billion lion seedlings will be planted in the next three years." Yes, that's a step in the right direction. But how many of those seedlings are going to live? How many live now? How many that were put in the ground lived in the years gone by? This government didn't have the foresight to husband those seedlings once they were planted. It's all very well, and it sounds very good in an election campaign to say: "We're planting a billion seedlings." But how many are growing and how many will produce trees?

It's an absolutely scandalous state of affairs, one which consecutive administrations have been afraid to touch. I found that out the hard way - indeed, I did. Don't cross swords with the Fletcher Challenges or the Norandas or, more particularly, the Canfors of this world, not if you wish to remain as Minister of Forests in British Columbia, even if you've got the blessing of the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, I'll have much more to say about a number of issues, including regionalization, the forest industry and a number of other things that are going on in this province.

The throne speech - and it's too bad I can't support it - has some good things in it. But it's what it doesn't say that's more important to British Columbians. It's what it doesn't say that's more important to northerners of the type that I represent.

There is no mention in the throne speech about building a university in Prince George. I've got the press release of yesterday with respect to northern degree-granting institutions, and it says nothing about building a university. Is this government going to build a university in Prince George or isn't it? They devote a whole page to a news release; not once in here does it say that a university is going to be built in Prince George. Northerners, those in the northern two-thirds of this province, have a right to know: is this government going to build a university in Prince George or isn't it? Not a northern degree granting institution but a university.

What is "a self-governing, degree-granting institution in and for B.C., " as it says here in the news release? Is that another carrot? Is that doubletalk again? Or is that really saying the government is going to build a university in Prince George? Given the track record, I much doubt it, I'll have an awful lot to say about that as well.

I am glad the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) is in the House. Does that really mean, Mr. Minister of Finance, that we're going to build a university in Prince George in your lifetime? What does it mean? Are we going to haul that promise out again during an election campaign and say, oh yeah, well, maybe we're going to build? Is it like the promise of a cancer clinic that we saw so many times and which still hasn't been built? Is it like Highway 16, which needs resurfacing from the Alberta border to Prince Rupert? It is worn out. Like the curves that kill people every year, on that highway that haven't been straightened out? Is that a promise, too? Is it like the road east of Franqois that the minister just wrote me about, saying we can't talk about doing any resurfacing on that road until we do a study of the entrance of that particular highway from Highway 16? I had a promise from your predecessor two years

[ Page 5731 ]

ago that it would be paved, and I expect it to be paved this year. If you've got money to throw around and build up a BS fund, you've got money to pave roads for people in Omineca.

HON. MR. VANT: Do you hear that, Mel?

MR. KEMPF: Yes, talk to the Minister of Finance. He's got money coming out of his ears. See where the money is to do the things that should have been done two years ago in the areas that I represent. We always get the short end of the stick in northern British Columbia, and it's no different with this administration than it has been with others.

MR. WILLIAMS: So you're not going to run for Social Credit next time, eh?

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Member, whom I run for and when is my business.

Mr. Speaker, I will have a great deal more to say about those and many other things when the budget speech and estimates of individual ministers come along, but for this debate I will end by saying: on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of my conscience, I cannot support this throne speech.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DIRKS: In the gallery this morning are two good friends of mine, Jacee Schaefer and Ross McLeod. Would this House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I mentioned a few days ago, my colleague the hon. Terry Huberts and I have many friends who are involved and interested in the political process. In the precinct today we have some guests: Jo-Ann Williams, Blair Ripley, Chris Considine, Kevin Bell, Jack Albhouse, Bill Garrick, Mike Massie, Lee Mesher, Fred Hill, Bob Whyte, Keith Bracken, Mickey DeBruin and Jay Rangel.

We take comfort from the fact that these friends are interested enough to come down and hear our discussions on matters of public interest, and I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them to the precinct.

MR. SERWA: As the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) said, it's great to be back and great to participate in the Legislature in debate on the throne speech. It's been a most interesting morning. As a matter of fact, when I was sitting back in my office in the west caucus, with my speaker off I could hear the dynamics of this forum in action. The hon. member for Omineca is a most difficult act to follow - an outstanding speaker. I may disagree with some of the issues and points that he raises, but I'll never disagree with the quality of the speech and the fire and dynamics of that member.

AN HON. MEMBER: But he's out standing in the field.

MR. SERWA: At least he is not out standing in left field.

As the first member for Okanagan South, I would like to say a few words about my constituency. I will keep it to just a few words, because we've had a great deal of interest from members from both sides of the House on the last two occasions I've been able to speak about my constituency, with a considerable interest in moving to the central Okanagan. Neither my colleague the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) nor I can perhaps stand the challenges of other members of the government side or members in the opposition corner of the House.

We've had splendid growth and activity in the interior, contrary to what the member for Omineca has just stated. Things are very well in the interior of British Columbia. There has been a phenomenal amount of activity - residential construction, commercial construction, industrial construction, a great many new businesses and manufacturing firms providing a great amount of growth for the labour force in the interior of British Columbia.

The constituency of Okanagan South has a great deal of charm and beauty. There are some difficulties in the economy. One that I am particularly concerned about is the agricultural sector. At the time of estimates I would like to speak about the horticultural side of that sector.

The constituency of Okanagan South is the constituency that W.A.C. Bennett came from when he brought Social Credit to British Columbia in 1952. We owe a great deal - not only in the central Okanagan and Okanagan South but throughout all of British Columbia - to this man who had such great vision and ideals for the province of British Columbia. Almost all of the development throughout the province can be traced back to that man of vision.

He was the first one who saw the necessity to tie this complete province together with a most effective road and transportation system and a most effective rail system, air transportation and water transportation. He gave the interior of British Columbia, for the first time since its entry into Confederation, an equal opportunity for participation in the economy and the economic development of this most splendid of all provinces. To this man we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude.

[12:15]

The dynamic vitality of the province and the dynamic vitality of my constituency is a result of the people. I consider that the people of British Columbia are probably among the most innovative, aggressive and hard-working of all peoples in Canada. It's perhaps a legacy of the pioneering spirit. Those pioneers who continued to move westward and were am-

[ Page 5732 ]

bitious and were willing to risk and face the challenges wound up here in British Columbia. Our dynamic economy that exists today is a result of my constituents and your constituents, all of the people of British Columbia sharing and working together: people helping people to make this great province even greater.

In listening to a number of speakers who were addressing the throne speech, I noted that a number of the opposition members were not speaking as much to the throne speech as speaking to items that happened in the past.

The member for Vancouver East spoke yesterday of multiculturalism and his firm stance. I respect that member. I might point out that his strong feeling for the spirit of multiculturalism through the province of British Columbia was only held by him. Along with various ministers and members of the Legislature, I attended the function that was held in Vancouver when the nominees to the advisory council were appointed by the Hon. Bill Reid. That member for Vancouver East was the only member of the opposition in attendance at that particular point in time. I give him a great deal of credit for attending and putting his money where his mouth is. He is certainly an advocate. That doesn't represent the collective views of the opposition.

I was at a number of functions. I hear a great deal from members of the opposition about caring with respect to the environment and the importance of it. As a matter of fact, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) said the government had just learned to spell the word "environment." I beg to differ with that member. We have had a proud record and a proud history with environmental concerns. There is a general disinterest on the part of the opposition members in that specific subject.

In my constituency of Okanagan South I attended two recent forums: one held by the registered professional foresters; the other one held by the Okanagan zone of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. Both had panels on environmental issues. There was a dearth of opposition members at those functions.

MR. WILLIAMS: That says it all, eh?

MR. SERWA: It shows that the opposition wants to capitalize on saying a job, rather than doing a job. I have a great deal of difficulty with that. It tends to lead to a sphere of hypocrisy, and it diminishes the stature of the Legislature and certainly of the opposition.

The throne speech addressed three sustaining priorities in British Columbia: continued economic growth and diversification, preservation of our environment and the education policy to meet our future needs. The government's policy is driven by sound fiscal management and a strong private sector generating economic growth. The economy is a most important ingredient, and from the economy and the activity in the economy flows the cash that supports all of the social programs this government supports.

The British Columbia economy has expanded by one-third over the past four years as a result of sound fiscal management by the provincial government, according to the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada. The economic outlook for British Columbia Is indeed bright.

In its annual report on the B.C. economy, the Investment Dealers' Association says:

"The province of British Columbia made an impressive turnaround in fiscal performance from a budget deficit of $1.2 billion two years ago to a surplus during the current fiscal year. There have been 157, 000 new jobs and a 30 percent improvement in the unemployment rate over the past four years; the highest business spending growth rate in Canada over the past two years; major wage agreements negotiated on internationally competitive terms with almost no work stoppages; an excellent record of labour-business negotiation over the past two years. And an outstanding record in British Columbia dramatically improved the competitiveness of the forest sector and significantly diversified the province's economic base."

I said earlier that in my constituency of Okanagan South there has been a great deal of activity. We have, through the efforts of B.C. House in London, received industries wishing to locate in British Columbia under licensing and technology transfer agreements. It opens new horizons and new opportunities for jobs in British Columbia. I'm very, very pleased with the aggressive stance that the government of British Columbia is taking all over the world to attract foreign investment and business expertise to the province, again with the idea of creating jobs, jobs and more jobs for our fellow British Columbians.

The highlights of the British Columbia economy. We'll reflect for a moment on past performance. In 1988 British Columbia's economy was bolstered by increased exports and strong industrial investment, particularly in pulp and paper. Those positive factors, with a booming housing market and a fairly buoyant trade and services sector, saw British Columbia's economy grow by 4 percent in real terms, while employment for 1988 increased by 4.1 percent over 1987.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Last year was the fifth consecutive year of positive employment growth in British Columbia. In 1988 there were 53, 000 more British Columbians working than in 1987, bringing the unemployment rate in the province down to its lowest level since 1981. 1 don't think we can stop there. I am envious of the employment levels that I read about in some other jurisdictions - perhaps the Scandinavian countries, where the unemployment rates are somewhere between 2 and 3 percent. I don't know if that low level of structural unemployment is available or attainable in B.C., but I remain committed - and I believe the government of British Columbia remains committed - to drive in that direction, to lower the rate of unemployment and increase the number of jobs for our British Columbians.

[ Page 5733 ]

But despite that buoyant economy, inflation remains in check in British Columbia. Inflation in 1988 for Vancouver and Victoria rose 3.6 percent and 3.8 percent respectively compared to 1987, while Canada's rose 4.1 percent over the same period. Again, good government and sound fiscal management is controlling inflation in British Columbia.

Attracted by the strength of the economy, net migration to the province from elsewhere in Canada and abroad reached over 46, 000 people in 1988, an outstanding record of performance. That's people recognizing the potential and the opportunities available to them; not just to British Columbians, not just to other Canadians, but to people from all over the world who are interested and attracted to moving to British Columbia for the opportunities and security that British Columbia provides.

British Columbia's employment growth rate of over 4.8 percent in February 1989 over February 1988 ranks the highest in Canada and greatly exceeds the national average of 1.9 percent.

I have talked a fair bit about job creation and jobs. The reason is that these are very near and dear to my heart. Prior to becoming a member of the Legislature I was involved in a non-profit society in Kelowna; it was called KEREDA, Kelowna Economic Recovery and Environment Development Association. The purpose of that non-profit society was to attract federal moneys on job creation programs for people within our constituency, individuals who through no fault of their own - either from technological advances or perhaps from economic restraint - were unable to continue with their job. They were on unemployment insurance for awhile and then on welfare. They would find an odd job, get a little more work, go on unemployment insurance again and then back to welfare. It was when facing these individuals that I became fully aware of the tremendous social and economic cost of unemployment. So I am very proud of the job creation that has transpired in the two and a half years of this government in British Columbia. We will continue, Premier Vander Zalm and the Social Credit government, to work in the direction of creating more and more employment.

Production and manufacturing levels have really increased in British Columbia. There are strong demands for our paper products. Output was 4.6 percent higher in 1988 than in 1987, and the momentum is continuing. Paper production in British Columbia is up by 9.8 percent in January of this year. Mineral production is also up in British Columbia, with a strong growth rate of 9.7 percent from 1987 levels. The value of shipments from all manufacturing industries in British Columbia rose by 5.9 percent in 1988 over 1987, from $26.1 billion to $27.6 billion,

Consumer spending. Optimism in that field is strong in British Columbia. Retailers are optimistic, and consumers are positive and confident of the future strength of our economy. Retail sales are up sharply over '87 in '88.

We have a strong future in British Columbia, with strong international customers and a strengthening Pacific Rim trade bloc. Housing starts and completions in British Columbia are at their highest levels. This has certainly impacted my constituency of Okanagan South.

Housing developments for seniors especially -residential and commercial, long-term-care facilities under private management and construction - have all had astounding growth in the past year. I'm very pleased with that. It consumes our primary products and a great deal of labour, and stabilizes the economic growth in Okanagan South.

I'd like to say a few things about the environment. I said earlier that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) indicated that we had just learned to spell the word "environment." In my constituency of Okanagan South the Social Credit government of Bill Bennett recognized the environmental sensitivity of Okanagan Lake due to the low precipitation rates. The fact remains that it takes 200 years to turn over the water in that particular lake. Aware that the magnitude and importance of that attraction lead to a fine quality of life in the Okanagan, the provincial government of the day made a commitment to fund sewer and water developments. The sewer developments would be funded on the basis of a 75 percent participation rate by the province and 25 percent by the local community. This has led to the creation in concept and the building of the bardenpho tertiary treatment plant in Kelowna, which is a leader in its field. Vernon has gone to a land disposal system. The net result of that, plus the new bardenpho system that is going in at Westbank, is that there will be a maintenance of the water quality of Okanagan Lake.

[12:30]

Air quality, water quality and the quality of life are all interrelated. The people of British Columbia received outstanding concessions from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways with respect to the construction and planning of the Coquihalla highway system. Environmental concerns were fully addressed by the ministry in conjunction with the Ministry of Environment. Spawning channels, game fencing, underpasses and all of the concerns with the migratory routes were met and addressed at some substantial cost to the whole project. Nevertheless, it was the first time that environmental concerns with respect to the fish and wildlife legacy had ever reached such high priority. It's an unprecedented commitment by the provincial government and a recognition of the value of that particular resource.

The provincial government has established an environment and economy task force under the chairmanship of Dr. Strangway. This particular task force has the credibility and the mandate to do an outstanding job. Our Social Credit government recognizes that the environment and the economy are integral. We will continue to recognize that and make all of the accommodations that we possibly can to ensure that we act as stewards of the environment and not as the end consumers.

A great deal of progress has been made in environmental issues. There is the new environmental appeal legislation. There is renewed strength and vigour in environmental monitoring.

[ Page 5734 ]

In the Okanagan lake system, as well as in the Shuswap system, we did have, and continue to have, throughout the Okanagan chain of lakes a severe problem with Eurasian milfoil. The provincial government has committed an additional $250, 000 to control milfoil in the Shuswap and Okanagan region. Control of milfoil is critical to sound environmental management, in order to ensure protection of both aquatic habitat and water-based recreational opportunities.

British Columbia is stepping down hard on pulp mills and dioxins. There is the political will, the regulations, the legislation, and penalties and fines. Mill closures may even be required if there is noncompliance with the regulations. Special waste controls have been tightened.

We just heard, in a private member's statement this morning by the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), the solutions the provincial government and the Ministry of Environment are putting forward in the solid-waste project. The government has made a long-term commitment and is developing a long-term strategy for disposing of solid and special or toxic wastes. Public meetings have been held all through the province to discuss all aspects of solid waste management. Recycling, energy recovery from waste, beverage container regulation and litter control were all examined. We have had high praise from environmentalists, naturalists and those people who have a close affinity for the environment.

I'm particularly pleased with the commitment of sportsmen throughout the province of British Columbia and the habitat conservation fund. Since the fund was established in 1980, 408 projects have been completed at a cost of $10.24 million, and over 2, 400 acres of habitat important to fish and wildlife have been purchased through the fund. In 1988-89, $2.09 million from the fund was allocated to 109 new projects to enhance fish and wildlife and their habitat.

Again in my constituency of Okanagan South, a project was initiated on the cleanup of Mill Creek and a spawning channel on Mission Creek. These are outstanding environmental enhancement projects, and I'm very pleased to recognize that the city of Kelowna and the Regional District of Central Okanagan were acknowledged and rewarded with recognition that that was the most outstanding fish habitat enhancement program in British Columbia last year. I'm very, very proud of that.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to depart for a moment.... I've heard a great deal about the new tack that the New Democratic Party is taking towards entrepreneurship. I note that the Leader of the Opposition says he's always been a free-enterpriser, and indicates that the New Democrats, the socialists, have a great deal in common with free enterprise in that many of them are, in fact, free-enterprisers. This flies in the face of the commitments of the New Democratic Party.

The member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) made reference to social democrats. I'd like to read a few of the notes from a document I have here that was signed by a number of very prominent members of the New Democratic Party in British Columbia, just for the record, to show precisely where the New Democratic Party actually stands: "The NDP will work for the nationalization of Canadian resource industries, including the petroleum industry, oil and natural gas wells, pipelines, refineries, and the petrochemical industries, coal, uranium, the forest products Industry, and the hard-metal mineral industries and related smelting, "

AN. HON. MEMBER: Where did you find that? Where did that come from?

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, if the hon. member for Okanagan South is reading from a particular document and is attributing it to the New Democratic Party, I wonder whether it would not be the honourable thing for him to give us the name of the document and the date it was published.

MR. SERWA: Yes, I would be pleased to do that for the hon. member. The signing and the adoption of this was in 1973 by the British Columbia New Democratic Party.

MR. ROSE: The whole party?

MR. SERWA: By members. The document is: "For An Independent Socialist Canada."

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I think it's a very important one, I think we can stand here, get all the criticism that we need - fair criticism - and we'll take it, and we won't say anything. But if a member starts to quote something as our party policy from a document that has never been adopted by the party, I think that's dirty pool.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SERWA: The last thing I would like to do is read a definition of "democratic socialists." It reads: "As democratic socialists we must present a radical alternative to the shambles of 'free enterprise' and the colonization of Canada by American corporations. We must commit ourselves to the democratic ownership and control of all major economic institutions by the people. "Without large-scale public ownership, discussion of other basic socialist goals, like income redistribution, rational economic planning and workers' control, become utopian. Without control of the key sectors of the economy, an NDP government will be the reformist housekeeper of a society dominated by capital, both foreign and domestic."

I just wanted to read that in for the record and show that there's a great deal of controversy with what they are saying and what the real government is. We have a situation where the real leader of the opposition party is sitting behind the facade leader of the opposition party. I notice in the change of seating arrangements that the real leader is always sitting there, and there's constant advising.

[ Page 5735 ]

I'm just saying for the people of British Columbia to be well aware of the real agenda of the New Democratic Party.

MS. EDWARDS: It's a very great disappointment to prepare a response to the throne speech and then to listen to other members and discover there are 87 other things you wish you could talk about. However, I do intend, when I get to it, to confine my remarks to a reasonable amount of time. In order to do that in one unit, I would like now to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The House Leaders having agreed, I move that this House do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. next Wednesday.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know the former House Leader of the government will realize that since he has named the time we're to return, his motion now becomes debatable. But I don't intend to debate it.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:43 p.m.