[ Page 5737 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Statutes Repeal Act, 1989 (Bill 2). Hon. Mr. Ree

Introduction and first reading –– 5738

Trade Development Corporation Act (Bill 3). Hon. Mr. Jansen

Introduction and first reading –– 5738

Provincial Symbols and Honours Act (Bill 4). Hon. Mr. Reid

Introduction and first reading –– 5739

Oral Questions

Resignation of David Poole. Mr. Sihota –– 5739

Property purchase tax. Mr. Blencoe –– 5739

Budget review committee. Mr. Clark –– 5740

Moratorium on offshore oil drilling. Mr. Cashore –– 5740

Compensation for laid-off loggers. Mr. Miller –– 5741

Presenting Reports –– 5741

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Williams –– 5742

Mr. Jacobsen –– 5745

Ms. Edwards –– 5748

Mr. Bruce –– 5751

Mr. Barlee –– 5754

Ms. A. Hagen –– 5755

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 5759

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House today His Excellency Surbir Jit Singh Chhatwal and Mrs. Chhatwal. With them is D.K. Maitra, the consul-general of India, and Mrs. Maitra. Would the House please give these people a special welcome.

MR. G. HANSON: Seated on the floor of the House today is a newly elected MLA from Alberta. He represents the constituency of Edmonton-Jasper Place, which contains the world-famous West Edmonton Mall. The good news is that this gentleman is a New Democrat, and since his election, business in the mall has never been better — John McInnis.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the House today are two very distinguished Canadians: Mr. Orvis Kennedy and Rev. Ernest Kennedy. Rev. Ernest Kennedy is pastor of a local Baptist church, and Orvis Kennedy is one of the founders of Social Credit in Canada. As a matter of fact, he was the one who did the deed when he originally signed me up in the party many years ago, and I would like the House to bid him welcome.

MR. CLARK: In the gallery today are two hardworking New Democrats, who are from Delta — or maybe Surrey. I'd ask the House to make welcome Tom Nicol and Jean Elsasser.

HON. J. JANSEN: I have several introductions to the House this afternoon. We have Mr. David Robertson from Nanaimo and his daughter, Mrs. Janet McIntyre, and the McIntyres' two children, Karen and David, who are all from Chilliwack. Karen has been studying our government in her grade 5 social studies class and has come here today to see the Legislature in action. Would you please welcome them to the House this afternoon.

I'm also honoured to introduce to this House a group which has been studying us from a little further afield. We have in the galleries today ten students from the Centre for Canadian Studies at the University of Edinburgh, led by Mr. and Mrs. A.J. Crosbie. Would you please give a warm British Columbia welcome to these ambassadors from the University of Edinburgh.

MR. MILLER: Seated up there behind the plexiglas is my daughter, who is visiting from sunny Prince Rupert, and I would ask the House to join me in making her welcome.

MR. LOVICK: We are visited today by a group of four friends from Nanaimo: Nelson and Donna Allen and their daughters Tanya and Leslie. I would ask the House to please join me in making them welcome.

MR. PELTON: In the gallery today are some people from that wonderful little town called Lumby in British Columbia. They are Eileen Brewer and her daughters Debbie and Joanna and also Leanne Mattson. Along with them, from Niebilll, Germany, is Karen Franke. I would ask all members to give them a warm welcome, please.

MR. SIHOTA: First of all, being the only one in this House of Indo-Canadian origin, I would also like to take the opportunity to extend warm greetings to the new consul-general from India and welcome him here to Victoria.

In addition, in the gallery today are a number of personal guests. First of all, a good friend of mine, whom I went to the University of British Columbia with for several years, who is in town visiting us and enjoying a bit of a break from work, Jag Singh. I'd like all members to join me in welcoming Jag here today.

Speaking of New Democrats from Alberta, I'm pleased to inform the House that in the precincts today as well is the MLA recently re-elected from the riding of Calgary Mountain View, Bob Hawkesworth, together with his fiancée, Wendy Eastman.

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are many hard-working Socred constituents from that wonderful constituency of Cowichan-Malahat. I would like to name them all, but time won't permit, so I would like to introduce to you the president of the Cowichan-Malahat Women's Forum, Shirley Atkinson, along with two special friends of mine from the constituency of Victoria, Renée Letellier and her son Derrick, and, of course, my wife Anneke and the kids Tanya, Ryan and Tyler — Woodstock, the dog, we left at home — and my mother-in-law Tryntje Visscher. Would you please make them all feel welcome.

MR. MESSMER: I'm pleased to introduce a friend and a member of our Social Credit executive from Boundary-Similkameen. I would ask the members to join me in welcoming Jean Mitchell of Oliver, British Columbia, to the House.

[2:15]

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker and hon. members, Marg Hatlen of the Hansard office is retiring today. Marg was born in Nelson — and that makes her a very special person, to say the least. She was raised in Rossland and worked for B.C. Tel in Rossland, after graduating from high school. She came to Victoria in 1947 and worked at St. Joseph's Hospital. In 1949 she married Jens, and they lived in various parts of the province, returning to Victoria in 1968.

Marg started with our Hansard on January 18, 1971, for the spring session. In those days, Hansard had no office of its own, and the Hansard booth was on the floor of the House. Marg vividly remembers her first day, when she only recognized three members: Leo Nimsick, Waldo Skillings and W.A.C. Bennett, but somehow managed to get to everyone's mike on time.

[ Page 5738 ]

One of Margaret's favourite recollections is from 1973 — and who couldn't recollect 1973 — when she toured the province with the first-ever travelling committee, the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Human Resources, then chaired by Rosemary Brown. Marg remembers her knees shaking as she got on the plane, headed for Prince George. Everyone was skeptical of the plane's airworthiness, so Rosemary Brown had Harvey Schroeder sit on one side of the plane and Peter Rolston on the other side to pray for their safe takeoff and landing. Of course, both members were preachers; that's significant. People felt that their chances of arriving were increased.

Members and staff alike had to load and unload their own luggage; and it wasn't unheard of to end up in the local beverage house, after the committee had completed its hearing, to meet the people of the area — those were those days — who were thrilled to have a chance to talk informally to their MLAs.

The staff of the Hansard office are very sad to see Marg leave, and she will be sorely missed. It just won't be the same without her. Nevertheless, we wish her all the best in her retirement, and this House hopes she will come back and visit us one day soon.

MR. GABELMANN: As one of those people in the House who does remember 1973 well, and fondly.... We remember Marg fondly from those days too, those of us who had the pleasure of working with the Hansard staff in the early days, in the very beginning, and of having Marg travel with us. I was on that particular committee that the minister referred to and remember well not just that terrifying flight but a number of other terrifying moments, not only in airplanes, as the committee travelled around the province.

Marg will be remembered by all of us who have worked in this House as a cheerful and wonderful person to work with, and I know that every member will miss her. I know that we are all going to enjoy saying a few words more to her later this afternoon. We will not in the least enjoy her retirement, but I trust that she will.

MR. RABBITT: It is my great pleasure today to have a couple of entrepreneurs down from the great riding of Yale-Lillooet, from the jewel of the southern interior, Princeton. We have with us today from the tourist industry Eric and Lorna Gregson and their sons Jamie and Shaun. With them is an exchange student from Sweden, Lennart Olsson. I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

Also we have with us today Mr. John Leech, executive director of the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of British Columbia, and I would ask the House to give John a warm welcome as well.

Introduction of Bills

STATUTES REPEAL ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Ree presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Statutes Repeal Act, 1989.

HON. MR. REE: I am pleased to introduce Bill 2, Statutes Repeal Act, 1989. This bill repeals a number of statutes that are no longer required and can be repealed without consequence. This bill is consistent with the government's commitment to the regular and periodic revision and updating of laws. The statutes repealed by this bill are no longer necessary because of the development of new programs and because the purposes of the statutes are now dealt with by other statutes or because they were enacted for specific purposes which have been fulfilled.

This is only a brief introduction to the bill. I commend this bill for consideration and urge a speedy passage. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time today.

Bill 2 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

TRADE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT

Hon. J. Jansen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Trade Development Corporation Act.

HON. J. JANSEN: This act will establish the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation, initially announced in an international business development strategy last July.

The British Columbia Trade Development Corporation embodies the tradition, sense, focus and position of British Columbia as a trading province destined to remain prosperous through its continuing dynamic interaction with the global marketplace. At present, nearly one-quarter of our gross provincial product and one in seven jobs in the province are derived from foreign trade, making British Columbia the most diversified export base in Canada.

Meeting the challenges of overseas markets head on in an increasingly competitive global trading environment is a task which requires us now to draw not only from what we have in the service of the government, but also from among the best that we have in the business community. By providing for direct participation on its board of directors and the establishment of cooperative relationships with industry groups, the corporate structure of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation will draw upon the expertise of the private sector to help us chart a new course in export initiatives, promotional strategies and financial assistance for all exporters and potential exporters in the province.

The advantages of having chosen the corporate structure as the most effective delivery mechanism for the province's trade development objectives are

[ Page 5739 ]

not limited to effectiveness as a conduit for private sector input. The corporation offers a businesslike approach to a business activity. There clearly is a need to portray to the private sector and the public generally that the government is serious about applying business practices and principles to its trade development initiatives, and particularly in the areas of international marketing. We must now make the sending of our products abroad more than a business practice reserved for the largest of our enterprises. We must make it an accessible and familiar practice for all our enterprises, large and small, and the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation will help us accomplish that goal.

Bill 3 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PROVINCIAL SYMBOLS AND HONOURS ACT

Hon. Mr. Reid presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor a bill intituled Provincial Symbols and Honours Act.

Bill 4 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

RESIGNATION OF DAVID POOLE

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier in relation to Mr. David Poole. The Premier has now conceded that Mr. Poole was effectively fired, presumably for cause. Could the Premier explain why, after firing someone presumably for cause, the government felt compelled to make a cash payment of $97,000 and a pension payment of $75,000?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As I explained last week when the member was absent, the resignation or the firing alone is not necessarily reason for severance. There is a policy with governments throughout the country, and certainly at all levels in this province, and similarly so in the private sector, that determines this.

MR. SIHOTA: I am unaware of a policy that says that people ought to be provided with these types of cash severance payments if they're fired with cause.

Reviewing Hansard, earlier the Premier suggested that the payments to Mr. Poole were made in order to avoid litigation, which raises the issue of just what the Premier was afraid would arise should the matter proceed to litigation. Could the Premier then explain his concern? Was it simply the cost of litigation, or was it a concern that information relating to Mr. Poole's activities would become even more public?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we do not normally, or ever really, provide details with respect to severances. It's not done provincially; it's not done in the city of Vancouver; it is not done provincially anywhere, as I understand it; and certainly to my knowledge it is generally respected by the private sector as well. These arrangements are often made with the full knowledge that if a settlement were not arrived at, then it would be for the courts to decide. The decisions the courts have made in prior times give us that knowledge.

As a matter of fact, I took the trouble to find out about some private severances to see how the public sector might compare to private settlements. I have an example of Mr. Dennis Lunney, who was chief executive officer for Vancouver City Savings. He was retained for 11 months and was let go in August 1988 by the chairman of the board, who happens to be the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). He received $187,000 in severance.

So it happens in the private sector; it happens in the public sector. These decisions are made largely based upon precedents or what the courts decide. I suppose reason is oftentimes something that will determine how these matters are dealt with.

As I understand it, and the member for Vancouver East could perhaps clarify this, in that particular instance it was philosophical differences. I understand the position is now being held by a former minister from the NDP government in Manitoba. So there are different reasons at different times, I guess.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier should check his facts.

Mr. Poole was involved in the Expo land situation. He was involved in the Powder Mountain situation. He was involved in the Knight Street affair. In arriving at a decision to settle with Mr. Poole, what weight was given by the Premier to the risk that Mr. Poole may elaborate on his and the Premier's involvement in these affairs, should the matter end up in court?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Speaker, I suppose we've come to expect this sort of questioning and innuendo from the member who just asked the question. The answer is: none.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Premier, the question simply put: was it hush money, or was it a severance payment? What was it, Mr. Premier?

[2:30]

PROPERTY PURCHASE TAX

MR. BLENCOE: A question for the Minister of Finance. The minister has said that he was quite aware, when he designed the property purchase tax legislation, that corporate friends and insiders could avoid the tax that ordinary British Columbians have to pay — and are paying today — for property purchase. Can the minister advise the House how much this loophole has cost B.C. taxpayers?

HON. MR, COUVELIER: I would have thought such a question might have been better put by the finance critic for the opposition, rather than by the

[ Page 5740 ]

municipal affairs critic. I suspect it wasn't because the question is full of erroneous implications.

There is no loophole in our legislation. The fact is, it has been traditional in taxing jurisdictions right across North America, if not the world, to tax profits from corporate entities through the income tax system or resource taxes, or some other taxation device. When governments attempt to collect tax from other revenue sources — for example, changes of property title — they do it on some sort of a fee on registration through the land registry office, as we used to do. This enlightened piece of legislation that we introduced a few years ago contains a requirement that a tax be paid when property ownership changes.

The hon. member seems to be implying that we should be imposing some sort of real estate transfer tax upon people who buy shares in public companies. If my assumption is correct and that is the implication, I would just like to ask the hon. member how he would choose to apportion a tax to a purchaser of, say, two shares of MacMillan Bloedel. How much of that acquisition of shares should be taxed for the property transfer? We all know that MacMillan Bloedel own much property. If the principle that the member is espousing has that suggestion to it, I might tell him that a socialist government in a neighbouring province attempted to do just such a thing, I understand, with disastrous consequences, and has since abandoned that fruitless exercise.

We do learn from others' mistakes and at all times try to keep our taxation policies consistent right across the country. We remain one of the lowest taxation jurisdictions in Canada, taken in total, and we're very proud of that.

MR. SPEAKER: I might mention to the second member for Victoria and the Minister of Finance that if argumentative questions are put, you're going to get very long answers, and it's very unfair to other members who want to get their questions put. I'd ask the member to keep his questions short for the minister to give him short replies.

MR. BLENCOE: While the question indeed was short, and while the minister gave a long answer. Ordinary British Columbians purchasing property have paid a tax, while this loophole in your legislation has allowed corporations to avoid it through share transfer. British Columbians will not be fooled by the loophole.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the minister. British Columbians want a serious answer. Has the minister decided — by requiring lawyers to declare share transfers — to plug the loophole and have a fair tax system for all British Columbians?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, obviously I didn't go into my answer in enough detail; otherwise the supplementary question would be unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker, just to put the issue to rest: this government will make the assurance to the hon. member that were he to put pencil to paper and suggest a proposed piece of legislation that would accomplish the result he suggests, we would be pleased to consider it.

BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE

MR. CLARK: I have a different question for the Minister of Finance, and I'll ask a short question in the hope of eliciting a relatively short answer.

Will the minister confirm for the House that the Social Credit caucus strategic planning committee — otherwise known as the budget review committee — has had major input into the shape of the provincial budget to be introduced tomorrow?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Yes.

MORATORIUM ON OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING

MR. CASHORE: I have a question to the Premier. The Premier has a better understanding than most people of the fact that oil spills at sea cannot be contained. Has the Premier made a firm decision to reimpose the moratorium on offshore oil drilling?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I suppose the question is being asked because of my comments with respect to that and my visit to Valdez. I must say that it was a very worthwhile experience, and I was very pleased to be able to do that. I realize too that some comments were made by the Leader of the Opposition that perhaps we should not have travelled there. I guess it's easy to say when you are sitting at home watching television or doing something else. However, I will defer the question to the Minister of Environment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The question is with respect to prohibition or a moratorium on offshore exploration. There is one, and it has been in place since 1972.

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. He and the minister well know that the moratorium is coming due for a decision on whether or not it will be renewed. It is a serious question; the people of British Columbia require a serious answer. The Governor of the neighbouring state of Washington favours such a moratorium. Why are the Premier and his minister so reluctant to act in an area where this government has a degree of jurisdiction and control?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This is an opportunity for me to inform the House that I will be meeting again with the Governor of Washington on April 11 –– I will be meeting with the Governor of Oregon here on April 21. We have ongoing communications between here and the Governor of Alaska. But I will defer that question to the Minister of Environment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I said earlier, there has been a moratorium on offshore oil exploration since 1972, and it is still in place. To give the members

[ Page 5741 ]

some background, by order-in-council in 1966 the provincial government reserved all of the area to the Crown. That is the inland waters from Alaska to the 48th parallel.

This order was reissued in 1982. In 1985 a joint federal-provincial panel was established to review the possibility of reopening the area. In 1986 the panel report recommended ways in which exploration could take place. That report is available to the member should he wish to peruse it.

To resolve the member's question, and to resolve the question I am sure many people in British Columbia are asking — and the people who live on the west coast of North America —  there is no possibility whatsoever of that moratorium even being lifted for at least five years.

In the meantime, earlier in January the Premier took the leadership to make an arrangement with the Governor of Washington and then last week with the Governor of Alaska. As he has indicated to this House, he will be meeting with the Governor of Oregon as well to establish an accord with the Premier and Governors and a task force to look at the whole situation of west coast oil shipping and also offshore drilling. I'm sure the members will be well aware of the leadership this government has taken with respect to protecting our environment.

COMPENSATION FOR LAID-OFF LOGGERS

MR. MILLER: Question to the Minister of Parks. I note the news release of today's date informing everyone that we have received $22.3 million from the federal government as part of the South Moresby compensation. I asked you in November to look into the situation where some 60-odd workers had not yet received a dime in compensation and had been laid off since November. You said it was not up to you at that time. I see that you are putting out a news release talking about compensating third parties. Mr. Minister, when will you compensate the loggers who were laid off in Sewell Inlet because of a decision to create a park?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Thank you very much for the question. Today was a good day in the sense that we received $22 million from the federal government. It shows the steps and the progress we're making with that agreement. I was aware of the concern that you addressed, and I dealt with that. That particular area we're still dealing with in the sense that they will be reporting to the compensation committee. As soon as that compensation committee reports to both governments, we will be responding to that payment.

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of personal privilege; I didn't want to interfere in question period under standing order 26.

I would urge the Premier to stand and withdraw his statements. He is incorrect. There was no severance paid of some $187,000. The person who replaced Mr. Lunney was Mr. Robert D. Court, the grandson of a Tory senator from Quebec. You are totally wrong there. It's the kind of innuendo the Premier always uses when he's in trouble. I ask: did he have David Poole do his research on that one too?

MR. SPEAKER: The member knows, I think, that it's not a question of privilege; it's a matter of dispute as to facts. He can take that up in question period again tomorrow.

Presenting Reports

MR. RABBITT: I have the honour to present a report of the Special Committee on Electoral Boundaries respecting the preliminary report, "Preliminary Report of Proposed Boundaries for British Columbia Electoral Districts," May 1988. I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

MR. RABBITT: I ask leave that the rules be suspended to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

MR. RABBITT: I move that the report be adopted.

Filing this report today without a recommendation is probably the most disappointing moment of my life as an elected representative. The House gave us a task that became redundant when it became clear that His Honour Judge Thomas Fisher was proceeding on a course that would conclude his final report prior to the Legislative Assembly reconvening and having this report filed with the legislative body. Since the final report has been filed with the Lieutenant-Governor, any recommendations this committee may have made would have been entirely meaningless. Therefore no recommendations were agreed to by the committee.

There are several points that as chairman of that committee I would like to briefly touch on. I believe that the preliminary report is the basis, and a good basis, for electoral reform for the province of British Columbia. Although it is a good document, the committee did identify some anomalies. My hope is that the final report will resolve these anomalies.

I would like to thank the subcommittee — that is, the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Roe) and the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) — for their positive input and their cooperative effort. I would like to add that this positive effort did not overflow into the full committee. If the final report is to be examined by the committee of this House, I would seriously have reservations about sending it back to this committee or a similar committee and expecting a unanimous recommendation, unless there was an honest effort by all the members of that committee, in total cooperation, to bring it about.

Electoral reform in any democratic jurisdiction gives us an opportunity to balance and adjust the system of electing representatives. We now have that opportunity. When we make our decisions in this House on electoral reform, let's look at both taking the time

[ Page 5742 ]

and effort and using common sense and a sense of fairness to see that we make a good decision, a decision that we can all be proud of, and one that will serve all of British Columbia fairly.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, under the Inquiry Act, Justice Fisher's final report will come before this House 15 days, I believe, from the opening of the session. As an opposition member of the committee, I don't share the views of the member for Yale-Lillooet, who chaired the committee. We were in total unanimity until the final recommendation, which was to vote against Justice Fisher's preliminary report. Obviously it made no sense whatsoever to vote against Justice Fisher's preliminary report when we had no knowledge of his final report, so we held our decision until we see the final report.

I think all members of this House owe a vote of thanks to Justice Fisher. It wasn't Justice Fisher's fault that this House was not convened for nine months. There was business to be conducted, and Justice Fisher held hearings in every corner of this province and received well over 1,000 submissions. Over $1.5 million of taxpayers' money was expended on a very valuable and important enterprise: a fair set of boundaries for this province. The best way that this House could thank Justice Fisher would be to enact a fair electoral map for this province in this coming House.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in hearing that, I take pleasure in tabling the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries for....

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, we're in the debate, and you can table it after the debate is closed. Under standing orders, the member for Yale-Lillooet will close the debate on the motion.

[2:45]

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, I believe that all the members of this House are fully aware of the value of the judge's final report. I believe that he did do an exemplary job in the preliminary report. I think we will find that he has also done an exemplary job preparing his final report. The House will have to look at it very thoroughly, and it may be very possible that with very little confrontation between the two sides we may be able to do what my honourable colleague from Victoria has just mentioned.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I've had this around for so long, I'm anxious to table it. I take pleasure in tabling the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries for British Columbia, and I move by leave that this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations to examine, inquire into and make recommendations unanimously to the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries for British Columbia, dated December 1988, and to report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following session, as the case may be.

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE: This may sound like a quibble, but since we haven't had the selection committee for committees, do we have a committee to refer this report to at the moment?

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate
(continued)

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on address in reply to the throne speech. The debate was adjourned by the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards), but on agreement the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) continues the debate.

MR. WILLIAMS: Again I would urge the Premier to reconsider his ill-found statements of just a few minutes ago with regard to Vancouver City Savings Credit Union. Once he finds out that he was incorrect, I would expect that he would apologize to the House forthwith. We're talking about the largest indigenous credit union — financial institution — in British Columbia. That kind of statement does not serve him well in the responsible office he holds.

However, today I wanted to talk about the Doman company. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk and share with the people of British Columbia and the people in this House the pattern of privilege that has surrounded the relationship between Doman Industries, Mr. Doman and the Social Credit administration — the Social Credit administration of this Premier and of the Premier before him. It may be timely, in view of the matter that's currently before the courts involving Mr. Doman, Mr. Bill Bennett and his brother.

The public and its representative government is the owner of the forest resources of British Columbia — some 95 percent of the land base of this province. It's a special trust for any administration in British Columbia, because it represents much of the natural resource wealth of the province. It's a trust, and it's critical that this trust relationship be monitored carefully by this House, the opposition and the public to see that that trust is not broken.

That trust, in the later years of Social Credit, has indeed been broken. It's been broken in the form of environmental degradation. It's been broken in the form of non-performance, and it's been broken in the form of favouritism with respect to this company and its operations.

Unfortunately, the way politics has evolved in this province in the recent decade is that there are more and more in forestry who are always out there seeking favours, and those who seek the favours the most have become most involved in the machinery and activity of the Social Credit Party of British Columbia. Those seeking favours back certain leadership candidates. Those who wanted log exports from the northwest backed the present Premier; they got log

[ Page 5743 ]

exports for two years. Others backed other leadership candidates. Many of them have reaped the rewards of that involvement in this political party, and nowhere does that seem clearer than with Doman Industries. That's a loss to all of us, as the owners of the resource in the province, and I think, in a sense, it's a loss for Mr. Doman as well.

When I was Minister of Forests a decade or so ago, I admired Mr. Doman's hustle. He used timber that others didn't use, he bought logs on the open market, and he competed with the best. And he had no Crown timber. He had no forest licences on the public lands whatsoever.

All that changed, Mr. Speaker, with the change of government. Mr. Doman bid for a major chunk of public timber in the mid-coast, when the Bennett administration began. He got the timber just up from Bella Coola; he promised a pulp mill on Vancouver Island in exchange for that timber. That was 12 years ago, Mr. Speaker. The mill has never been built. He was to have had that mill underway by 1981. The mill was never built, but his privileges in terms of forest rights and cutting privileges have remained rock solid through the years.

The area that he first got was the Kimsquit. I referred to that a few years ago in this House. I helicoptered over the Kimsquit in 1974. It's a magnificent untouched valley, an incredible natural environment — eagles, salmon; something that made one proud to be part of this incredible province of ours. But how that valley has changed. It's the modern story of how Social Credit allows our forests to be gutted and their friends to get rich.

There are countless examples, Mr. Speaker, of how Doman has not performed through the Bennett years and the years of this administration. I'll just cover some of those today.

One of the areas I want to look at is undercutting. The rules as they apply in British Columbia are that over a five-year cutting cycle, you're supposed to cut at least 90 percent of your annual allowable cut, or you lose the timber-cutting rights by the difference that you undercut. So if your cutting rights were 1 million cubic metres, you must cut at least 900,000 cubic metres in order to maintain your licence privilege in terms of those cutting rights.

I remember when the new legislation came in under Mr. Waterland who has gone to his just reward as a lobbyist for the mining industry. When the new Forest Act came in in 1977, Mr. Waterland said: "What this statute says, essentially, is use it or lose it. You use the timber, you maintain employment through the five-year cutting cycles, or you lose it."

Well, did Mr. Doman maintain his cut through the cutting cycle, through the recession? That's the reason these licences were originally granted. That's why Chief Justice Sloan bought this idea of these perpetual licences: in order to maintain fuller employment and to even out the business cycle. Where was the Doman company, then, in the Kimsquit and the central coast between '82 and '86?

Here's how their cut — their real cut — actually was on the mid-coast of British Columbia: 1982, 29.5 percent; 1983, zero; 1984, 38.4 percent; 1985, 56.6 percent; 1986, zero. Through the recession they did nothing to maintain employment on their cutting privileges, the very fundamental behind granting these privileges. Instead of the 90 percent, it was 24.9 percent.

However, I only really got those numbers after reviewing the files and realizing that the numbers are consistently doctored in the files in British Columbia. You look at a computer printout and you assume that the numbers at the bottom of the column are legitimate numbers. They're not — not the way you people do business in British Columbia.

The numbers at the bottom of the column in a letter to Doman on June 9, '86, on the issue of cut control said the numbers were, in fact, 50 percent, 50 percent, 38 percent, 56 percent and zero percent, coming up with a total of 39 percent. Those weren't the real numbers at all. Mr. Doman didn't like those numbers, so he wrote in and he said, "I want them changed to 90 percent for two of those years," and those numbers, too, were changed for two years to 90 percent, Mr. Apsey was the deputy minister in those days. Mr. Apsey was willing to do an across-the-board 90 percent number for those recession years. So there was nothing completely unique about that, but there are many unique elements to the Doman question.

The numbers were 24.9 percent — the real numbers. On the basis of that, we'd be talking about a 60 percent cutback in Doman's cutting privileges.

Just a while ago, Louisiana-Pacific were talking about buying out Mr. Doman. What they buy, essentially, is cutting rights — the right to cut Crown timber. If Mr. Doman's numbers had been reduced by 60 percent, the amount of money in Mr. Doman's jeans would have declined considerably. If that deal had indeed gone ahead, Mr. Doman personally would have got $50 million for his shareholdings out of that exercise. That gives you an idea of how much the timber-cutting privilege is worth in British Columbia.

Was Mr. Doman satisfied with the overall doctoring of the numbers to 90 percent in those two recession years? No; he argued for more. This was too much for the regional director who covered the whole Vancouver forest region, which is most of the coast and Vancouver Island. He said he couldn't accept that. He said they'd already doctored the books in 1982 and '83, after all. Wasn't that good enough? They did that to allow for poor market conditions when, in fact, other people didn't have the same problem Mr. Doman had.

This is Mr. R.C. Scarrow, acting regional director, March 12, 1987. He says this: "Our tolerance of the lower-cost access logging method in the Kimsquit with deleterious environmental consequences, was part of the package." What Mr. Scarrow was saying is that he had already allowed significant environmental degradation as part of the package of benefits for Mr. Doman. He said: "...and despite our granting of a chart...." That is, he granted even new cutting areas, presumably in areas less costly for Mr. Doman in the Washwash and Tzeo drainages, even though

[ Page 5744 ]

Mr. Doman already had an adequate supply. I am quoting from Mr. Scarrow's letter. Then he said: ". . and despite the fact that most other licensees met their minimum cut requirements under the same conditions experienced by Doman Industries."

[3:00]

What he is saying is that there were other operators in the central coast — same difficult terrain, same difficult economy — and yet they performed. "We have doctored the books enough for Mr. Doman," is what he is in effect saying. Everybody else was able to perform on the central coast. He said there were a couple of very minor undercuts, however, on the part of BCFP and GPL to other companies — very minor undercuts — and they reduced their cutting rights. He notes that. One of them, if my memory serves me right, was by 3 percent. Mr. Doman had underperformed on a grand scale. Zero cut, zero cut, zero cut, and it still gets labelled 90 percent under Mr. Apsey. We all know who Mr. Apsey is. He's gone back to his just reward as the chief lobbyist for the forest industry in British Columbia.

At the end of this entire exercise, the poor civil servants finally recommended at least a 15 percent reduction for Mr. Doman; after doctoring the books and all the rest of it, there should at the very least be a 15 percent reduction in Mr. Doman's privilege. Let's remember, at this point Mr. Doman had a decade of access to the Premier's office here in British Columbia. Mr. Doman was active in the Social Credit Party. Mr. Doman was a former business partner with the Bennett brothers. Mr. Doman led the delegation for the second member for Kamloops (Hon. S.D. Smith) at Whistler. He is a very active member of the Social Credit Party. Mr. Doman's company never paid the penalty other companies paid where similar infractions took place. Never, never, never.

On the mid-coast, CFI, through that same period, in real numbers, cut 98.1 percent of their allowable cut. Whonnock Industries, also with economic difficulties, cut 110 percent — real numbers — in that same time period. Mayo cut 103.9 percent, and CIP Canadian Pacific, 105 percent. There was a consistent pattern with those other companies.

Curiously, the poor civil servants finally gave up when their political masters were not responding. Because by September 1, '87, there was another memo listing the people who had violated their cutting regulations on the coast, in terms of performance and maintaining the cut. This was Mr. G.R. Ursel, in a memo to all district offices in the Vancouver region. He listed those who had violated the 90 percent rule over the previous year. In that memo of September 1, Mr. Doman wasn't even on the list. History had been rewritten. That is the revisionist idea. That is the way it is done under Social Credit in British Columbia.

Let's remember, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Doman got this timber with the promise of a $100 million pulp mill. If that pulp mill were to be built today, it would cost $300 million. But because of the nature and scale of that mill, to build a proper mill would cost $600 million. Mr. Doman has escaped the investment and expenditure of at least $300 million from 1977 until today, because Mr. Doman is an insider. Now they've talked it down to a little remanufacturing mill around Duke Point, which will just have a modest amount of investment from Mr. Doman. That's what happened to the pulp mill.

You have to ask yourself, Mr. Speaker, about Mr. Doman's active involvement in the Social Credit Party. Was it an altruistic interest in public policy that motivated him? Or was it the opportunity for him and his firm to benefit from favoured treatment? I think the files speak for themselves.

It's interesting to see another memo, from Mr. R.D. Flitton, who then became a deputy minister too. For those with good memories — there are not a lot of us in this province — Mr. Flitton was one of the campaign managers on the campaign plane for Bill Bennett at an earlier stage of the game. On the basis of those and I guess other qualifications, he became Deputy Minister of Forests. When that letter went out from Mr. Flitton to Mr. Doman, it was a standard departmental letter. He scratches it out and changes it to: "Dear Herb." He notes that there really was some discrepancy in the numbers versus the actual annual allowable cut and suggests that it might be looked at later. Then he writes by hand, "Thanks," at the end. Thank you indeed!

This is an insider's government. Mr. Doman is an insider. But maybe he is what David Poole called an "on-sider." He is both an on-sider, part of the party, and he is an insider with access.

There are other examples. On March 28, '84, Mr. R.W. Thomas, district manager, wrote to Doman Industries. He says, regarding their forest licence A16845, cutting permit 102: "The inspection revealed that felled and bucked materials dropped in '81 and '82" — he is writing this letter in 1984 — "still remained on the ground." Cutting that had taken place three years earlier still remained on the ground. You wonder why there's an environmental movement in British Columbia. There's an environmental movement here because the people know that this kind of devastation is going on and they know that insiders are getting that kind of treatment. The Premier can do his campaign stunt in an airplane over Valdez, but the reality is there in the Kimsquit and in the deals with Doman and the other insiders that deal regularly with your office and this government.

They then wanted a plan for removal — that is, Mr. Thomas — and on June 26, after the March letter, Mr. Thomas then wrote to Doman: "You failed to provide us with an acceptable plan to clean up all these felled trees from three years ago in your Kimsquit operations. We will therefore prepare to scale the material and bill for abandoned forest products." It's a neat question as to whether any of those billings occurred or whether indeed they were ever paid.

Similar problems apply to the Doman group of companies in the silvicultural sphere in terms of their activities in the mid-coast. The same things apply to reforestation on the mid-coast as well. The same applies even with the question of surveys on the mid-coast, because under this Forests minister the game is

[ Page 5745 ]

that they monitor themselves. They do the surveys, not the Ministry of Forests. This is a new system of being allowed to check out your groceries in the supermarket yourself; you operate the till. That's the new system under Social Credit. They didn't carry out their surveys, they didn't carry out proper reforestation, they didn't build their pulp mill, they didn't perform. In the end you have to ask yourself if this kind of treatment of Mr. Doman is an accident or is it a pattern? Clearly, in the relationship between Doman and this Social Credit government, there's a pattern and it's one that favours Doman above all the others.

If there had been true, due diligence, or simply diligence, on the part of this government regarding Mr. Doman's permits, licences and privileges in the coastal forests on the mid-coast of British Columbia , Mr. Doman would no longer have any cutting rights whatsoever. If you people with the responsibility and trust for the public forests of British Columbia had played by the rules — your own rules — Mr. Doman would have hardly any timber-cutting rights left in the central coast and certainly hardly any cutting rights to sell to Louisiana-Pacific or any other Johnny-come-lately to British Columbia. Those cutting rights would have been properly returned to the Crown, to the people of British Columbia, and that should still happen. Those forests should be returned to the people of British Columbia once they've been rehabilitated, because they've been devastated.

The pattern, I think, deserves thorough examination by an impartial party — not this Premier, not this Minister of Forests — especially in view of the other case that is now before the courts in British Columbia and Ontario.

When I review these files and this kind of information, it brings me back to an earlier era, the era of W.A.C. Bennett, who inherited an administration after a particularly corrupt period of the coalition administration in British Columbia. W.A.C. used to go around the province and say something like this: "After all these years of the Coalition administration, my friends, what we stand for is equal treatment for all, special privilege for none." I can see him with his hands waving out there: "Special privileges for none." W.A.C. Bennett didn't have a Premier's club where you pay for access to the breakfast so that you can influence the Premier of British Columbia; W.A.C. Bennett never entertained that kind of nonsense. What we finally want to see in British Columbia is equal treatment for all and special privilege for none.

MR. JACOBSEN: It's a pleasure for me to rise in support of what is certainly a very good throne speech. In the debate that has taken place, I've noticed that even the opposition has not criticized the speech itself; rather they criticize the motives and the timing of the announcement. But are they really suggesting that there is a time when it's wrong or immoral for a government to bring forward good legislation? They doubt that the programs can be implemented because of lack of funding, and they say that the throne speech is really only a confession of past failures. In reality, the throne speech is a result of financial success. They still criticize the restraint program of the early eighties. They fail to acknowledge that had it not been carried out, we would not now be able to offer the programs that are presented in this speech.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The throne speech starts by focusing on three important priorities: economic growth and diversification; preservation of our environment; and a progressive education policy. It commits itself to a financial policy with the dual principle of encouraging a strong private sector to generate economic growth and a prudent government fiscal management that aims at a balanced budget. It also supports the policy to put aside additional money in the budget stabilization fund. I've heard this fund criticized by some in this Legislature as a devious tool of government, but it is really a security measure that will, during a downturn in the economy, guarantee the continuation of government programs.

The throne speech deals with many important issues. They have been discussed in great detail during the past days, but let me quickly voice my approval of a few of them.

British Columbians will be heartened by the special emphasis placed on the protection of the environment in this speech. We recognize the need not only to treat with care the natural environment of British Columbia, but to do our share to protect the global environment.

People will welcome the emphasis that government places on caring for our seniors with several new pieces of legislation proposed to improve the quality of life for this important part of our population.

[3:15]

Every thinking British Columbian will welcome the government's proposed initiative in health. Our health care system is our most valued government program. Everyone recognizes the difficulty of maintaining the system amid the dramatic growth in demand for service and the escalating costs associated with that. It is prudent that we concern ourselves by dealing with the problem today and thereby guaranteeing a good health care system for the British Columbians of tomorrow.

All will welcome the establishment of a ministry responsible for women's issues. In many single parent families it is often the woman who is left with the responsibility of providing for and raising the children. Hers is a difficult role, and I commend the government for its decision to give special attention to her needs. Not only is that important for the woman but equally so for the dependent children.

The throne speech goes on to mention many more good initiatives — initiatives that deal with such important issues as unemployment, education, literacy, alcohol and substance abuse, and trade development. Indeed, this is a speech of broad application and much benefit for many British Columbians.

[ Page 5746 ]

I am pleased to see the government's continued commitment to forestry through the throne speech reference to a significant expansion of the provincial reforestation program. I'm convinced that forestry holds the key to great future prosperity for British Columbia. The value of the forest resource to B.C. in the next century will, I am sure, go far beyond what any of us even imagines today. As an inheritance to those who will follow us, I suggest that we plant every hectare of good growing site possible and that we do all we can to encourage the use of private lands for growing trees.

I want to commend the minister on his recent action designed to reduce the volume of raw logs leaving the province. I know there will be those who claim they are being treated unfairly, and they will point to the export that takes place in the states of Washington and Oregon as examples of just treatment. But the economies and the dependence on the forest industry in Washington and Oregon are much different from that of British Columbia. We require a forest policy that provides much more in terms of employment and social benefit than may be necessary in our neighbouring states.

Many mills in the lower mainland are faced this year with a serious shortage of logs, brought about, I believe, by the heavy rate of harvest that has taken place during the past two years. If I could offer one suggestion to the minister, it would be, given the present domestic price of logs, that he obtain as soon as possible an independent assessment of the feasibility of bringing logs from the north coast to the Vancouver market. If it is determined that this is economically feasible, then I believe the same disincentive to exporting as was recently announced for the lower coast should immediately be applied to those logs.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I welcome the important references made in the throne speech to housing. A fundamental strength of our society is the right and encouragement of people to own their own homes, and government initiatives that encourage that to happen are to be commended.

When the throne speech mentions housing, it's talking about something we know a lot about in Dewdney. The constituency I represent along with you, Mr. Speaker, has had a very big involvement in providing the homes needed to meet the great demand for new housing in British Columbia. It's something that is happening in all three of our municipalities. The municipality of Pitt Meadows continues to experience record levels of new home construction. Maple Ridge has the distinction of having the highest percentage of annual increase in new housing in British Columbia. Even the district of Mission, whose growth has been impeded by its dependence on an obsolete two-lane highway that has not changed significantly for 50 years, has now begun to experience an increase in new home construction too.

The constituency of Dewdney welcomes its role in the residential construction industry. Most of the new residents are young working families. Many are purchasing chasing their first home. We are pleased that Dewdney gives these people the best value for their home purchasing dollar available anywhere in the lower mainland. Yet the influx of so many young families puts a strain on facilities and services. We are always in need of more classroom space, and before one expansion of our hospital is complete, we need to start the next one. We've had good support from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), who is personally aware of the circumstances we face, and likewise from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), who regularly visits my constituency to keep abreast of the facility needs. Despite any problems that rapid growth may cause us, we are glad to have it. Let me say that a real pleasure for me is to talk to the people who have just moved to Dewdney and hear them tell how happy they and their families are to now be part of that community.

While people are benefiting from new homes, our municipalities are benefiting too. In Dewdney we have very little industrial development in relation to our population. Local jobs are hard to find, so we place great value on the economic stimulant and the jobs created in the residential construction industry. For us it is an important industry, and it's big; in Maple Ridge alone it's worth $50 million a year.

While residential development is very important in my constituency, there is a real danger it may soon come to an end. Because local jobs are scarce, the vast majority of our people must commute to work. In the municipality of Maple Ridge, when public hearings are held to rezone additional lands for residential use, the council is faced with a new type of protest: large numbers of people are attending the hearings demanding that the rezonings not be approved. They are not protesting because they do not want to share the community with new people, but because more people means more traffic and the situation for them is already unbearable.

In Mission, when the council met with two large development companies which own hundreds of acres of what is surely the most attractive residential land in the lower mainland, it was told yes, the companies would like to start development of their properties, but because of the inadequate highway system from Mission west, the market for their homes, they felt, would be seriously affected, and so they were not prepared to start development until transportation improvements were made.

Providing transportation and building highways is clearly the responsibility of the provincial government. It is not something that if left will be done by the municipalities or anyone else. If the province does not provide it, it clearly will not happen. But highways and transportation are more than just moving people that already live in an area. Clearly they also have a very substantial effect on land use. History shows that where transportation was available, development took place and cities grew, beginning in the seaports of the world, the railroads of this continent, and now along the highway system. So where the province provides highways, these will encourage population.

[ Page 5747 ]

On the north side of the Fraser is the highest reserve of high-quality residential land available in the lower mainland. It is land that because of poor soil conditions and topography has little or no agricultural value. It seems to me that common sense and a concern to preserve the high-quality agricultural land on the south side of the river would be reason enough for the province to initiate a major highway and transportation system on the north side of the Fraser at least equal to that which exists on the south. Failure to do so will surely place a great deal of pressure on all of the farming communities on the south side of the river and will probably spell the end of the upland agriculture that takes place there now — a great loss, I think, not only for that area but for all British Columbians now and in the future.

Enough said about logic; let's talk about fact. For the past 25 years, the representatives of Dewdney have stood in this Legislature and talked about the need for transportation and highways in that riding, without very much success. They have argued, quite honestly I believe, that Dewdney was entitled to a larger share of the transportation dollar. But, Mr. Speaker, as I stand here again today, there is a difference. In the past, the members for Dewdney gave an opinion about what should be done with regard to transportation. Today I want to give the facts that come from information provided by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways itself.

Ten years ago, when I was mayor of Maple Ridge, I was approached by the Ministry of Highways' staff, who insisted that we approve the location of a major new east-west highway corridor through that municipality. The reason, they said, was that we had a situation unparalleled anywhere in the province, where an area with our population was dependent upon one limited traffic artery with low-level bridge crossings. They considered it to be an unacceptable situation, particularly in the case of serious emergency.

The location for the corridor was approved. The population has increased in record numbers since, but to date there has been no further action by the ministry. The recently completed Delcan study on transportation and highways for the province suggests that for a free-flowing section of four-lane highway, unimpeded by traffic lights, the capacity for rush-hour traffic is approximately 1,000 cars per lane per hour. They suggest that that can be increased to 120 percent of capacity, which is 1,200 cars per lane, but at that point you've reached the maximum, and you are facing problems.

What is the situation in Dewdney? Within one year's time, from the western boundary of Maple Ridge through the municipality of Pitt Meadows, the traffic on the Lougheed Highway will exceed 150 percent of its rated capacity.

In 1987 the Ministry of Highways' traffic count on that section of highway showed that there were approximately 37,000 cars per day using that highway. Recently, a survey was taken that showed the traffic count has now risen to almost 57,000 cars. The Ministry of Highways could not believe the number, and so they did their own count. It showed that more than 55,000 cars daily used the Lougheed Highway in Dewdney.

Let me end my comments on transportation on an optimistic note. I know there's a major study on transportation and highway needs for all of B.C. taking place at this time. I'm sure that when completed that study will recommend major improvements to the north side of the Fraser. I also know, however, that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) is aware of the situation that I've described here today, and I'm optimistic that with the initiative mentioned in the throne speech he will not wait, but that he will begin, in this budget year, to deal with our problem.

Mr. Speaker, I've saved till last my comments on what is my favorite and, I believe, the most important initiative mentioned in the throne speech: the government's commitment to a strong emphasis on the value of the family. I've heard the government criticized, and I've heard the Premier ridiculed because of the reference to strengthening the family, but let me cast out the warning that any society that fails to concern itself with the health of its family unit will not prosper.

The family is the pillar that our society is built upon; from it we develop communities, cities, a province and a country. But let us not forget that if the pillar crumbles, all that rests upon it will crumble also. Unfortunately, we've reached the point where the pressures on our families are greater than ever before. There are far too many cases where well-meaning people are unable to keep the unit together, and the results are often tragic.

Recently I had the opportunity to visit several small rural elementary schools in my constituency with special emphasis on what is being provided to the special needs child. It was both a sad and a heartwarming experience — sad to see the young people who must face life with a severe mental or physical handicap, heart-warming to see the commitment of the people that cared for them. In a situation where providing lunch is a major two-hour undertaking, and where some of the children had to be fed through a tube, these dedicated teachers and volunteers carried on with the determination that these less fortunate children will not be denied the opportunity to participate in the normal daily school routine along with children who do not share their impediments.

However, the most difficult part of the tour for me, I confess, was observing the children in the resource classes. Here many young people, good healthy-looking children, were struggling with individual instruction to acquire an education. I'm told that many of these children are there simply because circumstances generated by our society, and completely beyond their control, had placed upon them an emotional burden that was too heavy for a child to carry. They do not have the tranquility at home that's needed to make the absorption of the school curriculum easily possible.

[ Page 5748 ]

Later I listened to several teachers express to me their concern over the increase in the percentage of students entering the school system that required that special help.

[3:30]

The problem for our families is not limited to stress; too often and increasingly it results in violence and abuse. If you doubt that statement, a quick walk through the pages of the morning paper almost any day of the week will confirm it. But why does it happen? Is there a connection between our declining social standards and the problems that our families experience? For example, we have allowed the portrayal of violence to become a major component in our entertainment scene, yet we're surprised when the violence we watch becomes the reality in society. Is there a connection between the fictional violence we watch and the real violence we experience? I think there is.

Certainly we have been very complacent while the standards of our society have gone down. We have even accepted that those responsible for the change were entitled to do so under the umbrella of individual freedom. Is it not time to reassess what is happening, and to challenge the negative influences, and the rights of those who perpetuate them? I know that I'm treading on a dangerous and, to some, sacred right of each person being able to do whatever they want, but let me say that no one in this House, in this chamber, places higher value on our freedoms than I do. I know our freedom did not come automatically; it was purchased by many people at an extremely high price, and I'm keenly aware of the sacrifice they made. But there is a difference. Their sacrifice was made so that today we might have the freedom to pursue happy, wholesome and productive lives. They did not make their sacrifice to provide opportunity for the exploitation of children and the destruction of the moral fibre of society for personal gain.

The situation is serious. It needs our attention. Will we attempt to do anything, or will we simply continue our complacency? Certainly that would be the easiest, and human history has a remarkable precedent for it. At the Good Friday service last week, our pastor spoke on our complacency as it relates to Christianity. For example, he mentioned this incident that happened, I believe, in New York. You may recall it. One evening a woman walking along a street was attacked by a mugger who carried a knife. The investigation that followed showed that 37 people had either seen it happen or heard her screams. Each one of them chose not to get involved; they either walked away or closed their curtains, and she died.

I know the frustration each of us feels when we ask ourselves the question: what can I do? Let me answer that question by asking another. If you and I, who are elected to this chamber to care for the needs of this society, are not prepared to do anything, then who will? Unfortunately, the most likely answer is no one, and society will bear the consequence.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that strengthening the family is noble work indeed. The value and importance of the family goes far beyond our present-day assessment. It has its beginning in Scripture, where it is regarded as the most important of all human institutions.

Some years ago Mother Teresa, one of the truly great people of this century, won the Nobel prize for her work among the dying people in the streets of Calcutta. The world media focused upon her and she was asked how it felt to spend her life among the sick and the dying and the have-nots in the world. In her answer, Mother Teresa said: "God did not call me to be successful but rather to be faithful." There's a difference, you see, between being successful and being faithful. If you are very fortunate, you can be both.

Some time later, Prince Charles visited India and was introduced to Mother Teresa. The two of them spoke privately. Later she was asked what she had said to the Prince. Mother Teresa said: "I told Prince Charles that I cannot do what he can do, and that he cannot do what I can do, but that together we can do something beautiful for God."

In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I borrow words from that great person and say through you to my friends and colleagues in this Legislature that if each of us will begin to acknowledge the difficulties our families face, and if all of us will commit ourselves to doing all that we can to strengthen our families, then I am confident that you and I too will do something beautiful for God.

MS. EDWARDS: In this my third response to government's Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, I've decided to launch immediately past the formalities and into the real issues for my constituents. The real issues for my constituents are the issues of resource management, hazardous and regular waste disposal and access to post-secondary education and training. I think those are the most important.

These issues relate to our aspirations for a sustainable development and healthy future. We see the necessity to better plan the use of our resources, to come to grips with the problems of waste and to offer our people, young and old, the best education we can. We believe that Kootenay residents deserve all those things every bit as much as the residents of any other part of British Columbia.

The announcement of the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) last week illustrates again the cloudy thinking of this government. The cloud seemed to move in at about the Monashees and the government can't see the Kootenays, unless it is a place where it wants another infusion of electrical power — but not when it's planning better access to advanced education and training. In response to that announcement, I have to say it is only marginally easier in some cases for some students to attend institutions in Kamloops and Kelowna than in Vancouver, to get third- or fourth-year university courses. Prince George and Nanaimo would be much more difficult in nearly every case.

[ Page 5749 ]

What I have to ask is: what does the government have to offer the people in my constituency with the ability but not the money to attend university away from their homes? What about those people with families, jobs and special needs which hold them to their homes? I want to know what process is new and better for the residents of Elkford and Sparwood and Fernie and Cranbrook and Elko and Yahk and, of course, Grasmere. How many of the new spaces promised for this province will go to address the very specific problems of people in my area? Not enough.

The glowing talk of the throne speech has not been substantiated by the minister's statement last week. Kootenay citizens see a bleaker and bleaker educational future for what even the minister calls a lifelong pursuit: that is, the getting of education. The government justly boasts how our high school students score very high on math and science tests. They announce this against the backdrop of other figures which show the extremely low participation of British Columbia people in post-secondary education and the even lower participation of people from the rural areas of British Columbia. The figures also show that the single best indicator of the employment stability and income level of Canadians is the level of education. Therefore the pickings for Kootenay people, who do see education as a lifelong pursuit and who do want to pursue it.... In fact they have a very meagre outlook, from what's been offered in the throne speech.

What we in the Kootenays want to know is: how we can offer our children a future in the rural areas of the province? How can we keep them involved in the decisions that are important to us — decisions, for example, about resource use? This is the new infusion we need of young people who understand the traditions in these areas. They are committed to the vitality and the integrity of the resource itself. For example, the hearings recently held in Nelson on the forest resource and forest tenure in this province excluded by their very geographical location most of the people from my riding. Most of them were unable to take a day off work. The hearings were on a Monday; they proceeded all day. Most people from my riding were unable to attend a location 150 miles away.

What I will do during this session is continue to tell the minister what the people who didn't attend the hearings would have told him. They are saying similar things to what the people who were there were saying, and they were opposed to what was going on. The issues remain in the proposal that the minister put forward.

One of the major issues, for example, is that only one type of user of the forest resource is considered in the proposal put forward. The people of the Kootenays believe that the many users of the forest resource have to be recognized, not just the timber extractors. Many users need to have a say in how the public land is managed. They also need to have a say in why the minister would propose to put two-thirds of the Crown's forest land into TFL tenure. The minister recognizes that TFL tenure is as close to private tenure as you can get without giving the land away. But he says that he wants to give the companies a sense of proprietorship so they will manage the land better than the government has. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we would question that very strongly. We think that in many cases the companies have had too strong a sense of proprietorship, in the sense that they felt they had some kind of ownership.

What we need is a sense of stewardship. If the government wants to escape its responsibility as a steward, why does it think private industry would want to carry out that responsibility? What does it expect of this fox in the chicken coop? Does it expect the fox to serve chicken at seven to the barn cats who come in their tuxedos?

The minister's TFL proposals have received general condemnation and should be abandoned. Let the minister find some better way to improve forest management, such as a strict requirement to achieve sustained yields. We in our riding are quite willing to attend again and make these positions clear to him. We are looking for a better response than simply the across-the-board putting of forest tenure into TFL licences for large forest licence-holders.

The TFL process has recently addressed an issue of great concern in my riding and throughout the whole of the East Kootenay, in fact: range management. There is a lot of talk about range management — three reviews, in fact — but very little indication of commitment. The only thread that one can trace through these three reviews and processes is that the government wants to give away management of the land. They want to let somebody else do the managing. Under the proposals for TFLs, access, if nothing else, would be controlled by the forest industry. That would be fine, except that under its proposal to review and restate the goals, and to again lay out how range is to be managed, it suggests that range management should be done by the agriculture industry.

If that doesn't provide contradiction enough, we also wonder what happens when another minister, the minister of the Kootenays, is also trying to review and to decide what should happen to range, through the Closkey report. What, Mr. Minister, can we see in this of commitment to the resource itself? Do we see any promise of the kind of inventory that we need, of the kind of cost-benefit analysis? Do we have some real commitment to doing capability studies and then managing on the basis of the best and most appropriate capability for the land? How are we to know what the government is going to do with reports — two from one ministry; another from another ministry — and how is the public supposed to participate in this process? How is the public to get its say and to know what might come out when the government goes at something three ways to nothing and looks as though it has its own particular ideology on the agenda? That is what is happening. This is of great concern to the people in the Kootenays.

[3:45]

[ Page 5750 ]

I look forward with great trepidation to a promised new games farm act. I don't know why, because it hasn't been stated publicly, the government has decided to change its mind and go at game farms again, when that is not what it said it would do in the last sitting of this House.

As I said before, the government likes the Kootenays to pioneer electricity production, and the Fording Coal thermal generating plant in the Elk Valley could well become the first coal generating plant in British Columbia. The throne speech promises an energy policy which will assure British Columbians of — and I quote — "inexpensive, stable and environmentally sound sources of energy through the future." Putting these things together, people in my riding look forward to a serious and comprehensive public process to consider the environmental impact of turning to generation of electricity by coal. The discussion is extremely far-reaching, particularly to the residents of coal communities, and the time for public participation is now. I anticipate that this will be a very positive process wherein the goal is to choose the best direction for sustainable development and where no conclusion is assumed before the talks begin.

In that spirit of problem solving and cooperation, I would press the government for serious consideration of the recreational uses of Lake Koocanusa. This is not a new issue, and various ministers know of my interest in it. The problem continues. Predictions again this year show extremely low water levels. Marinas and camping resorts can't hold their clientele when the water levels can be so low that the boat ramps don't reach the water. The fish stocks cannot reach healthy levels when the water variations are extreme and continue from year to year. What we want to know is, where is the recreational nirvana that was promised when this fertile valley was expropriated to become a reservoir behind a dam? The agricultural production and the wildlife habitat were all lost to this promise, by the way.

The people in the area want to work together and achieve a reasonable accommodation. They need government support and they want to work with government support. I am going to seek some meetings that will consider that support. Related to these possibilities is a call for an environmental endowment commission related to the Flathead River. This commission is called for in the International Joint Commission report on the Sage Creek mine proposal which was released recently. In deciding that the Sage Creek coal-mine should not proceed because of the pollution it could create, the IJC proposed ongoing planning by Canada and the U.S. to direct use of the river basin, which could become a world heritage site.

A similar process — this kind of a commission — has existed in the Skagit Valley to direct development that is agreeable to both countries, and the opportunity exists to create this as a commission where an exciting group of people could lead the way in watershed planning. The Governor of Montana has already made a similar proposal. In this session I am going to encourage government to take the IJC's excellent suggestion. I certainly pledge my support and the support of my constituents for such an extremely valuable project. If this kind of thing works well we may indeed be able to apply the same kind of principle to planning on Lake Koocanusa.

Mundane — much less romantic, I guess — problems persist. The problems of solid waste disposal plague Elk Valley cities, and we look forward to some direct leadership and some support from government in rationalizing the disposal process. What we want to know is, will the government be adding dollars to its declared war on waste or is it only going to consult with the UBCM as promised in the throne speech? Will it make possible some community action on recycling by priming the pump? We need funding help. If it's there, I know we can make some positive progress on recycling and moving on the solid waste program. There are people waiting to carry out projects.

The throne speech promises to strengthen services that will be available through the Ministry of Environment mark an about-face by the government. It's a welcome one, I hasten to add. In my area we are acutely aware of the dangers to our fishery and wildlife resource occasioned by the extreme shortage of conservation officers. On another tack, we are also uniquely aware of the absence of regulations and enforcement to ensure that no community receives a shipment of hazardous waste such as PCBs before the receiving site has been permitted. Recent amendments made by the Minister of Environment do not yet ensure that such breaches of the regulations are adequately policed, We will watch carefully to see what changes are proposed, which ones are carried out and what kind of policing and monitoring is going to take place in this province under the promises of the government and the recognition by so many British Columbians that the environment is far more important than we have previously made it to be.

In the area of energy, mines and petroleum resources where I critique the ministry, I look forward to the Mines Act amendments because we definitely need "...improved protection for mine workers, and greater environmental and reclamation standards."

What I must oppose is the distortion of the democratic process which is being achieved by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) in the Vancouver Island gas pipeline issue. Mr. Speaker, the government has promised whatever actions necessary to accelerate to completion the Vancouver Island gas pipeline: that is, whatever actions are necessary — without condition. This is in the face of current hearings by the B.C. Utilities Commission into the feasibility of the pipeline proposal. "Is it feasible?" the commission is told to say, while the minister is saying: "We shall go ahead anyway."

The government's unequivocal declarations constitute a significant club over the head of the commission. The government has imposed a time deadline on the commission, which is a first step in the

[ Page 5751 ]

withdrawal of the democratic process. Now it states its determination to proceed, no matter what. And what will be the cost?

Is the commission to buckle under and say: "Go ahead, we can't stop you"? What happens if the commission — even from its extremely time-limited hearings — finds that a large degree of higher environmental and other costs would be related to the proposal? What happens then? Who's going to bear these costs? These are costs that the government says will have no bearing on its push to a hasty completion of the pipeline. So will the consumer pay? If the consumer pays, what proportion of that will be residential or industrial?

Or if the consumer isn't going to pay, will the taxpayers pay? How are the taxpayers going to know what the load is going to be? Do we have another great megaproject that the government decides it needs for its own electoral success and is pushing it ahead, no matter what the consequences as far as costs are concerned?

How does the minister justify this short-circuiting of the commission? A process has been fouled; the commission is being insulted. The people of the province deserve due process, and in this case, due process has been denied. If the minister has any defence for his bulldozing, he has chosen to state none. His obvious goal is to snatch the federal $150 million before it is withdrawn; therefore he's willing to do anything. It's some spectacle, Mr. Speaker. The distortion of the democratic process by this election "gimme-game" makes British Columbians the losers, no matter which way it goes.

I am looking forward to action on the establishment of a ministry of state for women. I'm wondering if it will address the needs and aspirations of most women in the province, and I hope it will. I think it's an excellent time to establish an advisory committee to help establish the goals for that industry.

The throne speech has certainly inspirited me. I look forward to a lively and productive third session of the thirty-fourth parliament.

MR. BRUCE: It's a pleasure indeed to rise today and speak in support of the throne speech. I happen to think it is a good throne speech. That's not to say that all throne speeches are good throne speeches, but in this instance it is a good throne speech. I think the opposition should take that into account in the remarks they have been making, and I've noted a trend through some of their remarks that they do think that, in many parts, it is a good throne speech. But when you're government, there is a very fine line between leading and following. We've heard a number of things, particularly from the Leader of the Opposition, on the aspects of following, being behind, leading and the like. I think it's important that we talk about that a little bit.

This throne speech does listen to the people; it truly does. When one listens and hears what's going on in respect to the environmental issues.... Granted it has been said for some time, but this government is taking the lead today in regard to the environmental issues. That's happening around the world and certainly across this country, and it's certainly happening here in the province of British Columbia. We are listening to the people of British Columbia. We are providing leadership.

When you look at the throne speech, what's being said in regard to education, and what's just been announced most recently in respect to advanced education and new placement opportunities for people to gain advanced education, there's definitely leadership being provided there. We're maintaining the balance. Most importantly — and I think most importantly for the opposition to understand — we're maintaining the balance in providing a strong and viable economy so that we can do those other things: those good social programs that are necessary and important for the people of British Columbia. Of course, tomorrow we will hear much more in regard to the economy and the state of the financial affairs of this province with probably one of the best budget speeches that has ever been presented here in the House for the province of British Columbia.

When I listen to the Leader of the Opposition, I wonder what it is he and the rest stand for. What are they really in favour of, and what are they opposed to? I quote the Leader of the Opposition in the throne speech of 1988: "This government is unrepresentative of the needs and aspirations of the average British Columbian, and it's unresponsive to the opinions and ideas. It is out of touch with British Columbians." Then, if you listen to the quote in the throne speech of 1989, he says: "It's clear that the people of British Columbia are way ahead of this government. It's clear that for this government to find out what British Columbians are concerned about, they have to check the polls." Well, what are the polls?

Certainly there are polls done by professional pollsters; then there are polls done by having a whole array of standing committees and special committees touring the province and listening to what the people of British Columbia want. Then he says: "British Columbians know what the challenges are. We don't want another study; we want solutions." Well, what's it to be, Mr. Leader of the Opposition? Do you want consultation, or do you want to just ram it down the throats of British Columbians? Is that what a socialist government would be: ramming their policies down the throats of British Columbians? Or would you go out and listen and talk to the people of British Columbia and find out what it is they want?

This government understands that. This government has gone to the people, and this government believes in consultation. Check the record. You had the Forests and Lands Committee, Project Pride, the Rabbitt committee on recycling, the Sullivan report on education — an excellent report — and a host of other reports that have been done.

MR. PETERSON: With affirmative action following.

[ Page 5752 ]

MR. BRUCE: Thank you, my colleague. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, this government does believe in consultation.

I would like to offer a little advice to the Leader of the Opposition. It doesn't come from me, but from a former member of their party, Mr. Alex Macdonald — the longest sitting MLA in NDP history. This is a little advice they should take to heart. He says: "We spout clichés because we are not thinking things through.... Socialist movements everywhere are in a quandary, one that faced the CCF in 1943 and faces the NDP today..."how much in the way of principles should be spent, or thrown away, in order to win votes?" Does that mean that all of a sudden the socialists of this province are becoming free enterprisers? Is that what Alex Macdonald was talking about? Should they throw it away and let the socialist principles go? Have they seen the light? Will they now become free-enterprisers? I wonder just how far they will go for political expediency. Oh, it pains my heart to wonder how far they will go.

Let us go back to what Mr. Macdonald said. "We spout clichés because we are not thinking things through." Important words, my colleagues; I hope you take them to heart. The people of British Columbia know what the socialists stand for. Oh, by golly, they know. Let me quote part of the constitution of the New Democratic Party: "The production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people and not for profit." Well, by golly, the people of British Columbia understand that very well.

[4:00]

It was interesting to listen the other day when the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) was speaking. He was somewhat gloating — and I give that to him — in regard to the by-elections. I congratulate those new members that have been elected through those by-elections to sit here in the House. He was going on at some great length on the fact that they had won not one, not two, not three, but four by-elections, that they were on a roll, and that those of us here who believe in free enterprise and the right of individual expression and the need to climb as high as one can in an effort to bring others with you.... He'd gone on at great lengths about these by-election wins. I thought that was quite interesting. I thought to myself that that was good for the by-election wins, but who won the general election in 1952? In 1953? In 1956? In '60, '63, '66, '69? And then there was a little blip in '72. Gosh, the people of British Columbia knew what they'd done wrong. Then we won it again in '75, '79, '83 and '86. So let them have those four by-elections. One general election out of 12, Mr. Speaker. And today, in this great country of Canada, only one government is a socialist government.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, ordinary and average Canadians truly understand what good government is all about. They know, when it comes to a general election, who they want to represent them and to govern the affairs of this province.

It always amazes me. I wonder sometimes: who are these ordinary, average Canadians they always mention? Is it average Canadians, or is it average ordinary or ordinary average? I don't know.

Are they the teachers, who are entrusted with ensuring the future of this province, of this country, of teaching our young people? They surely aren't ordinary or average Canadians. They provide a great service to the people of the province of British Columbia. It can't be the loggers, who are daily faced with very difficult and dangerous situations, and who help to forge the economy and provide a strong and viable economic base for us. It can't be the fishermen out on the high seas, or the miners down in the shafts or working on the pits — another dangerous job — or the truck drivers who move the goods and services throughout this province.

Who are the ordinary and average Canadians? It can't be the mentally or physically challenged; by golly, they are more extraordinary than most of us sitting here in the House. Or the nurses who provide care and concern for people in sickness or time of trouble. Or our ambulance drivers.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? I don't believe there are ordinary or average Canadians. In Canada, in British Columbia, the people are extraordinary. They are not average; they are not ordinary. They know what they want for the province of British Columbia. It's important for us as a government to listen to the people. It's important for us to understand what by-election losses mean. It's important to hear the concerns and aspirations of people throughout this province. But in the final analysis the people know that they do not want socialism. They have proved it time and time again.

The NDP have come out with much about sustainable development. The other night there was an interesting comment about sustainable development that I caught. I believe it was the Leader of the Opposition who said that sustainable development is economic growth that doesn't harm the environment. Sounds great; sounds absolutely wonderful. It's something we all believe in. But how can you cut down trees without hurting them? How can you build new roads without altering the landscape? How can you transport people and goods without residual effect on the environment? How can you mine without removing minerals from the earth?

Yes, it sounds good, sustainable development. I quote again: "Sustainable development is economic-dc growth that doesn't harm the environment." Alex Macdonald, where are you when they need you? Let me quote again: "We spout clichés because we are not thinking things through." I believe it's important that they do think things through.

Let me come to a little community in my constituency, the community of Lake Cowichan, one that has faced some difficult times in the last few days, finding itself in the throes of fighting for its own survival. And believe you me, this community will survive.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) in his comments here made some mention in respect to me. He says: "Let's show some defence in terms of the production jobs of the people in your constituency."

[ Page 5753 ]

I'll tell you, there's nobody in the constituency of Cowichan-Malahat or in the province of British Columbia who will fight for those jobs and those people in Cowichan-Malahat harder than I will. When those announcements came through, it was I who called for a full investigation — and got it. It was I who called for restraint on log exports — and got it.

I don't mind taking the heat from the Premier. I don't mind taking the heat from cabinet or from members of caucus if it's necessary. But when it comes to the affairs and the ability of the people in my community to live and to prosper in that community, I will stand with them, beside them and in front of them. I don't need some member from another constituency starting to preach to me or telling me to stand up and protect the jobs of the people in my constituency.

On March 22 he said: "I'm totally opposed to raw log exports in this province" — a great statement, another cliché. But on March 26, on the CHEK television program "For the Record," after some questioning by one of the panelists about his statement on raw logs export and the fact that we do export some logs today and that some of those exports are necessary to break into new markets so that we can sell dimensional lumber — this is called linkage — and after some pressing, this same member, who on March 22 had said in this House, "I'm totally opposed to raw log exports in this province," said: "I'm not opposed to looking at the concept of linkages, as long as we're not selling ourselves short." That means that we're not totally opposed to log exports. Where it can be to the advantage of the people of this province, then by all means let us look closely at it and see if we can develop it for the overall advantage of the people of British Columbia. That's what he should have said here on March 22. Where do they stand? Where does the forest critic of the opposition stand? Is he in favour of log exports or is he opposed to log exports? We'll have to wait and see. Again and again it comes back to our good old friend, Mr. Macdonald: "We spout clichés because we're not thinking things through."

A little more seriously, in respect to the forestry situation and that which I find myself in my community and my constituency, and what's happening in Lake Cowichan, it is important that we as a government and all people understand that in the forestry sector there are two major players. The major integrated companies that find themselves in the marketplace today have their shareholders, but there's another set of shareholders that we must be cognizant of and ensure that their fair representation be made: the shareholders of the province of British Columbia. Industry today, the integrated companies, must fully appreciate that they are welcome to do business in the province but that they have two shareholders to answer to when it comes to making adjustments or the rationalization of their operations, as they use that term: one, the shareholders of the corporations which they represent and, two, the people who own that resource, the citizens of British Columbia.

Through all of this, in respect of the forestry sector, which fuels the economy of this province and is what provides us with the social programs, the health programs and the educational programs, there must be room for all: the integrated companies indeed, but truly the independent operators, the contractors, the mom-and-pop shops, the silviculture operators. This government must ensure that there is fair and equal competition in the forestry sector. This government must make sure that the small guy has the opportunity to participate in this forestry sector.

I have called for a royal commission, and I say that not to embarrass the government nor the Minister of Forests. I don't envy his task in the difficult presentations that are made and all that's before him, the pushers and the shovers and all those wanting to participate in the forestry sector. It is a difficult time. But I look at the aspect of a commission or a public review in the forestry sector as the basis for us to be able to tell the story, to set the record straight, to be able to lay out what we are doing well in the forestry sector. There are many things in this province and in this industry that we do well, that are world class, that we lead in. Often when you hear the criticisms of the forestry sector, all you hear about is the negative side. One would almost believe that we know nothing about forestry. In fact, that is not true. I believe that a royal commission on forestry or a public review would allow us to set those benchmarks.

[4:15]

Today, when more than ever before in the history of this province there is that demand, that response, that interest in the forestry sector, it would be good for us to allow the people of this province to speak about it and to understand better what is actually happening in the forestry sector. With that, no doubt, we will hear of those problems faced in this industry, both in the formal sense of forestry and in the larger sense of the environmental issues. In the final analysis, it would be good for all of the citizens of British Columbia, and we'd be able to move into the next decade with a good course set. It would allow us the opportunity, as I say, to speak about what we do well. It would also allow us the opportunity to hear about the concerns and aspirations that the people in the total community of British Columbia wish to offer their comments on.

I think it's extremely important that in this throne speech there has been great mention about the environment. As a member from the opposition mentioned, it is not a partisan issue, and truly it is not. It is a situation that not only big industry must deal with but all of us must deal with. It is one in which government clearly has got to set the trend, and I believe there have been some good first steps.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

It's an educational aspect, dealing with the environment. There are many things that we can do individually as citizens to enhance and improve our own environmental well-being. It's interesting to

[ Page 5754 ]

note that last year I had a meeting in the community of Crofton, where I live.... Of course there has been much said about the dioxin issue and about the blue heron colony.

I arranged a workshop drop-in meeting so that people could come, hear about the dioxin issue and speak with some of the ministry officials involved in it. While I was talking with one citizen there, along with one of the officials from the ministry came another chap who was sucking away on a cigarette as hard as he possibly could. He was deathly concerned about the whole issue of dioxins.

I jokingly said to him, knowing him quite well: "Listen, Bob, you don't need to worry about dioxins one moment." He said: "Why is that, Graham?" I said: "Bob, you'll be a dead a long time from puffing on those cigarettes before the dioxins ever get to you."

It's often that we jump in with respect to environmental issues and get fairly emotional about them when there are things that we could do in our own back yard, each and every one of us. It was interesting to hear another member on the government side speaking about the environmental issue and about white paper and brown paper and the whole bleaching process, which involves the dioxin issue. I'd like to see this government go to brown paper. Let's take the lead. Let's show the world that brown paper is something we can all use as well as white paper, and probably with resounding success. Here is some brown paper already.

Those types of initiatives are small, but they can be fairly meaningful. I believe by what's been stated in the throne speech, and hopefully what we will see in the budget.... I know what we'll see during this session. We will see major initiatives concerning the environmental issues in the province of British Columbia. We will see that it is not something to be taken lightly. It is extremely important for each and every one of us to deal with this.

Where government must deal strongly but fairly and firmly with industry, then so be it. Let us encourage and invite new industry to this province, but the cost of doing business here must ensure a healthy and clean environment. Let us build that into the equation. I have great faith that we will follow in that direction and indeed will lead in that direction.

I was also interested to hear in the throne speech about the round-table discussion relative to the native Indians. I urge the government to reach out with a strong commitment to the native Indian population of our province. Let us re-examine our policies, if need be, to assist the native Indian people in achieving a full and equal standard of living. We must deal with the injustices that are real or perceived, but there truly is a need for us as a government to take that leadership.

I speak often with the chief of the Cowichan Indian band, which, incidentally, is the largest Indian band in British Columbia. I know him well. He and I have grown up together, and I know the weight that he feels on his shoulders in dealing with many of the social and economic problems faced by his people.

He has said to me: "If there is a way you can help, please help; but we must, in the end, do it ourselves."

For the eight years that I was mayor of that community, and now these few years as the MLA, if there is one thing that I am able to accomplish that I would really like to accomplish, it is to improve and enhance both the social and economic standards of living for the Indian people in my community and in this province. The round-table meetings are a good step; they are a step in the right direction. I urge the government to let them be meaningful and let them be productive.

Canada is the greatest experiment of living in harmony you will find anywhere in the world. I have had the good fortune of travelling much of this world. We in this country have an opportunity that few others in this world will ever experience. This is a country of cultures living together. Whether it is dealing with the concerns and the aspirations of the Indian people, whether it's dealing with the two-language concern — the French and the English — or the whole rest of the multiculturalism aspect of this country, let us remember that this is a country of peoples as diverse as the world is large, living in harmony.

There is no country in the world like Canada. There is no province in Canada like British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Dewdney requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. JACOBSEN: In the Legislature this afternoon are my wife, Launi; our son Tory, who will be celebrating his tenth birthday tomorrow; and our daughter Heidi, who will be eight in about a week and a half. I would like the House to give them a very special welcome.

MR. BARLEE: I will try not to be too partisan in this, but I will probably end up being fairly partisan. I am referring to the Delcan report on highways, which is of some concern to my constituents in Boundary-Similkameen. After a close perusal of the report and the recommendations therein, there seemed to be five major flaws — or perhaps oversights. I would like to point these out to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant), the hon. second member for Cariboo.

Firstly, as the hon. member for Cariboo knows, and as you know, Mr. Speaker, the Hope-Princeton Highway was completed in 1949, about 40 years ago. Much of it, in fact, follows the historic Dewdney Trail of the 1860s. In those days it was called the All-Red Route. It took prospectors and gold-miners all through the interior, into places that are largely forgotten now, places like Vermilion Forks, Granite City, Phoenix and some places that still stand, places like Hedley, Rossland and Greenwood.

A lot of rather fascinating characters walked along that particular trail. One of them was a guy who called himself Willie Williams. He referred to himself as the highest judge in the highest court in the

[ Page 5755 ]

highest city in Canada. He was 6 feet 8 inches tall, so he was indeed the highest judge in Phoenix; it was the highest court in Phoenix because it was the only court in Phoenix; at that time, that now vanished town was the highest city in Canada at almost one mile in altitude.

There are other characters as well. One of them the hon. member would like. His name was Father Pat, an Anglican priest who wandered all through the mining camps of the Pacific slope. Father Pat Irwin was an Anglican priest who saved souls by words, but often fought with his fists.

One of the other characters was a man called Scott McRae. He was, I think, notorious in the Greenwood area because he was the man who wrote the song "Home on the Range." He called it "The Miner's Lament." If you examine the words of "Home on the Range," it is not a cowboy song; it is a miner's song. It says: "Where seldom is heard a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day." No prospector wants to go out and prospect and hear a discouraging word, nor does he want to go and prospect when the skies are cloudy or when it's raining.

This is kind of unique country. Its mining towns of the past.... This highway, the Hope-Princeton, has served the interior and its people well for four decades. Unfortunately, the highway has by and large been ignored by the Delcan report. I drive this highway about ten times a month. I have never seen the Hope-Princeton in such poor condition. In fact, yesterday when I came over it, I decided to count how many cracks there were right across the highway in two miles. The figure was 107. This highway is little more than a goat-path.

I would anticipate that the hon. member for Cariboo would realize the importance of the Hope-Princeton and Highway 3 to the southern interior. This highway has to be upgraded, and there is no indication that it will be upgraded in the recommendations of the Delcan report. The highway itself has only four major obstacles: one is a place called the Bluffs; another is the Similkameen Canyon, which is almost impassable; the third is Copper Creek; and the fourth is Whipsaw Creek. All of these obstacles are among the most dangerous obstacles in British Columbia, as far as highway accidents are concerned. So it has to be upgraded, and it's high time it was upgraded.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member for Cariboo that under the Delcan report the southern Okanagan, the Similkameen and the Boundary district are not only ignored from the Hope-Princeton and Highway 3 perspective, but we are also treated as, I would think, poor second cousins. The extension known as the Okanagan connector perhaps should be more correctly known as the Kelowna connector, because that proposed extension benefits Kelowna mightily but serves the south Okanagan very poorly. There are several reasons for this. One is the proposed exit on the Okanagan connector. It is a 30-mile-an-hour hairpin turn, and once this exit is missed, there is no second chance. We think there should be two exits. There should be an alternative exit many miles up the Hope-Princeton or west of the Okanagan connector. I think the fine example there is Hope. Hope has two exits both ways. But once the Coquihalla was completed, Hope suffered economically, disastrously.

I think that independent studies have projected rather interesting figures. One is that when this Okanagan connector is finished, we will lose 1,600 cars per day in July and August. That's nearly 50,000 cars a month. At two persons per car that's 100,000 people a month, mainly tourists in July and August. Tourism is one of the economic mainstays of my constituency; many of the small businesses depend upon it. We cannot afford such a heavy economic drain. We don't want another Hope. I would hope that the hon. member for Cariboo, the Minister of Highways, will take steps to build an alternative 22-kilometre exit to the south Okanagan route on the Okanagan connector.

[4:30]

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out to the hon. member for Cariboo that my constituents are deeply concerned about the condition of and the failure to upgrade Highway 97. Highway 97 is an international highway. It runs north and south in both the United States and Canada, but on the Canadian side it has some classic obstacles. Two of these danger spots are called Graveyard Hill and Deadman's Lake. It's a tough highway. But from Peachland to the border this highway by and large has been ignored by the Delcan report. Highway 97 should be four-laned from Peachland to the border. It's the lifeline of the south Okanagan. All along that route little towns like Oliver and Osoyoos and Okanagan Falls, and Penticton too, depend upon it to bring tourism into the south Okanagan, which we need.

I hope the hon. member for Cariboo will consider the impact of the plans under the Delcan report, and that it does not serve our constituency very well. Boundary-Similkameen has an unemployment rate of 17.6 percent. When everything else is considered — the welfare recipients, the people who don't qualify, Indians and so on — our true unemployment rate is just over 30 percent. I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. minister from Cariboo will rectify these mistakes, which if carried through would impact negatively on Boundary-Similkameen. We cannot afford such a highway.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to conclude the debate this afternoon on behalf of the opposition benches, as we finish our six days of discussion of what the future holds for us in this thirty-fourth parliament.

I believe the most important initiatives of government in this session will be those related to education, in policy that has already been announced by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), in legislation which the throne speech announces will be presented during this session, and in the budget, of which we have some presentiments in earlier an-

[ Page 5756 ]

nouncements by the minister, with further detail to follow tomorrow. The government is taking steps that will have very important results in the education of our children, and because they are our principal resource, the education of our children has wonderfully important implications for the future of the province.

I'm speaking today for the first time in my role as education critic for the New Democratic Party caucus, and in that role I want to be able to very strongly reflect something that I know exists in the community at large, and that is support for education. I think all of us in this House acknowledge and recognize that. It has been manifest in many ways, but most specifically in the report of the Royal Commission on Education, "A Legacy for Learners."

I'd like, at this time, to acknowledge the work of Mr. Barry Sullivan in the preparation of that report, which he did during a time that was very difficult for him and his family. I believe that he presented a model in the preparation of that report: a model of hard work among the parties who prepared it and of consensus-building toward its final recommendations.

It speaks with a voice that represents young families and students both young and in their lifelong learning mode as well as people in the economic fields of business and industry and older people who look upon education as an opportunity for their grandchildren. It speaks of educational opportunity, quality and access.

I think it's worthwhile to look at some of the conclusions that Mr. Sullivan and the hard-working members of his commission arrived at in what they called "The Challenge." He speaks about education as a vital provincial resource, its importance to the youngsters who attend our schools, the importance of the teachers who work with these students daily and the importance of parents and many organizations in helping to shape the character of schooling. Education is a community and a cooperative enterprise that requires a tremendous amount of energy and dedication on the part of all of us.

Throughout the report he notes the imperative for change, renewal and transformation. He notes that the report is but the first step in what he calls "a larger and more instrumental process." He describes that process, and I think it is one that we should note as a guide for us. He calls it a truly difficult task, and he bequeaths that task to school governance officials at provincial and local levels, school staffs, their communities and representatives of professional and other educational organizations. He challenges people to work together cooperatively to develop structures, processes and avenues of communication that will allow for the discussion and resolution of competing democratic ideals and values — very much emphasizing the need for public participation in educational matters.

Against this background, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments in the time available about the beginning of the implementation of recommendations of the royal commission. I want first to commend the Minister of Education for his prompt action in dealing with one of the first recommendations: to set up an education policy advisory committee and to define a process for consultation leading to the decisions that the minister, the cabinet and this government would take around policy and the long-awaited rewriting of the School Act.

That particular initiative has provided opportunities for the public and for what we call stakeholders — trustees, teachers, senior officials, parent representatives and representatives of the community at large — to have input into government policy — under a very tight timetable, I might note. But the government made it clear that it wanted to act and to act quickly.

I think it's worthwhile to look at some of the first initiatives that have been taken, some of the problems that have arisen from those initiatives and some of the concerns, so that we may learn from those first initiatives.

The very first action coming out of the royal commission implementation plan relates to the early years of schooling: kindergarten and primary. I think that's quite symbolic, because these are the youngest children coming into our system, and we all know that what they experience in their early years of schooling sets the stage for their educational opportunity and success, the development of those children — both personally and as citizens in a democracy  — and the choices that they will then make to participate in our society and economy.

Let me get very specific around some of the details of the first policy implementation and what has occurred over the two months, almost to the day, since the minister first announced a number of policy initiatives stemming from government decisions. The announcement relating to kindergarten and primary has, in fact, two policies in its components. One is that students will be able to enter kindergarten twice a year, in September and January, with an implementation date of January 1990. The second is that the government plans to upgrade the primary system — something that has been stated but not yet really very thoroughly and clearly defined.

The timetable is incredibly short. We are talking about a change in the most important initial stages of education and a very significant part of a student's school years: four years out of 13, almost a third of a student's school experience. It is significant that the initiative to move with dual entry has come before the initiative to upgrade the system. We are going to be dealing with some reformatting of curriculum in September 1989, but the initiative of the minister was that by January 1990 there would be dual entry and it would be mandatory.

We know how important it is that this policy should be implemented well; in other words, that this reform, this transformation — and it is a transformation — of early childhood education should be accomplished educationally, logistically and strategically in the very best possible way. That means that the government through its Ministry of Education has to be sure that the policy is understood, that there is

[ Page 5757 ]

time, that there are tools to do the job, that the decisions about the actual implementation can be taken at the local level where the delivery of education in fact occurs, and that the time guidelines and the actual changes are achievable.

In other words, it is important that the policy should enable those people who implement the policy to do their job. It should not prescribe; it should enable. I want to emphasize those words, because I think one of the most important characteristics we must have in the implementations of change is that approach of enabling and not prescribing. We don't want a central system, because it doesn't work. Education is delivered at the local level through our local school districts. I have to say that we have moved from prescription, which I think was the wrong approach, to a more enabling approach. The minister's leadership has been — to put it in a descriptive word — mushy around the implementation of this very important change. I know that the minister is eager for this change to occur. I know that he wants to see action. I believe that he wants the change to be successful.

Let me just walk through the positions that the minister has taken. I take this from his own policy document of just this month, three weeks ago today, on March 7, 1989, where he states that the initiation of this program is mandatory. He then goes on to say that he has had subsequent advice and that it may in fact be optional if a school finds it impossible to proceed on schedule. Then yesterday, obviously with some further advice, the minister noted that not only might schools opt out but districts might opt out. I want to put this in the context of school districts that are at this stage looking to accommodate possibly thousands of additional children in 1990, with a curriculum that has not yet been defined and with various other processes still very much under examination and review by a whole lot of prestigious committees that are working very hard.

The ambiguous and shifting sands of the implementation of this policy are simply not good news for people in the system. The people in the system — and I think the minister, who has just joined us, knows this as I do — are committed to doing their work in a highly professional and skilled way. I use the minister's own words because they have been wise words. He has talked about the enthusiasm and expertise of teachers. He has talked about the need for a broad consultation process. But the implementation path that we have followed has left school districts dealing with a shifting set of directions from the minister.

[4:45]

The minister's broad guidelines of four years for the implementation of this policy are reasonable. I think most people, whether they be parents or teachers or trustees, believe they can work within those guidelines. I would have been, and people in the field would have been, much happier if the minister had started his implementation process with that kind of optional perspective, because of the very significant changes taking place. But he hasn't, and there is uncertainty and anxiety in the system.

I hope the message is now clear and consistent that there is indeed a total option available; not just an option that says, "if it is impossible to implement," but one that's couched in more positive terms: when the school system in the district is ready with teachers and facilities and program in place, that district will implement. In that four-year timetable, I think all districts will do that and do it well. Some of them, indeed, are ready and will do it well within this first year.

I hope the kind of process the minister has followed with this first procedure has proved the advantage of the enabling rather than the prescriptive approach, one that allows for ongoing consultation and discussion. If that is the case, I'm hopeful that the ongoing implementation will go more smoothly and we will have the kind of transformation we are seeking.

There is one major reform the minister and government have decided to delay for one year, the reform of taxation and funding. There will be a year's study, which I understand the minister intends to complete by next January. That means that in this current year there'll be no change in the funding formula and no taxation reform as it pertains to education. Those reforms are a year away. I'm concerned about that, and I think the taxpayers of the province are concerned about that.

We know that the delay in that reform is bad news for residential taxpayers. Looking at the minister's annual report with its wonderful graphs — I wish I could show them in the House — we know that the proportion of educational funding being paid by residential taxpayers has been going up faster than the proportions paid by other parties who participate in the shared funding. We know that the percentage has gone over the formula the government is seeking. And we know that because of certain things happening in the real estate market, we're going to see people in certain areas of the province facing very large residential tax increases; that will simply be compounded in the next tax year if there is no reform.

I would like to urge at this time — and I'll be speaking further to this in the budget debate — that some interim measures need to be in place for this year to protect residential taxpayers through that change. Funding, taxation and changes in the system go hand in hand, and I would have been much more pleased if the minister had decided he would be prepared, with his government, to go ahead with those changes in this year. Since it's clearly announced he will not be making any major reforms this year, then I think it important that there be initiatives to protect, particularly, the residential taxpayer from unreasonable tax increases.

There are many aspects of the royal commission that I hope we will have some opportunity to discuss, perhaps on opposition days, throughout the period until the minister tables in the House the school act which is presently in draft form and out for consult-

[ Page 5758 ]

ation. There are many initiatives in the policies that have been announced by the minister that need discussion. I know the minister is going to continue with his work with the education policy advisory committee around those issues. I would hope that we might have some opportunity to discuss some of them in the House.

I want to flag just a couple because they are so important to the future of education. One of them is what happens in the secondary system, which is the other area of policy initiatives the government has announced that still requires a great deal of consultation and clarification in order that we understand it. The idea that we need to have a system that's more open to the many students who don't complete their secondary education, with more flexibility and choice, is something we all agree upon. I would submit that how that is delivered — where we really begin to work on encouraging those students to stay in the system — means that we need to look not just at grades 11 and 12 but at the whole secondary system as almost a second kind of school entry. The adolescent period from grades 7 through 10 is really critical, both because of the decisions people take to stay in or out of the system and the choices they make.

Another area that I think is very important for us to look at is English as a second language. It's an area that we really haven't done our homework on. I don't think that Mr. Sullivan and his commission have really done sufficient homework in that area, either. I would hope that in the weeks ahead, as we look forward to the school act, there will be some good discussion around how we serve that population.

Finally on the issue of education, I would like us to have some opportunity — which we will, I know, when the school act is debated — to look at the proposed mandate statement. It's a good mandate statement; for the first time we have something before us as a guide to that act. I think there is one missing element in that statement that I would like us to be able to consider: one that looks at the role of schools in preparing students to participate in a democratic society and in their communities. I would suggest that a modest change in wording would make that initial mandate statement a very good one; indeed, a superb statement. Those kinds of initiatives are ones we need to encourage for our children if they are to be full participants in a society and economy of which they are to be heirs. That mandate statement is, if you like, a real statement of principle, on which there should be the broadest consensus.

I look forward, then, to much discussion around education issues. I hope to be a constructive critic in the work that we will be doing in this session. I look forward to opportunities to work with members of the House as we move through our discussion of policy, legislation and budget.

I would now just like to turn to another area for a very brief comment. My other area of responsibility on behalf of my caucus is speaking on behalf of the retired people — the seniors — of the province. I would like to speak of the initiatives which the government has indicated in its throne speech it will be taking on behalf of seniors. I think it calls them "Strategies for Improving the Lives of British Columbia's Seniors." I hope they are very practical hands-on strategies. Over the last two or three years this government has not done its work in improving the lives of seniors. It has robbed seniors of some of their hard-earned dollars through user fees, and it has imposed more taxes on seniors than they have ever experienced before.

Seniors are prepared to pay their way and are important contributors to our economy. There are areas in which the government must begin to act if they are to continue to be the best contributors they can be as independent people in our society. I want to particularly draw attention to the need for housing reform, of which there is no clear mention in the throne speech. There needs to be, in the initiatives government is taking, action toward innovative housing, better community support services and co-funding for community groups that tap volunteer support for seniors. I am hoping that the budget speech tomorrow will deliver on the government's promise made by the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) yesterday that there will be significant improvements in the SAFER program — the elderly renter program — to protect people from the high rents that are taking 50 and 60 percent of their income.

Strategies, task forces and advisory committees are useful, but at this stage of the game I think seniors have already provided the government with many practical initiatives on which it can act now. I would hope that in addition to the better consultation that I read government intends to engage in — in the throne speech that is promised — we are going to see practical strategies, practical initiatives, to help seniors in their pocketbooks and in the services they require.

I welcome the fact that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), I presume, will be introducing a continuing care act. We have had continuing care in this province for a long time without any kind of legislative mandate. That is indeed an initiative that I think the minister also recognizes is overdue. We look forward to it. [Applause.]

Interjections.

MS. A. HAGEN: Commendation, but with some strings.

I hope that particular initiative carries with it some real commitments to the rights of seniors to care and service and to their right to have those services within the health care system without user fees. We will be looking to see whether that really does enable seniors to continue to live and work in their communities with the kind of support they need.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech has indeed indicated that we have a lot of work ahead of us. We have work to do that is in fact enabling; we have work to do that recognizes the community in the fields of education and health care. This government has had

[ Page 5759 ]

a tendency to do things behind closed doors; it has had a tendency not to consult. But we have seen some improvements, both in the reaction of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) and in what the throne speech promises. The citizens of the province don't want lip-service to that, though. That kind of action is of no significance, unless the way in which it is carried out empowers people at the local level to do the work they need to do.

I would urge again that we make certain that, having made some good initiatives in social services and education, this government doesn't deal with them with a lack of leadership, and for political gain.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago my colleague the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) spoke in glowing terms about what we believe is the best constituency in the province: our constituency of Richmond. I want to wholeheartedly endorse everything that was said and add that the people of Richmond are truly a community-minded people. I always marvel that whenever we have a particular cause that requires community support, we see people come out in great numbers, give generously and become very involved. Similarly, I think it is fair to say that the people are extremely objective. They become involved in all debates that take place in the constituency and in the municipality. But when all is said and done and it's finally over, they tend to be fairly agreeable on the issue that might have divided them initially. They are certainly a very free enterprise and industrious people. That's obvious throughout the whole of that beautiful constituency of Richmond.

[5:00]

It's a proud community which is well planned. It has a good, balanced economy; it has a strong assessment base; it has great schools. I have had the pleasure of visiting a good number of those schools, though it is my hope to visit all of them before too long.

We've got good health facilities and good social service facilities.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: And good MLAs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Thank you, Mr. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

We have a few problems, Mr. Speaker, and fortunately we're addressing them. Transportation is always a problem in Richmond, in that, being located where we are, we have a lot of people coming through from other municipalities in greater Vancouver. It's a place that obviously sees a lot of traffic, particularly from Delta, Surrey, Langley, and so forth. But it's being addressed. The east-west freeway will soon be completed. There is a great deal of activity in highway building, and hopefully the 99 may be widened to further accommodate the pressure there. One day soon, hopefully in the not too distant future, we may see some alternative to or improvement in the tunnel, because it has become a considerable problem.

We also have transit needs, but I am very pleased, Madam Minister responsible for transit, that we're getting some extra buses. This, I'm sure, will take much of the pressure off.

We're a growing municipality. We're building more schools, we're expanding existing schools, and we're also providing facilities for the handicapped.

There is much I can say about the constituency, but as I said, the second member has already covered much of this. I only endorse all he has said and add some to it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The throne speech shows, I am sure all would agree, a very positive and determined direction for this government. It's a blueprint, a vision for the coming decade. We're not just governing for today; we're looking at the future and how we provide for our children and our children's children, to ensure that they too will have a good future in our province.

I guess in the House we tend to compare, from time to time, what we've done during the last year, or the last several years, with what took place during other times. I would like to make a statement, and I'm sure the majority, if not all, would agree with it. We've done a whole lot more in less time than the NDP did during their turbulent years between 1972 and 1975.

Mr. Speaker, we often hear the calls for more of one thing or more of another or a needed service in a particular area — and that's fair and good. But, again, let's compare. As I said, we've had a shorter period than all of those NDP years. And did the NDP have a royal commission into education? No. Did they have a strategy for seniors? No. Did the NDP develop a transportation plan?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Did the NDP have a plan for the chronically unemployed, or even suggest such a plan?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Did the NDP develop a justice reform plan?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Did they have a long-term energy plan for the province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Did the NDP develop a long-term strategic plan for the province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What did the NDP do, Mr. Speaker? They went from a balanced budget to a deficit budget, while we went from a deficit budget to a balanced budget.

[ Page 5760 ]

They introduced labour legislation, and they had to recall the Legislature to get the workers back seven times, I believe it was. We introduced labour legislation, and we've had some of the quietest labour relations in this province for years.

Our economy has never been better. We've attracted record capital investment, in spite of the Leader of the Opposition's statement a year or so ago, when he said that British Columbia was a poor choice for investors. We have more people working today than ever before in this province. But still the throne speech, and fairly so, recognizes that we do have problems that must be addressed, and that we will be addressing those problems. It's recognized that we are a very attractive place, that people from other lands and other parts of this country want to move to British Columbia in ever-increasing numbers. And that, obviously, puts great pressure on the government and on people generally to try and keep on providing greater employment opportunities.

It is recognized that we, as most other places in the country, on the continent, perhaps in the world, have a problem in finding sufficient employment for young people or young seniors. For that reason, we're establishing a task force on employment for those particular categories, and we seek the involvement of all MLAs. We ask for the participation of labour and management, of all interest groups, because each and every one of us, regardless of our philosophy, need to be concerned, and must assist in addressing that particular problem, so that once again British Columbia can be first in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, in an expanding economy there are obviously other pressures, not the least of which is the one we're experiencing with respect to housing. We do have a problem keeping up with the housing stock required. I know that all of us in the House today, and those who are watching or listening, will agree that there is tremendous growth. Building is taking place throughout the whole of the province, in every community, particularly so in the lower part of Vancouver Island and in greater Vancouver. But we still do not have a sufficient stock of rental housing. That's why the provincial housing action plan will be sweeping and innovative, dealing with home ownership, rental assistance and rental supply.

Over the last several years we in this province have built a new economy, an economy which is much more diverse than it was and where diversification is taking place everyday, in all parts of this province. I've said it before and I say it again: our government is concerned about every part of this province. We're proud and pleased that the forest industry has been doing well. It's good that the mining industry is growing and expanding and that we're seeing the opening of new mines. It's good that tourism has been at an all-time high, and it's great that agriculture is strong and continues to grow. We're very pleased as well that we've become leaders in such areas as subsea technology, biotechnology, electronics and telecommunications, and that we're seeing manufacturing growth in all parts of this province. That type of diversity will give our province and its people a security that exists nowhere else in this country.

There's been some criticism from some members in the opposition about the regionalization program. But I hear no opposition when I travel through the province, in communities like Oliver, Armstrong, Grand Forks, Cranbrook, Prince Rupert, Prince George, Dawson Creek, where people now have an opportunity for greater input into what it is we do collectively in order to ensure them a greater say in what takes place in their particular regions. And who better to decide than the people locally? This idea of big government that the opposition has been talking about, of all things being decided in Victoria or Vancouver, is not what's best for this province in the long haul. We need to involve the people in the Okanagan. We need to involve the people in the Kootenays, in the Cariboo or wherever, whatever the part of this province. The results are tremendous. It's paying off.

It gave me a great deal of pride when I saw how the mayor of Oliver, with his council, picked up on this regionalization and became very much a part of it, took their own initiatives and said: "We believe in regionalization. There are things we can do in working with the MLA, with the government, with the minister of state, taking our own initiatives to see things happen in a community like Oliver." I was there two weeks ago when we broke ground for a new bitters plant. They'll be employing from 60 to 80 people, and that's something for a community of only about 2,500. Their product is being exported largely to the United States. A German company has come in; they believe in this province, in this government. They know we've got a good free enterprise system, they're investing, and they're employing people.

While there, I was able to announce with the mayor the coming this summer of another new industry as well, an apple brandy plant — or, as some might know it, a schnapps production plant. They'll be employing about 100 people in that particular plant, exporting their product largely to the United States. Now we've got 180 jobs. The mayor called me a week ago, Mr. First Member for Boundary Similkameen — I know how interested in and how close you've been to all of this — and said another industry will soon be announced for his community of Oliver. It's growing, it's prospering, the people are involved, and they're happy with free enterprise.

In Prince George we were able to build an environmentally better chemical plant. A great asset, a great tribute to Prince George, providing jobs and opportunities for the people there and giving us that needed diversification. In Armstrong, a food processing plant; in Nanaimo, a ferrochromium plant; in Taylor, a petrochemical plant; in Coquitlam, an electronics plant; right here in Victoria, the development of the Songhees lands; and the list goes on and on. That's regional development at its best.

[5:15]

Mr. Minister of Finance, you certainly have to be commended, and we look forward to your message tomorrow, because, as the throne speech said, the provincial budget, in its achievement, will not be

[ Page 5761 ]

matched by any other province. We are unwavering "in our commitment to balance the budget," said the throne speech. That's why there is this confidence from the investment community.

As we look at governments throughout this country, provincial governments and the federal government, when we see what's happening to interest rates, when we see our young people burdened with payments far beyond what they initially bargained for, when we see small businesses suffering and perhaps closing down, having to lay off people across the country because of high interest rates, we have to keep reminding those other governments that if every provincial government and the federal government in this country was as responsible as this government in British Columbia, we would have interest rates not of 15 percent but of 8 percent. The Dominion Bond Rating Service, an impartial agency that assesses the finances for all governments, stated recently: "British Columbia is the best-managed province in Canada." The Investment Dealers' Association of Canada, another impartial body with representatives from all provinces clear across the country, said recently: "Because of good fiscal management, British Columbia offers the best investment potential and promise in the nineties of any province in Canada."

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Leader of the Opposition is again lost somewhere in the province today — as he was last week and most every day — because it would have been helpful had he been here. It would be very helpful if he would be here to listen to these messages, because I think perhaps they need to be told to him. Many of the statements he makes are not just hurting the NDP but hurting the province. He makes statements such as the one we can recall from not too long ago, when he said that the Social Credit government was too occupied with deficit reduction — he called it "macho politics."

If we had listened to that, if we had listened to the opposition and shovelled the money off the back of a truck, we would not have these prestigious financial organizations giving our province such glowing testimonials to our continuing program of building a strong, sustainable economy.

We must, as we've said so often, have a good strong educational system. I'm very proud of the work that's been done by our Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) over these last several years. I'm proud that he was, as all ministers were over these last several years, open with the program, that he took his programs and took the commission report out to the people. that's open government: give the people an opportunity to have their say in how it is we shape policies for this province.

I too commend the tremendous work that was done by Barry Sullivan through the royal commission. Certainly, Barry will always be remembered for the many good things and the tremendous help he has provided to the province in a variety of ways. The Royal Commission on Education is, without a doubt, the finest testimonial.

An additional $3 billion will be spent over the next decade in order to still further improve the educational system in our province. Grants to school districts are up 10 percent this year. A UBC math professor, George Bluman said — and I would ask the opposition members to take this quote very seriously "B.C. students are the best in Canada by a long shot. The public schools in B.C. are particularly strong." Our schools are strong, the system is strong, and the system is growing and prospering.

In advanced education we're providing a 25 percent increase in university spaces over the next six years — 3,000 new spaces already by this fall. We will establish full university degree programs in Kelowna, Kamloops and Nanaimo. Where else in this great country are they able to accomplish what we've accomplished here? We will lay the groundwork for a new degree-granting institution of the north.

We have the finest student support program. We have provided appropriate and increased funding, and we provided universities with an additional $110 million to be matched by the private sector, in order to see expansion at all of our great universities. Again I quote a fine gentleman, UBC president David Strangway, when he said of the government's policies: "We will have a post-secondary system second to none in Canada and competitive with the best in the world."

Our most precious possession in British Columbia is the quality of life we enjoy and our environment. The government is ensuring that economic development takes place, while at the same time requiring that our environment remains totally protected. All environmental legislation and regulations will be reviewed and strengthened if and where necessary. We have a task force on the environment and the economy, and the recommendation for this, certainly for a good part, came from Prime Minister Brundtland of Norway, who recommended that very approach.

The Vancouver Island pipeline will use good, clean Peace River natural gas. The Vancouver Island gas pipeline will replace that dirty imported oil. The Vancouver Island gas pipeline will eliminate the need for much of that tanker traffic in the Inside Passage. The Vancouver Island gas pipeline is a good economic and environmental investment.

Yet the opposition is against the pipeline. The Leader of the Opposition said it was some sort of sham; he couldn't support it. The same Leader of the Opposition more recently said it was a waste of time to go and see the Alaska oil spill, as he sat on his rear....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Duff? No, I wouldn't say that.

As he sat in his living room and was called by someone from the media, he turned off the television and said: "It's a waste of time for the Premier to be looking at an oil spill in Alaska." I say it's never a

[ Page 5762 ]

waste of time to learn more about our environment and the hazards for it.

We're also very fortunate as a people to have a vast amount of parkland. Almost 6 percent of this province is parkland, which I believe, Mr. Minister, is about the biggest on the continent, perhaps with the exception of Alaska; we have more parkland than any place except Alaska. Recently, one of our other great accomplishments was the establishment of the University Endowment Lands park, one of the biggest urban parks in the world, and this government made sure that this park would be there for all people, for all time. Mr. Joe Lotzkar, president of the Federation of B.C. Naturalists said: "British Columbians received one of the world's largest regional parks located within the boundaries of their principal city. That's world class."

Recently, I had an opportunity to test firsthand our health system. I was able to visit Royal Jubilee for a short stay, Richmond General and Vancouver General. I'm very proud to say that we have, Mr. Minister of Health, no doubt the finest health system in the world right here in British Columbia. The facilities, and the people who make up this health system, are second to none. British Columbia is spending more on health care than ever before. The Minister of Health has more than $600 million worth of projects under construction or in the planning stages. Morton Low, coordinator of health sciences at UBC, is quoted as saying: "Our present system is excellent and is more than adequately funded."

[5:30]

I've listened to the Leader of the Opposition — who, as I said, has unfortunately been absent for most of the time, along with other members of the opposition — speak to the throne speech. I've decided, Mr. Speaker, after listening to all of this — and I hate to say this, members of the opposition, because usually I'm very gentle and kind — that I honestly believe you have become bankrupt of ideas for the future. You continue to be prisoners of the past. The NDP socialists want to now embrace the free enterprise system and they want to create wealth. They've suddenly learned that you must make money before you can spend money. Suddenly these socialists have become free-enterprise-thinking. But why did they oppose free trade? Why did they oppose privatization? Why did they oppose deregulation? Why did they oppose the downsizing of government? Mr. Speaker, they're hardly free enterprisers.

The Leader of the Opposition has always opposed innovation and new ideas. He was against the Vancouver Island gas pipeline; he called it a fraud and a sham. He was against Expo: "an unwanted frivolity." He was against ALRT: "a pig in a poke," he said. He was against the Alex Fraser Bridge; he called it a disaster. He was against a trade and convention centre, the Coquihalla, and the list goes on and on.

Then there is Meech Lake. Even when he's for something, we really don't know for how long, because he has to go east — Vancouver East — or over the mountains to really get advice, and he can suddenly change his mind.

In response to what the Leader of the Opposition said, I'd like to make this comment. The Leader of the Opposition always supports something after he knows it will be a success. That particular trait prompted columnist Mike Tytherleigh to describe him as follows: "He's always getting on a horse someone else has saddled."

In his reply to the throne speech the Leader of the Opposition complained that it was filled with study and review, and after saying all that, he then demanded a review of the B.C. forest industry. I want you to listen to this quote; I think it tells it all. "The NDP responds with short-term, knee-jerk, quick fixes to whatever comes up, responses that are often emotional and always opportunistic." "Spouting clichés without thinking things through." Who said that? Former NDP MLA Alex Macdonald. Nobody spouts more clichés and homilies than the Leader of the Opposition.

The NDP continues to be a party without a vision, a party living in the past. We are the party with the vision. Things are happening in all parts of this province. The growth is phenomenal. There's prosperity in all regions. We are acting on education, the environment and the economy. We are seeing progress in this province like never before. British Columbians have time and time again given Social Credit their confidence, and they will do so again and again.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is now on the main motion, pursuant to standing orders. The motion is: "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session."

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 34

NAYS — 20

[ Page 5763 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, just before we adjourn for the day, I would remind the House that tomorrow there will be no sitting in the morning. We sit at 2 o'clock to hear the Finance minister's budget. By agreement with my hon. colleague the opposition House Leader, there will be no question period tomorrow.

I move then that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:42 p.m.