[ Page 9007 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

British Columbia Health Research Foundation Act (Bill 12). Hon. J. Jansen

Introduction and first reading –– 9007

Crown Lands Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 5). Hon. Mr. Parker

Introduction and first reading –– 9007

Throne Speech Debate

Hon. Mr. Messmer –– 9007

Mr. Williams –– 9009

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 9012

Ms. Pullinger –– 9016

Hon. Mr. Michael –– 9019

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 1990

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA HEALTH
RESEARCH FOUNDATION ACT

Hon. J. Jansen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Health Research Foundation Act.

HON. J. JANSEN: The purpose of this bill is to provide for the continuation of the British Columbia Health Care Research Foundation as a statutory corporation under the name of the British Columbia Health Research Foundation. This foundation will receive and manage donations from persons for the support of health research and programs relating to health research.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 12 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.

CROWN LANDS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Parker presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Crown Lands Statutes Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. PARKER: The amendments are part of my ministry's continuing efforts to streamline administration in order to improve service to the public and reduce unnecessary delays.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 5 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.

Orders of the Day

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

(continued)

HON. MR. MESSMER: I hope that everyone had a great weekend. Before adjourning last Thursday, I was speaking about education in the throne speech, and I would like to continue.

Addressing the subject of women, the future looks brighter for women in the workplace, as government has promised pay equity in the public sector. I applaud this long-overdue initiative.

On the B.C. Pension Plan, while we have a high standard of living in the Okanagan, we earn relatively low incomes, so the British Columbia Pension Plan could help many in Boundary-Similkameen: homemakers, small business employers and those living on fixed incomes. This pension plan will augment the income of many people who retire In Boundary-Similkameen.

On the subject of poverty, a society is only as strong as its weakest member; therefore we have not forgotten the disadvantaged. I know that our people who work with human resources will take full advantage of the programs our government is using to attack poverty, assist the disadvantaged and promote areas of social reform.

In the area of high technology, British Columbia is rapidly advancing in high technology and research, and I want Boundary-Similkameen to be an important part of that advancement. To that end, I applaud two recently announced research projects to study technology in the tree-fruit industry. Funding for the orchard renovation program through ARDSA will be doubled. Quality tree-fruits and diversified production are the goals of these projects.

Major changes to the agricultural land development assistance program have been announced. The loans available to farmers at one-half of prime rate will encourage environmental initiatives and the adoption of new technologies.

I am confident that the long-overdue examination of the tree-fruit industry by a commission of inquiry will provide recommendations to strengthen the role of agriculture in Boundary-Similkameen.

As for environmental issues, our main concern has been — and is today — the pollution of lakes in Boundary-Similkameen. Ministry staff — along with the Okanagan Basin Water Board, regional districts and municipalities — have implemented several initiatives to make sure that sewage systems are adequate for the job. In Penticton we are now building the finest sewage treatment plant in all of North America, and I invite all MLAs to tour that facility. Accordingly, I am pleased to see the action that this government is taking. Environmental initiatives announced in the throne speech, such as "Vision 2001," will help people to address the problems of hazardous waste. I look forward to participating in tough but realistic approaches to ending pollution in my constituency and in the province of British Columbia.

As the Minister of Parks, I am particularly pleased and concerned about our province's natural heritage. That natural heritage is represented in our provincial parks, which are a living legacy for us to enjoy today and for British Columbians to enjoy forever.

Before I go any further I would like to say how pleased we are in the Ministry of Parks with the decision of government to protect the truly magnificent trees of the Carmanah Valley. Once again our government is taking a leadership role in protecting the environment and finding solutions which satisfy most British Columbians. We will be pleased to have Carmanah Pacific Provincial Park as park No. 389.

As for our other parks, Mr. Speaker, they are more popular than ever. As you are aware, last year we had a record number of visitors: over 20 million. This is a

[ Page 9008 ]

tribute not only to the natural beauty in our parks, but also to the way government has managed this precious resource. Our parks are truly among the finest in the world.

That is why we will pursue the nomination of Hamber, Mount Robson and Mount Assiniboine Provincial Parks to stand alongside Anthony Island as world heritage sites in British Columbia. We want to place our parks on the international stage alongside other parks, such as Grand Canyon and Yellowstone National Park in the United States.

We are also concerned about improving the protection we give to our parks. Therefore, as mentioned in the throne speech, we will continue to legislate the boundaries of individual parks. We will add a further 23  parks to the list. When the parks are enshrined in legislation, 75 percent of B.C.'s park land base will have legislated boundaries.

Last year when the opposition released their environmental policy paper, they said that if they were the government, this is what they would do. What they didn't know is that this has been our policy for some time, and we've been doing it all along.

Our business community in Boundary-Similkameen is filled with dedicated, enterprising men and women who believe in keeping up with the changing economy. It is people like these who make our region a better place to live in. The throne speech characterized our provincial economic situation as a "fragile prosperity." We must remain diligent to make sure that our prosperity continues.

In the South Okanagan we have been lucky enough to experience slow and steady growth. This is the kind of growth this province is seeking as well. One way to ensure long-lasting prosperity is to make sure that each region in our province is prosperous and that each region has a diverse economy. No region has a more diverse economy than the Okanagan: we have forestry, value-added wood products, fruit, grapes, wine, mining, tourism and manufacturing.

We are experiencing great economic renewal and expansion in the South Okanagan. Incorporations are up 22 percent. Housing starts are up by 40 percent, the highest in the past nine years. The only thing that is  down in business is bankruptcy. Small business is fueling this economic resurgence in the Okanagan. Small business is the engine that drives our provincial economy: 92 percent of all firms in British Columbia are small business; 96 percent of all new jobs come from small business; 40 percent of the private payroll in British Columbia comes from small business; and 96 percent of the net growth is created by small business.

One of the businesses we are fostering is value-added wood products. In Boundary-Similkameen we have several companies in this field, and they are all optimistic about the future. One of them is Greenwood Forest Products. It's undergoing a $700,000 expansion program, which will create 20 new high-paying jobs over the next two years. Canwood, another member of our value-added industry, which manufactures furniture, has also expanded its operation.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Are they union?

HON. MR. MESSMER: The answer is yes.

Neither of these small companies could have expanded without the small business forest enterprise program. In the value-added field, we have companies manufacturing everything from exterior plywood to components for lumber pallets. Through finger-joint technology they are turning wood that used to be thrown away or burned into usable lengths for building construction. So you can see we are very involved in this important industry.

[10:15]

Transportation is the catalyst for small business. In Boundary-Similkameen we are lucky to have two main transportation routes — the Hope-Princeton, which is receiving extensive upgrading, and the Coquihalla connector, which will be completed late this year. At last the people in the southwestern corner of the province will have a choice and a direct line into the interior of British Columbia. Now more people will be able to experience the quality of life that we have come to appreciate so much. The completion of the Coquihalla connector will mean a tremendous increase in manufacturing and tourism for our area. To accommodate this increase, government is four-laning the road from Penticton to Summerland, and we are looking for construction to begin to link Summerland to the Coquihalla Highway. We have upgraded and repaved Highway 97 to the United States border to be ready for this increased business. As I have said, our economy is diverse, but we do not live in a cocoon.

The grape and wine industry. The free trade agreement, while beneficial to British Columbia, has presented a special challenge to the grape and wine industry. As usual, we in Boundary-Similkameen have embraced this challenge and created a whole new industry, including the farm-gate wineries. Our wineries will now set their sights on producing premium wines with strict quality standards. This is the kind of resilience and vision that will enable us to continue the economic growth in the Okanagan.

Despite the challenges, segments of the wine industry are growing. Bright's winery is moving its headquarters to the Okanagan, and in the process will double its production. The grape and wine industry, as we predicted, will be a major player in the economy in the nineties.

The tree-fruit industry, with its $140 million gross revenue, is a key contributor to our regional economy. If we take even its lowest economic multipliers, this industry is worth more than $630 million annually. We have taken a proactive approach to finding solutions to this industry. We have implemented a commission of inquiry to review the financial condition of the industry, and to make recommendations on the future options of both government and the industry itself. We will find workable solutions, and

[ Page 9009 ]

we will build a strong, self-sufficient tree-fruit industry in British Columbia.

Tourism is a major driving force in British Columbia's economy, and since Expo 86 tourism has been steadily increasing. Today it generates $3.5 billion. In the South Okanagan and all of Boundary-Similkameen country, more people are staying in our hotels and motels. We are off to a great start in the nineties. More people are coming to my constituency for conventions, and in 1989 our convention days doubled. This year we expect a modest 40 percent increase. The news is out about the Okanagan. The quality of life has made tourism a major industry.

Sustainable development. What does all this add up to? How can we possibly maintain our high quality of life and prosperous economy? How can we make sure that future generations will have the same benefits of a bright and beautiful British Columbia as we currently do? The answer is two simple words: sustainable development. While they may be simple, putting these words into a workable plan is not so simple. But we have taken actions to find these solutions. We have established a Round Table on Environment and Economy to consult with all interests. We have established the Forest Resources Commission to work toward resolving management and policy issues in that important field.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the environment and the economy are the most important issues of the nineties. Advancements in health care, education, social services and the protection of the environment depend on it. Our government has a proven track record. Our policies are designed to renew, improve and enhance life in British Columbia. We are marching with the private sector, not in competition with it. This throne speech is a guide for the nineties. The people of Boundary-Similkameen will benefit from these policies, and so will all British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: It is a pleasure to take my place here after a pleasant long weekend.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's true of all of us, I'm afraid.

I want to cover a couple of things this morning. I want to reflect on the Doman issue of last year — more in passing, but I think it's significant and important. As everyone knows, a couple of speeches were given by this member regarding the Doman operation on the central coast of British Columbia. I am satisfied that I provided the House with a shocking recitation of inadequate forest management and abuse of public lands. I revealed countless memos that heretofore had not been made public, and noted recitations by professionals — biologists, foresters and others — documenting the case.

I was sued by Mr. Doman for what I said in this Legislature. I was one of this membership who was sued for what I said in this House. That has been a tradition of British parliaments — the freedom of speech in assemblies like this, across the British Commonwealth for hundreds of years. No one on the government side challenged that at that time.

I think it's something we should all reflect on. If one member and his freedom of speech is threatened in this House, then all members are threatened in this House. It's something that none of us should ever expect or accept.

The case has now been dropped by Mr. Doman — and I might say in a less than gracious manner. We'll live with that. But Mr. Justice Berger — whom most of us have great respect for, certainly during his term on the bench, and since — talked about the fragile freedoms in western democracies. They are indeed fragile freedoms. Mr. Doman is an immensely rich man by any standard, and he can afford the expenses of fine lawyers, the court system and the lengthy procedures involved. Most of us, however, cannot; and most citizens, I'm sorry to say, cannot.

A former colleague of mine — the former member for Mackenzie — was also sued by Mr. Doman. Mr. Lockstead, now mayor of Powell River, was dealing with the activities of the Doman company in the Kimsquit Valley of this province, and he said it was horrendous — or he simply called it, I believe, extremely bad —  forest management. It was horrendous, in my view. That was reasonable, valid comment by a member of this Legislature, but he was sued. Mr. Lockstead did not have deep pockets, so in the end he apologized to Mr. Doman. I'm sorry that he did that, but that was his decision to make, and he made it. I think it's something for all of us to consider.

I would note that the only exception on the government benches, in terms of expressing any concern about this, was a private correspondence by one of your backbenchers to the Speaker. I appreciate that effort of one government backbencher, but clearly it says something about us all that we weren't more concerned. I think it even says something, in a sense, about the press, because I don't remember any major editorials saying: "My God, the freedoms of the Legislature are being challenged by this rich man, and none of us should tolerate it." That didn't happen. It indicates that Mr. Berger is right: these are indeed fragile freedoms that we hold dearly. In this day, when governments that are there by force are breaking up, it's something you think about, and a challenge to us all.

But I want to talk about other matters. I want to go into another of this government's privatizations. It's not a big one. It's just another dumb business move by this so-called business administration, and I think it's worth spending a little bit of time on it.

We've gone through lots of these, You guys have been selling off public properties around the province, and generally you've been doing it at fire-sale prices. We're kind of inured to that, but this is just another one. I think it kind of tells us that the people of the province are probably saying: "Isn't it time there was a sign outside the Legislature here that simply said 'Under New Management'?" In the end, isn't what we really need new management here in Victoria so that things get handled a little differently?

[ Page 9010 ]

When it comes to managing Crown assets, there's nobody home over there.

The case I want to point to — and I'm glad the members for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton and Hon. Mr. Jacobsen) are here, or at least one of them — is out there in Maple Ridge. It's the old Haney correctional institute. They were certainly marginally involved in that, or at least they were aware of it. The old Haney correctional institute is about four miles northeast of Haney in Maple Ridge, up off Dewdney Trunk Road; most of us know that area.

The correctional institute was built in 1957 for $4 million. That's in 1957 dollars; it would be a lot of bucks today. It was a state-of-the-art medium-security prison. As a parenthesis, it's where Dave Barrett started his career in prison reform and carried it right through to the point where he closed the prison in 1975 when he was Premier of British Columbia.

It was built to hold 400 inmates. It had vocational facilities for construction, carpentry, sheet metal, motor mechanics, landscaping and, at the time, a barber college.

On August 24, '57, in an article by Ian McDonald, the Vancouver Sun said this about the place: "The handsome three-storey building looks like a high school." Indeed, it still does. It looks a lot like Vancouver Technical Secondary School on East Broadway in my own riding. To quote McDonald further, he says: "Standing imposingly on a hilltop five miles from this pleasant Fraser Valley town, it commands a sweeping view of the valley, Garibaldi Park and, on a clear day, the waters and islands of Georgia Strait. Trees will soon line the broad road to the main gates." Indeed, they do now.

The Province — when it used to report on these kinds of things in detail — said in 1957: "The $4 million institution, located in mountain resort surroundings, is one of the most advanced of its kind in North America." Now get this: it noted that almost half of the five acres of buildings on this site –– 220,000 square feet of buildings — were classrooms and vocational training space. So, indeed, it was very much like the technical school in Vancouver East.

In 1975 it was closed down as a correctional facility and became a vocational training facility. It was transferred to the Ministry of Education in 1975. Patrick McGeer, the then minister, announced some spending on it in 1977. It became part of the Pacific Vocational Institute in 1978.

The 1982-83 annual report of the Pacific Vocational Institute showed phase 3 of reconstruction of the site.

MR. CLARK: Was Elwood there then?

MR. WILLIAMS: I might just get to that in a couple of minutes.

It reports that the phase 3 reconstruction program at Maple Ridge was almost complete. That was $3 million spent on those buildings. There has not been public reporting that I can find with respect to phases 1 and 2 of reconstruction of the facility, but I'm sure that's around.

So they added a 9,600-square-foot area for diesel engine mechanics and diesel-electric generation training, and they upgraded the student lounge. Of course, at the earlier stage they had to put in lots of doors, because it had indeed been a jail, and jails don't have a lot of doors. They added space for motorcycle mechanics and Improved inboard, outboard and small engine areas as well within the facility.

So what have we got here? We've got $4 million expended in 1957 dollars. Patrick McGeer noted some three-quarters of a million dollars at one point, and then there was the $3.2 million in phase 3 of the construction —  and I don't have the numbers for phases 1 and 2. That gets us up to $8 million in yesterday's dollars expended on that building and its improvements.

[10:30]

But if we wanted the detailed background, we might even ask the present minister for international whatever it is — trade and development — who is also the minister of state for the lower mainland and is aware of this activity, because the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) was the executive director, finance and administration, of PVI. It was noted in the Victoria Times in May 1980 that his boss, Henry Justesen, said he was more than qualified for the job, holding a master's degree in business administration. We all know how valuable that is.

We've got 200 acres here, then, originally at the PVI site and 220,000 square feet of buildings put up for sale. Tenders were called in September 1987, and they were recalled in May 1988. They reduced the land area to about 91.5 acres, with the five acres of buildings still part of the property up for sale. The Ministry of Crown Lands indicated that when it was let, they wanted to close the deal within 60 days of receiving bids. That would have put finalizing the deal to the beginning of 1988.

Let's look at it. This is classic; this is typical. I'm not saying there's anything underhanded here; I'm saying this is simply business as usual. I think it's simply the way you guys do things. I'm not saying it's underhanded. The zoning wasn't firm, and anybody in the property business knows it's crazy to sell something that isn't zoned. That makes dollars. Getting the rezoning is worth a lot of money. A lot of you guys were in municipal politics: the former mayors of Maple Ridge and so on. Anybody in the business knows that the zoning is one factor that changes the value. But nobody applied to change the zoning before you sold it. That didn't happen. That establishes value.

Another thing was gravel. That whole northern ridge along the Fraser Valley is mountains of gravel, much of it. You've seen it on the Coquitlam River, that huge gravel pit up off Pipeline Road. The pattern carries through. There in Maple Ridge you've got a mountain of gravel as well.

Beyond that, you guys have been elected year after year — the members for Dewdney — on the promise of a new highway on the north side of the Fraser River. Why wreck a good promise by completing it?

[ Page 9011 ]

You know, the reality is that there are so many people living on the north shore of the river now that the road is desperately needed, and it has to be imminent. I'll tell you, next year, when we're government, we'll go ahead with it.

Those business folks over there didn't check out the gravel. So old Jim Allard put in a bid, like he always does when he sees a potential gravel pit, and he said: "My God, you've got tens of millions of dollars worth of gravel there." Of course, you guys didn't know, so you had to rethink it. You looked and found out there was gravel there.

MR. CLARK: They didn't think those rocks were worth anything.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, they didn't think those rocks were worth anything. They had to go back to the drawing-board. That was going to enhance value. The new highway would enhance value, but they went back to the drawing-board still determined to sell it off — and, by God, they did. It was put up for sale without the homework being done. It's as simple as that.

Given these question marks that were hanging over it, it didn't make a lot of sense to sell the land, but sell it they would. Finally, it was indeed sold on November 20, 1989, according to the Ministry of Crown Lands. It was an exercise over two years in the making.

But in the meantime, during this exercise, were any bells ringing? Lower mainland real estate values were going into the stratosphere. You guys had started out in this exercise two years earlier to flog off this "useless" land and buildings. Somewhere in the middle of this exercise, you would think: hey, it isn't zoned; hey, there's a mountain of gravel there worth a fortune; hey, we're going to be building a highway, and this is probably going to be a major intersection on a new freeway through the northern part of the Fraser Valley — it doesn't make any sense to sell it; and, hey, there are five acres of buildings that probably have some potential public use.

None of the lights went on, and no alarm bells rang. You know, go ahead and flog it. What happened in real estate prices In Maple Ridge in that past year? Residential real estate prices in Maple Ridge went up 70 percent in the past year, just like that — overnight almost. Still, selling it was the decision, and selling was proceeded with and completed.

Despite all of these factors, in terms of the gravel areas and the municipal.... Oh, another thing. The municipality, earlier in the stage, said: "Hey, we have to build a municipal works yard. Gee, even that little addition they put onto the five acres of buildings would work perfectly as a municipal works yard."

But no, you're true free-enterprisers, and you had to sell it to the private sector. That's where ideology crashes and just fails all rational thought. You are wrapped up in this kind of ideology.

What has happened is that the municipality has since spent $1.5 million for a public works yard in Maple Ridge. Why didn't you let them have the damned place? But no, they've had to spend new taxpayers' dollars for a works yard, and they expressed an interest in the site.

What did these businessmen, these experts, sell all this for –– 91 acres, five acres of buildings, millions of dollars of expenditures? Any guesses over there? It's an auction. What would you pay, Mr. Premier, for 91.5 acres in Maple Ridge that you knew you could get industrial zoning for overnight and with five acres of buildings? Let's grab a number out of the air.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: We know better, don't we? We've both done well In real estate, and it's hard in the last decade or so not to have — except when you're the government of British Columbia. That's the problem.

Come on! The members for Dewdney know what it was sold for. Come on, speak up.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: Hold your breath. Mr. Speaker — yes, I know you're interested — $650,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: For the whole thing?

MR. WILLIAMS: For the whole kit and caboodle, $650,000, Free enterprise in action, yes; 91.5 acres and five acres of buildings....

AN HON. MEMBER: Was this 1975?

MR. WILLIAMS: No, this was sold at the end of November last year.

Let's face it: in the lower mainland these days, you're lucky to get two houses for $650,000, let alone the five-acre big house and 91.5 acres.

So there we are. Millions and millions of dollars expended on the site in buildings and improvements. The mayor of Maple Ridge said the replacement value of the PVI buildings would probably be $27 million.

Who's the buyer? The buyer is North American Fence-It Corp. The principal there is Mr. Manogaran A. Iyar. According to his card, he's part of the Iyar group of companies. The "group" includes Canamasia Warehousing Corp., Perma-crete Products Saizen Bottling, Sakura Greenhouses Canada, Spectrum Transit Systems Ltd. — and, oh yes, Square Meals Canada Ltd. — and in addition, Cloud Nine Industries Canada Ltd. They're interesting companies. Most of them are not registered in British Columbia. That's who we sold it to, and that's what we sold it for.

But what's industrial land worth in the Fraser Valley these days? Let's check with Colliers Macaulay Nicolls, the prime analysts and sales people in commercial and industrial real estate in the lower mainland. They just completed, before you sold the land last fall, a study of the northeast sector, which includes the Coquitlams and Maple Ridge. In the fall of '89, the time of the sale, they came up with these

[ Page 9012 ]

numbers for industrial land in that area. I agree that it's somewhat closer in and serviced, but the numbers are intriguing: $115,000 an acre at Maple Meadows, and the same numbers around Hammond, which is the main industrial area around Haney.

Check with the assessment commissioner's office and see what their numbers are. They're something like this. They say $115,000 to $130,000 an acre for fully serviced industrial land in the municipality. Isolated sites, they say, run about $60,000 to $70,000 an acre in the municipality right now. And even further out in Mission, for serviced land, they're getting $100,000 an acre. That's quite a bit different. But there was an industrial sale that you folks could have checked out, out in Ruskin. Ruskin is further out than this site. At Ruskin on the Stave River, there was a sale in 1988 of 4.1 acres of industrial land. It sold for $48,750 an acre.

In the business of land, it's the comparables that you look at. Those are interesting comparables. If you use the Ruskin number, the PVI land is worth $4 million or $4.5 million. This land is closer in, and it's going to be improved dramatically in the short to medium term. The zoning process is now underway, and the municipality will accept industrial zoning That will confirm a new level of value on that site overnight.

That's something you, in the interests of the people of British Columbia, should have done yourselves and worked it out with the municipality. You could probably then have turned over the small potential works yard and the diesel mechanics building for the municipality and saved them the $1.5 million that's now on the backs of the taxpayers of Maple Ridge.

The gravel exploration. Hey, smell the coffee! You're going to be building a major highway through that northern area. You're going to need major gravel pits for building a freeway through Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows to Coquitlam. You had it right there, and you've sold a big chunk of it. That doesn't make any sense at all.

The building.... You began the process in 1987 and you sold it at the end of '89. It was a system guaranteed to foul up and guaranteed not to give us what we should have got for the site. Let's face it, this is a region where the population is growing dramatically. It's a region where public needs are increasing dramatically and where land availability is a factor in determining what we do and what we're able to do. One doesn't readily sell sites like this in a burgeoning lower mainland.

If you want a community college of some significance, maybe this is an interesting opportunity. But who's thinking about those kinds of things? Nobody on the other side looked at the big picture. That's the problem.

[10:45]

You know, I used to be a city planner. If you think in terms of the new town possibilities in the lower mainland, they are limited. But we should be thinking about new town possibilities in the lower mainland. One of them might have been this site in terms of that whole northern ridge off of Dewdney Trunk. It's an incredible opportunity.

This is only one. You have 700 acres up there in that same area that you've been busy trying to flog. In fact, you have others. The Crown Lands ministry has not only been into this process but the B.C. Buildings Corporation has been selling sites in the immediate area the freeway is going to go through. What kind of sense does it make in this day and age to pre-sell before zoning when the gravel and the highway are going to be built and all the rest of it? It makes no sense at all.

If anyone should have had the big picture, it should have been the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) — you know, minister of state for the lower mainland. Anybody with any vision would have said: "Let's take a second look at this deal." That didn't happen. They appointed a new Minister of Crown Lands over there — the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Parker) — and we all know how much vision he has.

I am sorry to say that it is just business as usual in British Columbia; indeed, it's bad business for the rest of us.

HON. MR. DAVIS: First, I want to congratulate you in your elevation to the exalted office you presently hold. We know that with all the experience you've had in the chair and the years you’ve spent here as a minister and otherwise, you'll guide our disputations wisely and that we'll all benefit as a result of your appointment.

I want to look ahead a bit. The Speech from the Throne traditionally provides an opportunity to look ahead. There is a reference in the Speech from the Throne to Vision 2001. There are several references to a fragile environment, a fragile economy and, for that matter, a fragile nation. We must manage our affairs carefully and wisely. Certainly the people of this province deserve a government or sequence of governments that are not only concerned but look ahead and make wise judgments that in retrospect are viewed as such.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I'd like to look ahead 50 years, to perhaps the most productive years of men and women who are born in 1990 and contemplate what they may be contending with in the year 2040 or thereabouts. The population of this province — certainly the population of the lower mainland — will grow very rapidly. We are going to face an increasing degree of congestion, particularly in this precious little triangle between the mountains from Hope to the Strait of Georgia, which is unprecedented.

The world's great metropolises — indeed, the most productive parts of the world — are essentially river estuaries. That's where the populations have thrived, where civilizations certainly have flourished and indeed in this province where, for the first time — and it's really the new part of the world as far as the human animal is concerned — you see considerable

[ Page 9013 ]

impact as a result of people moving in, people living here, people staying here, particularly because of the quality of life that's possible, the very desirable environment.

The population in British Columbia in the year 2040 could be of the order of 12 million people. The population in the lower mainland will have grown relative to the interior and the north and indeed Vancouver Island. We could conceivably have some eight million people crowded into the lower mainland, and this calls for planning of an order of magnitude that's unprecedented in our part of the world. The private sector has to be involved to the maximum extent possible. Nevertheless, because of all of the diseconomies of congestion, provincial and local governments have to be planning in concert, looking at the alternatives, looking at ways and means in which we can maintain the essential quality of life which we enjoy today in British Columbia and indeed throughout the lower mainland.

British Columbia is not one economy; it is several. Certainly the lower mainland is a substantial economy with many of its own driving forces, but it is particularly a unique environment. We have a number of  — call them — ecological areas in the province, mostly because of the numerous fjords, rivers and valleys, and the great difference from one part of the province to another in the topography, vegetation, climate and so on.

Essentially the planning has to take into account the unique characteristics of each of these enclaves. The one in the lower mainland has its own watershed and air shed, and we must know a great deal more about it. One of the phrases used increasingly by environmentalists is "assimilative capacity." What is the capability of the air shed over the lower mainland, for example, to tolerate a variety of products, some of them pollutants, others not? There is an overall capability to digest carbon dioxide, acid rain or nitrous oxide, but that capacity is limited, and it must never really be tested in terms of its outer limits.

All activities in this air shed, and indeed in the watershed and in the soil shed of the valley, must be readily handled by those environments, that collective environment, in the lower mainland. We can't tolerate certain industries even today. The heavy energy-using industries — essentially the resource processing industries — should locate elsewhere in the province, not in the lower mainland. I know that when the New Democratic Party was in power, they were intrigued with the idea of building a massive steel mill in the lower mainland. Members are still intrigued with that prospect, but that's the kind of industry that really cannot be located in a precious area such as the lower mainland with its limited capacities to assimilate pollutants and other products of industry.

Knowledge-based industries, certainly; petrochemicals, probably not, even though they are not as large polluters as many other activities. Pulp mills, heavy-volume wood-processing activities, coal-using industries and so on really shouldn't be located here They could be located on a few estuaries up north in, say, Kitimat or the Prince Rupert area. Even there, though, because of the narrow valleys and the limited capacities of those particular environments to absorb byproducts of industry, we have to be careful.

Looking back from the year 2040 at decisions made in the 1990s or the year 2000, I'm sure there will be reasons to be critical. But in instances like those I've mentioned, I think we already see the signals out there. We have some idea of orders of magnitude. We know now what kinds of activity can be accommodated and what kinds cannot.

The challenge of maintaining a quality of life for literally millions of people — five to ten million in the lower mainland alone — is considerable. Mobility — how are they to move about with some degree of freedom? How are their water supplies, etc., protected? How is the Fraser River managed as far as flood control is concerned? The lower-lying lands are vulnerable. We really don't have any effective flood control measures other than building dikes. I think we have to look carefully at some river management upstream. I know the McGregor diversion is unpopular for fisheries reasons. But some major moves will have to be made in the next decade or two in order to better manage that wild river and to ensure that the watershed is optimized — at least in terms of livability for many millions of people in the lower mainland — and tamed to a degree. I think that's necessary simply because of the numbers of people and increasing land values.

We'll maintain the agricultural land reserves, the lower-lying lands, essentially for agricultural purposes in the lower mainland, but the pressure will still be on those gravel ridges, benches and mountainsides where many people will be living stacked up in highrise towers and so on, and that precious low-lying land will have to be protected in every way possible. So river management is important, as well as protecting the air shed over that area.

Highways, connectors — the end result of the Coquihalla Highway is good news not only for the lower mainland but also for the interior of the province. We'll have one good highway artery out of the lower mainland. We need to improve our ferry links, to shorten them and make them more usable for larger numbers of people. Marked improvements are possible in the links across to Vancouver Island, and indeed, movement of passengers only, as opposed to vehicles, must be encouraged simply in the interests of greater mobility of much larger numbers of people. At some point a major highway connector, essentially north-south — running north from Vancouver up through the Whistler-Pemberton areas and the Chilcotin — will be built, should be built. It should be planned even now, so that not only do we have a ready exit to the United States, the Okanagan and Vancouver Island, but also to the great mass of the province which is directly north of Vancouver.

Planning in that direction is very important. People looking at our two parties, at the next election and at a series of elections over time, will want to be sure that they have the kind of government which

[ Page 9014 ]

has that vision, is prepared to be cautious in some areas but can also plan boldly in others.

Traditionally, industrial development has been encouraged by government by granting lands, tax concessions or even by making money available in the form of grants or low interest rates. I think increasingly in the future the strings and control on industrial development will not be in the nature of assistance —  particularly financial assistance — but more in the nature of environmental and other permits granted in order that an industry can get started, operate, keep its pollutants within the factory fence, recycle and be totally responsible to the economy at the sole cost of that industry. It's in that area that government and industry will have their major interface in the future.

[11:00]

Our Ministries of Regional and Economic Development and Environment, while some may see them as somehow opposed today, I think essentially will have to work more and more together, especially in terms of the location of new industry, so that the kinds of industry that come to particular parts of the province can be adopted there and not create environmental problems.

There are opportunities in other parts of the province — because of their much larger extent, fresh water supplies, clean air and so on — for activities that can't be accommodated any longer in the lower mainland. Of course there are some kinds of activity which should not take place in the province at all.

I personally have never been in favour of government being heavily involved, especially financially, in the development of our resources to the extent of funding their development. I think resource development should basically pay its own way, with the proper safeguards well managed by the, private sector. We shouldn't be building rail lines to Dease Lake and Alaska or pushing the export of a particular commodity like coal, when there's really a glut of that fuel in the world and we'll always have to compete very actively for our share of the market. Heavy government assistance in those areas is, I hope, a thing of the past. Those kinds of mega-industries have their own essential economics, and we should pay attention to those economics. They will evolve in their own good time.

Megaprojects. We have a number of power sites left to develop in the province. Some, or most perhaps, will be developed by B.C. Hydro, but currently there are a number of opportunities in industry to clean up and generate power on the side. We can have a miscellany of middle-sized power-generating facilities in the province, particularly at pulp mill and other locations, which can look after a good part of our growth for the next decade or so. We don't absolutely have to be building megaprojects in the power area.

Just thinking of power alone in the lower mainland, can you imagine the uproar, and difficulty in driving one more — let alone several more — main power transmission line artery across farmland, through those areas which are rapidly building residential and commercial facilities? One reason natural gas will be attractive — at least, relative to electricity — is that it can be transported cheaply underground. It doesn't require the rights-of-way that electricity does. Supplying power to at least the heart of the lower mainland will increasingly be a land use challenge. We may even be burning some gas to make electricity at spot locations around the lower mainland instead of running big power lines through — underground possibly, but at incredible cost. That's an area of planning which is with us and presents difficulties now, and which will certainly present increasing difficulties in the years ahead.

Energy presents its challenges. We've got lots of energy — some of the cheapest in the world, certainly in the most desirable forms of electricity and natural gas. Supply isn't the problem; delivery is. It will be an increasing problem, particularly in the lower mainland.

I want to touch on two other subjects before winding up. One is Indian land claims. I gather that the totality of the Indian land claims filed in Ottawa — some with tongue in cheek, perhaps — exceeds 100 percent of the land area in British Columbia. Currently our native population is in the order of 3 percent of the population of the province. So there are orders of magnitude which I think we have to look at realistically. When the Leader of the Opposition says, for example, that he will resolve the Indian land claims problem, I don't think it's possible, at least in those dimensions. I think a true socialist would say they make up 3 percent of the population, so they should have 3 percent of the land, or some such formula, because they like formulas. But the true socialist also looks askance at the concept of property: property is not one of the rights — certainly not one of the prime rights — of Canadian citizens. The NDP is in the odd position of focusing on property for aboriginal peoples, say, but saying that property isn't that important a right for the rest of us. Somehow it's dignified in respect to the aboriginal population of the province.

Numbers are difficult. We have as many people arriving every year in this province, to stay here, as the total Indian population of the province. The interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I gather, as accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada, is that anyone setting foot in Canada has the same rights as every other Canadian. I find that hard to swallow; nevertheless, it seems to be the way they are treating the refugee problem. If every new arrival to Canada has the same rights as everyone here, how do you differentiate between their rights and the rights of aboriginal people? Philosophically, there are questions there we should face — face them up front. I agree that there must be adjustments in respect to the properly defined legal claims of the native people. There may be additional considerations to provide them with....

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you going to leave it to the courts?

[ Page 9015 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: No, I wouldn't leave it to the courts, because the courts....

They have reasonable ambitions in their own areas. I think the province and Canada owe it to them to make it possible for them to have gainful employment and opportunities, but not in the categorical sense of all or nothing. We have to focus down. We have to bring the Indian land claims issue down to earth and deal with it in a thoroughly practical way, without discriminating either way between native people and the rest of us, native people and recent immigrants, or whatever. We should do all we can to bring them into the mainstream of the life of the province, but I am not sure that many of them really want that. Their particular interests, instincts and desires must be respected.

Finally, I would like to comment very generally on the economy. The economy in British Columbia is healthy at the moment, but fragile, as the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) has said more than once. If the economy of the rest of North America turns down, we are bound to feel the impact very shortly. There are some very sizeable investments that will be completed, but nevertheless we are exposed.

We are in better shape than other provinces and certainly the nation, because we are currently running a balanced budget. Our debt, relative to our income, is small. Interest payments on the debt are currently in the order of 3 percent of the budget of the province — not all of government, but the province. In Canada it's not 3 percent but 33 percent. In the United States it's of the order of 25, 26 or 27 percent.

North American countries, certainly Canada and the United States, are very vulnerable. There are many people who really don't believe that we are vulnerable. We've been running deficits in Canada and indeed in the States for more than a decade — massive deficits. One of the consequences of running these massive deficits has been the depreciating value of our currency.

In Canada and the United States, especially a highly desirable part of North America like British Columbia — I underline the lower mainland in particular — our property values, property prices, in the eyes of people in the rest of the world, are bargain basement. They are bargain basement because our currency has been depreciated. Our currency will continue to be depreciated as long as we run deficits — deficits of any order of magnitude, let alone the horrendous deficit that is currently being run in Ottawa. While the idea of a balanced budget may seem to be a fetish to some, it is essential over the long term.

If I was propelled into politics by any concern or consideration, it was Canada and the ownership of equity shares in going-concern businesses. How did Canadians get themselves involved in major decision making in the industrial sector? It's always been a challenge. It's even more a challenge in circumstances where government is spending more than it takes in. I think the government in this province is on the right track. Ideally, it runs some kind of surplus in good years and a deficit in other years. If we had that kind of management over the long term, we'd be in better shape. Anyone looking back in the year 2040 would say: "We became to a greater extent, over my lifetime, to a degree at least, masters in our own house." The Quebec expression is "Maitre chez nous." That's a very important concern, not only in the way Canadians feel about Canada, but in the way we all feel about political life in our country.

Money management may seem rather erudite and "out there" and not necessarily involving us here and now, but it certainly involves succeeding generations. It does involve, very much, our ability to run our own show, particularly in the industrial sector and even more so in the resource development sector. Large amounts of capital are needed for a new pulp mill or a new petrochemical plant. Currently, we look outside Canada for most of that capital which buys machinery and equipment but sometimes doesn't generate too many jobs. The control is elsewhere, and that has to be of concern to all of us, particularly over the long run.

Canada, as a nation.... I've never been a fan of multiculturalism. I believe that nations are nations because they essentially look ahead, at least to a common future. They pay little regard to a divergent history. To the extent that histories are in conflict, we've got problems; to the extent that we have experienced common challenges and done great things together, we have more of nation. We have to address more opportunities for the citizens to own, or at least direct, a good part, if not all, of the future activity in British Columbia and in Canada.

[11:15]

I believe very strongly that individuals are the building blocks on which a nation can be built. I think stressing differences — ethnic, historic, even regional — tends to be corrosive and certainly undermines our ability to feel good about our country and about our future. I'd like to think that some of the powers Ottawa has assumed or was even given in the original BNA Act would devolve on the provinces, and that in turn the provinces would pass on some of these powers to local, regional and municipal governments. In other words, we can stand a measure of decentralization of powers in our basic constitution. Whether Meech Lake moves effectively in that direction or, instead, because of its emphasis on historic differences, dwells more on the past, presents us all with problems.

I am convinced the present government has a good plan for the next year. In areas such as the environment and the economy, it is looking ahead realistically. I believe it can mobilize, particularly with the help of the private sector, the kind of initiative, enterprise and imagination we need to have a prosperous community in which people really appreciate the unique quality of life that's possible here. It's possible in the lower mainland; it's possible elsewhere across this great province of ours.

Decentralize. Leave the private sector with large areas of activity. Encourage competition in many

[ Page 9016 ]

areas, because that produces a measure of excellence. But also be involved, particularly in the lower mainland, in looking ahead at some of these problems, such as mobility, water supply and air quality, which can only really be dealt with by government.

MS. PULLINGER: Before I begin my response to the throne speech, I would like to add my congratulations to the many others to our new Speaker. I wish him well in his term as Speaker of this Legislature.

This year's throne speech, Mr. Speaker, is full — as we all expected — of chest-beating on the part of the government for the economic prosperity that British Columbia has enjoyed recently. There's no question that the world's economy has improved, and that British Columbia has benefited as part of that. I find it interesting that the members opposite — the Social Credit Party, the government — continue to take credit for the improvement in the economy. Given that, I expect the members opposite will also take full responsibility for the years of recession and depression that preceded it.

The fact remains that, in spite of what members opposite like to claim, British Columbia's economy is tied to and sensitive to decisions made by the federal government, just as it is tied to and sensitive to the world economy. The real test of how this government's policies are working has less to do with the economic cycles — those well-known boom-and-bust cycles of the market system — than with what happens in British Columbia within that context.

In other words, if we want to judge the effectiveness of this government's policies, we ought to look closely at who is benefiting from economic prosperity and who is paying, because the government plays a major and important role in that. The reality of who pays and who benefits in British Columbia under Social Credit is becoming more and more clear. We know, for instance, that this government's friends and those with an inside line to the government have fared very well under Social Credit. The ongoing stream of scandals has made British Columbians stand up and take a good look at who is profiting under Social Credit. We all know that it's the government's friends and a few insiders.

British Columbians are also becoming aware of who doesn't do well under Social Credit. The last decade of Social Credit's low-wage, high-unemployment strategy has resulted in increasing numbers of working people land families in financial difficulty. The gap between those doing very well financially and those less well-off has widened more in the past decade than in any decade in our history.

For instance, at least one in four of our school-age children is living in poverty — most of them from two-parent families who are working. Kids still go to school without enough to eat, and we all know that kids who go to school hungry can't learn.

The gap between men's wages and women's wages has increased in B.C. In Ontario, where the government recognizes the problem of sexism in the workplace and has taken action, women's wages have increased to 70 percent of men's. In B.C., the figure is closer to 60 percent — and dropping; it's well below the Canadian average.

Working families and women are losing ground under Social Credit. Wages are dropping. Unemployment is still unacceptably high. Food banks are becoming institutionalized. Housing is becoming a luxury for too many British Columbians — they simply can't afford it. And rental housing is all but unavailable — and certainly unaffordable — in many communities.

Yet the government refuses to re-establish the office of the rentalsman or to implement any form of rent review process. Instead, the new Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen) tells us that he has spoken to one landlord who is charging unfair rents and has asked him to roll them back. Does the minister plan to intervene personally in all cases of unfair rent increases in B.C. — noblesse oblige?

Part of the problem is supply. The government's solution to the last housing crisis was to remove rent controls and reviews and to eliminate the rentalsman. They told us that given free rein, the market would resolve all the problems, look after itself and create all sorts of housing.

MR. LOVICK: What happened?

MS. PULLINGER: It failed. Sort of like privatization and regionalization, it failed. The government all but stopped building social housing until recently, and it has worked to slow dramatically the very successful cooperative housing program in B.C. — perhaps because it was run by the trade unions here, who did an excellent job.

The Socred strategy left housing to the marketplace, and it has failed. The marketplace works fine for those in the higher-income brackets; it simply doesn't work for those with modest incomes.

Increasing numbers of British Columbians are feeling the pinch of Social Credit economic policy that strives to — as we're always hearing — free up the engine of the economy through deregulation, privatization, the elimination of services and user fees.

As part of the agenda under Social Credit, the tax system in this province has become clearly and demonstrably skewed. The burden of taxation is resting more and more on the average family and the working people of this province, on middle- and low-income-earners. People don't mind paying their fair share of taxes, but there's a growing feeling in B.C. that our tax system is not fair, and that it's becoming more unfair. The right-wing agenda  — whether it's under Social Credit or its federal counterpart, the Mulroney Conservatives — is to remove the tax burden from big business and the wealthy and shift it onto the middle- and low-income-earners.

Between 1984 and 1988, taxes for low-income earners increased by 44 percent. Middle-income-earners paid 10 percent more. But taxes for the government's friends — the wealthy, the big corporations — dropped 6 percent. Corporations used to pay approx-

[ Page 9017 ]

imately the same portion of our net taxes as individuals — about 30 percent. Under the right-wing agenda in recent years, the corporate share has dropped to about 10 percent, while the individual's share has risen to 50 percent.

This government has removed school boards' ability to tax corporations, and lowered the rate for corporations and increased it for homeowners. It increased the percentage of taxes that come directly from homeowners and decreased the more progressively collective portion from general revenues. Now this government is going to freeze homeowners' taxes for the wealthy, while taxes on the lower end of the scale continue to rise. The right-wing agenda is to flatten out the taxation system to create a tax system in which millionaires like the Premier pay the same rate as those on minimal incomes. That, Mr. Speaker, is patently unfair and regressive.

Recently we've heard all sorts of protestations from the other side of the House about the federal government's proposed goods and services tax. It's an unfair tax and it ought to be opposed. The GST, as we all know, is a regressive tax policy; it's not based at all on ability to pay. It will discriminate against and further burden lower- and middle-income-earners. It will damage the very competitive tourism industry, an industry of growing importance in British Columbia, and it will be a bureaucratic nightmare for small businesses.

This GST will hit women especially hard, because women in British Columbia earn only 61 percent of what men do; and women and children are disproportionately represented among the poor.

British Columbia's tax system is unfair, and the GST is going to exacerbate that unfairness. It is a bad tax and it ought to be opposed. However, I am skeptical of the opposition to the tax that we hear emanating from the other side of this House. It's clear to me that the government, in its eleventh-hour bid to hang on to power, is merely responding to the polls — which, I might point out, taxpayers have paid nearly $400,000 for. The government is merely responding to the polls that tell the government that the people of B.C. and the people of Canada don't like the GST. They understand that it's unfair, that it's a flat tax, that it's regressive.

After all, when this side of the House asked the government last year to take a firm stand in opposition to the GST, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) responded that he didn't have enough information to do so, that "the federal government might devise some amendments to the proposal" which would make the tax more acceptable, and that "there's absolutely nothing the provinces might do about it." The Finance minister also stated that he would not "stand in this House and tell the world what kind of tax we prefer at the federal level." Well, we in the New Democratic Party, both in British Columbia and federally, are ready to tell the federal government that we don't like the GST, and we've done that from the beginning.

The government's position has been very clear. It's been ambivalent, but it's been clear. It's not surprising, because the right-wing agenda, whether it's Thatcherism or Reaganism, Mulroney's Conservatism or Social Credit, advocates flat taxation, a taxation system in which the very wealthy pay the same rate as those less well off, a system like the GST.

I was very interested to read in my local newspaper last week an interview with the Premier in which he was arguing that rather than have a 7 percent flat tax in British Columbia he would like to see a 24 percent flat tax. I expect that we on this side of the House and the people in B.C. can be forgiven if we are just a little skeptical about the government's newly found opposition to the goods and services tax. I'm skeptical about this government's opposition to the GST, and I am equally skeptical about this government's newfound concern for women.

One of the themes in this throne speech is choice. How ironic! When it comes to women, this government clearly doesn't believe they ought to have a choice. This government has tried by every means it has to eliminate women's access to safe, legal abortion services and to return to the dark days of back-alley abortionists. It has tried to withdraw funding under medicare, and now that the B.C. Supreme Court has struck that down, as it did the government's attempt to penalize women on social assistance by cutting $50 from their already inadequate incomes, now that the B.C. Supreme Court has forced this government to pay for legal abortion services, the government is turning a blind eye to hospital boards, which are shutting down women's access to abortion around this province.

If there is any confusion as to whether this is a Social Credit agenda, let me point out a couple of things. First of all, when the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital decided to eliminate all abortion services for women, the government refused to act. In spite of the fact that this hospital serves women from Cobble Hill to Courtenay, we didn't hear one word from the Social Credit member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce). Nor did we hear from the member for Comox (Hon. S. Hagen), whose riding includes the northern part of the Nanaimo Regional Hospital District.

Interjection.

MS. PULLINGER: On-side guys, you bet. How ironic that this government chooses choice for one of its themes.

[11:30]

I was pleased to see that the government created a Minister Responsible for Women's Programs, and I am pleased that pay equity is mentioned in the throne speech. There's no question that as violence against women increases, as women become increasingly poor and as they lose ground economically in B.C., we need a women's ministry. However, women in my riding tell me they don't trust the government. They don't believe the government really intends to stand up for women or to respond to women's needs. After all, the government has had all sorts of opportunities to implement pay equity. For instance, I

[ Page 9018 ]

believe the first mention of pay equity under Social Credit was in 1952 in a throne speech. Pay equity seems to be one of those cyclical things under Social Credit, one of those things they recycle. It's like the Island Highway: it shows up every election and then disappears afterward.

In the CUPE negotiations last year the government made it very clear that it is philosophically opposed to pay equity. It doesn't like it. It doesn't suit its agenda. Certainly that is the position that the Socred think-tank, the Fraser Institute, continues to argue.

The Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran) hasn't inspired confidence in the government's agenda for women. After all, she has operated for half a year as the minister without budget. She's quoted in a recent issue of Kinesis magazine as seeing no role for government in a child care program, nor will she advocate for women on the question of reproductive choice. Those are critical issues for women.

MRS. BOONE: What does she do?

MS. PULLINGER: That's a good question.

Women in B.C. are disproportionately among the poor, and they're losing ground. Women do not have access to adequate, affordable housing. They lack affordable, accessible child care. Women are beaten and raped with depressing regularity. Fourteen women were killed in Montreal last fall, and some 97 women were killed in domestic violence across the country last year.

The response of the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs? She has given us three medals That's patronizing and that's unacceptable. Women want equality. Women want justice. Women want housing and child care and health care and education and jobs. Women want an end to violence against women and children. Women want real and meaningful choices in their lives, including reproductive choice. The women of B.C. do not want your medals.

There are a couple of other things that women and all British Columbians want. People in this province want to feel secure in the knowledge that the government will protect our environment. We have a growing environmental crisis, and we must make changes if we are to survive. If we are to create a society and an economy in which the fulfilment of our needs doesn't jeopardize the ability of our children and our grandchildren to fulfil theirs, we've got to stop spending our environmental capital. We can't afford to continue to pollute and degrade the environment.

The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) has made some changes, and I applaud him for that However, industrial pollution still goes largely unchecked. Standards are lax, as the recent problems at the Crofton pulp mill show. I discovered in my meetings with the workers at the Crofton mill that one of their major problems is that the B.C. government overrides the nationally and internationally accepted standards — in this case, for a gas methyl mercaptan. The workers at the mill and the people who live near the mill, including the present member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), live and breathe unacceptably high concentrations of mill gases on a regular basis, and they have done so for years. It's time to make some changes to tighten up the standards and to monitor industry to ensure it adheres to them.

I would like, just in passing, to commend the member for Cowichan-Malahat, incidentally, for responding to my letter informing him of the problems at the Crofton mill and for his joining me, albeit ten days later, in my call for an investigation and for change. Dealing with environmental issues on an ad hoc and crisis basis isn't good enough. We need to prevent problems and accidents before they happen.

My colleague the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) and I fought hard with the people of the mid-Island area for a full environmental impact study of the ferrochromium plant that was proposed for Bamberton, then Duke Point and now Port Hardy. We argued last year, among other things, that this government's approval process for this potentially polluting industry is badly flawed. Industries like Wooding's ferrochromium plant are presently allowed to build in British Columbia without prior environmental approval for their operation. Clearly, once a multi-million dollar industrial plant has been built, it's not likely the government's going to embarrass itself and not allow it to operate. That's the kind of process that has helped get us into the environmental problems we have, and it's inadequate.

Industry must be proven environmentally sound before it's given approval to begin construction and before it receives taxpayer's money. The people of B.C. are tired of the confrontation, and they're tired of having to organize and demonstrate against this government to force it to be environmentally responsible.

A similar problem to the ferrochromium plant licensing situation and approval process exists in land and resource use decision-making. At present the government just simply hands down decisions from Victoria, as it recently did for the Carmanah Valley. Those decisions are most often based on political priorities. Again, it's a response to the polls. British Columbians are shut out of the process and are continually put in a position of fighting each other and this government to make their concerns known.

British Columbians are tired of confrontation. I recently participated in a task force with some of my colleagues — the critic for the environment next to me and our new second member for the Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt). We held hearings in two places in the Cariboo. We heard many submissions from individuals and groups: mill owners, tourism operators, trappers, loggers, environmentalists, aboriginal people and many others. Two messages were consistent throughout most of the presentations. First, British Columbians want to resolve land and resource use conflicts. They want to settle land claims. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) stated, the lower mainland is really a new part of the world as far as the human animal is

[ Page 9019 ]

concerned. I would like to point out that aboriginal people have lived in this province and in this country for thousands of years.

British Columbians want to settle land claims. They want to define wilderness areas, representative ecosystems and parks. They want to know what, where and how we ought to log or extract resources. They want to end the confrontation; they want to find solutions, and they want to be part of the decision making process. British Columbians are willing to work together to find solutions, and they are tired of inappropriate decisions being handed down from this government in Victoria.

I've seen several land and resource use plans drawn up by local communities and groups, and I've seen some excellent ideas and some top-rate plans. There is a lot of talent out there in the province among the people of B.C. It's about time we had a plan for B.C. that's based on an inventory of all our resources, including recreation and tourism resources. We need a regionally based decision-making process that includes significant local input to resolve land and resource use conflicts. We need to identify and preserve 12 percent of representative ecosystems in B.C., as suggested by Gro Harlem Brundtland's report from the World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future. We need to double our parks system. We need to define not only what and where we will log, but how we will log.

We need a royal commission into all aspects of the forest industry, and we need to make some major changes. We need intensive silviculture so we can increase the productivity of our forests and increase the number of jobs. Access to our forests ought to be tied to job creation. We need good, well-paying jobs from our resources. We need to stop the export of our raw resources, and we need to encourage secondary manufacturing in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, other countries and other provinces do much better with their forest resources than we do. Sweden, with half the land base, has double the jobs, and their forests are increasing in yield because they are well managed.

Good jobs mean a solid tax base for the services we need. For instance, we have seen the continued erosion of our health care system in British Columbia. British Columbians are now forced to go to Seattle in the United States for heart surgery because of the government's mismanagement of our health care system for years. Our hospitals are in crisis. The Nanaimo Regional General Hospital has been underfunded by this government for so long that it's threatening to close wards and cut services. We have empty beds, a shortage of nurses and a shortage of operating funds. There are long waiting-lists — up to two years — for surgery, and British Columbians are paying the price. Again, we need planning, preventive health care, and long-term solutions rather than crisis management and political solutions. These are not new problems; they're just the aggregation of problems resulting from years of Social Credit mismanagement.

I'm beginning to wonder, by the way, if this government is working towards privatizing our health care system and making it user-pay like the American private health care system, which costs taxpayers more while leaving some 37 million people without any medical insurance. Certainly we've seen the beginnings of that in the attempts to impose user fees and in the privatization of many of the hospital services.

The throne speech has revolved around three themes of "choice, challenge and change." I have argued that for many British Columbians, choices are diminishing and options are becoming limited. In spite of affluence, there is growing poverty and growing limitations on real choices. There will be, however, an opportunity in the near future for British Columbians to make a choice. People in this province will have the opportunity to choose either a government that imposes its own moral and religious views and makes special deals for friends and insiders, or they can choose an open and honest government that listens and responds to the needs of the average family and working people — a New Democratic government.

Social Credit is rooted in the past. Social Credit uses a flawed, outdated, nineteenth-century economic analysis. It also uses outdated, backward policies that would leave our future up to the unrestricted market forces and to the privatized and unregulated marketplace. I think we need a government that has a vision for the future, and that realizes the need for positive intervention in the marketplace and for long-term planning. We need a government like the New Democrats, who have always worked for a more just, equitable and cooperative society, and that will create an ecologically sustainable future for our children and our grandchildren.

People in British Columbia are more active, aware and politically involved than ever before. They're ready for the kind of leadership that will take on the very real challenges of the nineties and beyond —  challenges that their right-wing philosophy and policies cannot deal with because of the inherent conflicts in them. The people of British Columbia understand the challenges, and I believe they are ready for a change.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election, and may I include in those congratulations the election of the Deputy Speaker. I would also like to congratulate the Premier of this province and all government members for the superb job that has been done this past year and the great throne speech that has been delivered to this chamber.

Looking at the remarks made by the last speaker in relation to women's issues, I might say that the most disappointing remark I have heard in this assembly since we came back into session was the statement made by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) when the member for Surrey-Newton

[ Page 9020 ]

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) was speaking. His comments, clearly heard by members on this side of the House, to the effect that "Is the coffee ready, Rita...?" That was a disgusting remark to be made in this chamber.

In looking at the success of the government over the last couple of years, I am indeed proud to look at the third quarterly financial report delivered by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), which clearly shows that this government is running a surplus of $80 million through the first nine months, when taking into consideration transfers to and from the budget stabilization fund. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it's a success story beyond belief that we could take a deficit which we inherited in 1986, and in a short period of time.... In the 1988-89 fiscal year this government ran a clear surplus, when taking into consideration transfers to and from the budget stabilization fund, of $262,392,000. That is a good performance from a fiscally responsible government.

[11:45]

Looking at the number of work stoppages over the past year, I am indeed proud of the fact that British Columbia is leading all of Canada in labour peace. We have had three and a half years of tremendous labour peace as a result of Bills 19 and 20. Along with that, we have the highest job creation record in Canada, having created 76,000 brand-new jobs in the last calendar year. Along with that, we in this province have the highest average hourly rate of any province in this country.

Turning now to tourism, we also are very proud of what's happening in this province. The year 1989 showed that we were the only province to show a growth in tourism over 1988, and that is good news for British Columbians.

I was most disappointed last Friday, on having the opportunity to welcome the Crown Princess Victoria — the Stena Line vessel which arrived on Friday — that not one local MLA from Victoria, nor the mayor, nor the federal MP saw fit to come and welcome that vessel into this great city of Victoria. That shows their attitude toward tourism. That vessel shows a growth of dollars in tourism in the greater Victoria area of $30 million a year. Yet not one Victoria MLA or federal MP or local mayor appeared to welcome that vessel.

I was very pleased with the remarks in the throne speech dealing with natural gas. It's certainly good news for the southern, central and northern interior areas, and I’m really looking forward to the budget speech tomorrow to see the follow-through of the signal that we received in the throne speech.

Also, I congratulate the Minister of Parks (Hon. Mr. Messmer), my seat-mate and my colleague, for the fact that we're going to continue to expand the number of parks in this great province. We will finish this current fiscal year with well over 100 parks in B.C., and that is good for tourism and good for the province.

I was very pleased with the recognition given the Environment Youth Corps in this province. They've certainly done a great job. I also welcome the announcement regarding pay equity for women and the signal that we will be getting more information and making progress toward the establishment of a B.C. pension plan. That is certainly good news for the future.

We've heard a lot from the opposition members about secondary wood manufacturing and value-added. I thought it would be a good exercise to do a little bit of homework in my constituency to see what new operations had come on stream in the last few years in the area of value-added. Just reading into the record, we have CITC Timber Corp., 15 employees; Okanagan Lumber Services Ltd., between 50 and 60 employees; Hollcan Millworks, 26 employees; Timberland Supply Co. Ltd., which currently has ten employees and will be increasing their employment to 40 by mid-July as a result of a finger-jointing machine that's being installed; Paragon Wood Products, 48 full-time employees; Notch Hill Forest Products Ltd., 14 employees; Teece Custom Windows, located in the little community of Falkland and which just got underway a few years ago with nine employees and is expanding. Along with that, we have at least nine log-home building companies with a minimum employment in each company of five, maximum ten.

If that's not a signal of what's happening in the province of British Columbia in the area of value-added, I don't know what is. Practically every one of those has been a brand-new operation in the few short years I've been in politics.

I think it's fair, in examining the performance of the NDP, to look at the only NDP administration this country has seen in recent years and to do a little examination of the utopian socialism success story — in the eyes of a few — in the province of Manitoba.

The province of Manitoba first elected the most recent NDP government in October '81, and it ran right through until April '88. I think it's interesting that we have heard so very few comments from members opposite  in the last couple of years about all the great things that were happening in the province of Manitoba. For whatever reason, we don't hear about those anymore.

This tremendous, glowing example of socialism for all Canada was supposed to have been exemplified in the great province of Manitoba. But for some reason or other, something happened and something failed. I think it's fair for the NDP to reflect and remind all British Columbians of what happened in that province, because that was to be the blueprint of the success of socialism throughout this country. Manitoba was going to be the example for all provinces east and west. Socialism was going to spread in those directions after having had tremendous success in the province of Manitoba.

What happened in Manitoba? I'll tell you that the Manitoba government, working with the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, literally milked the feds dry of every single dollar they could get out of them, and they were very successful. In the year or two before the last election, Lloyd Axworthy brought in excess of $780 million into the province of Manitoba. In their last year in office they received $477.6 million in

[ Page 9021 ]

equalization payments, while in the same year we in British Columbia paid out $658 million. The trade union movement worked with the socialists in Manitoba very closely. They worked with them very closely all across this country and the federal NDP worked with them very closely to make this the utopian socialist example for this country.

Let's talk about what happened; let's review the record. Well, here's the record, Mr. Speaker. In the last year of socialist control in Manitoba, here's the record: they had the poorest job creation record of all provinces in western Canada; they had the poorest rating among the small business community of any province in this entire country; they had the lowest number of new business incorporations; they had the highest property taxes; and they had the highest commercial debt of any province in western Canada — that is a result of them milking their Crown corporations dry.

They had the highest total debt. They had the lowest population growth. They had the worst credit rating of any province in western Canada. They had the highest personal income tax of any province in western Canada. The senior staff in the bureaucracy between the years of 1981 to 1985 — listen to this statistic —  increased by 82 percent in four short years. Along with that, their political support staff in those same four short years increased by 132, and the record bears that out.

It's shameful, in looking at the past, that Manitoba was the only province in western Canada that refused to participate in the great Expo '86 held in British Columbia.

The long and the short of it is that what they left the people as their legacy for their few short years in office was a financial mess of gigantic proportions.They tried to fool the people by fiddling with the books, capitalizing highways expenditures, bleeding off the Crown corporations and transferring payments from the feds. They did everything possible, and they were a dismal failure beyond belief — an absolute, dismal failure.

They were so bad that they not only lost the election but they also ended up in third position. Since then, their former provincial leader tried for a federal seat. Guess what. The Manitoba people rejected him for even sitting as a back-bench federal MP. Why did they do that? The opposition would do well to examine the feeling of the rank-and-file and trade union members in Manitoba, because they left a dismal financial mess of gigantic proportions.

A person I was speaking to a short time ago from Manitoba witnessed those great NDP years and has since moved to British Columbia. You know what he said to me? He said: "It's good to see a government in power that makes and bakes the cake, rather than just eating it." That says a lot, for when it comes to managing the economy, the NDP are clearly incompetent, inept and inert. Do you know what they refer to the NDP as in Manitoba? They call them the Not Dependable Performers.

With that, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.