[ Page 10763 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Royal assent to bills –– 10763

Private Members' Statements

Nurses' strike. Ms. A. Hagen –– 10763

Hon. J. Jansen

Pacific National Exhibition. Mr. Reid –– 10765

Mr. Clark

Training in education opportunities. Ms. Marzari –– 10767

Hon. Mr. Strachan

The Canada World Youth exchange program. Mr. Bruce –– 10769

Mr. Perry

Carmanah Pacific Park Act (Bill 28). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Richmond)

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 10771

Mr. Miller –– 10772

Hon. Mr. Messmer –– 10773

Mr. Cashore –– 10774

Mr. G. Janssen –– 10775

Mr. Serwa –– 10776

Ms. Pullinger –– 10777

Mr. Bruce –– 10779

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased today to introduce to this House a very prominent German industrialist, Mrs. Rosely Schweizer. She is accompanied by Michael Ullrich and Mr. David Herman. I would ask that you would give especially Mrs. Schweizer a very warm welcome to the Legislative Assembly.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) and myself, I would like to acknowledge the presence of three gentlemen joining us this morning: Mr. Wayne Tucker, the president of Kelowna General Hospital; Dr. Phil White, chief of medical staff at KGH; and Hugh Fitzpatrick, chairman of the board of Kelowna General Hospital. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Just prior to recognizing the next member in introductions, I would advise all members that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor will be here for royal assent of bills as soon as we complete introductions, so members may wish to stay.

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce to the House this morning Barry and Cheryl Holmes from the Central Fraser Valley constituency. They are here with their two children and are enjoying a holiday around the Island. Barry is currently the president of the newly created Abbotsford Social Credit organization, and Cheryl is a highly respected medical practitioner in the Abbotsford area. I would ask the House to give them a pleasant welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we will just take a brief break while the Sergeant-at-Arms and staff prepare for the arrival of His Honour.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Statutes Repeal Act, 1990

Foreign Money Claims Act

International Sale of Goods Act

Conflict of Laws Rules for Trusts Act

British Columbia Health Research Foundation Act

Purchasing Commission Amendment Act, 1990

Sustainable Environment Fund Act

Park Amendment Act, 1990

Ministry of International Business and Immigration Act

Hazardous Waste Management Corporation Act

University of Northern British Columbia Act

Offence Amendment Act, 1990

Securities Amendment Act, 1990

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor cloth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

NURSES' STRIKE

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, nurses are the backbone of our health care system, and most of our nurses are women. In this week when we on our side of the House have been looking at issues of concern to women, I have chosen today to speak about nurses and the health care profession.

Today, 2,400 community and psychiatric nurses are involved in a labour dispute. It's now three weeks old. Quite frankly, the circumstances of this dispute have been educating me and the public about this group of nurses — where they work, what they do, their working conditions and their role in the health care and health support system.

As always, they speak best for themselves. I want to take a moment to read into the record this morning a letter from Judith Hodgson of Victoria which was published last weekend in the Times-Colonist. Ms. Hodgson says:

"You'll find us in provincial mental hospitals, community mental health centres, forensic services, youth detention centres, some long-term-care facilities, sexually transmitted disease clinics, home-care programs, government offices and working as consultants. Many of us work with people our society does not value, and thus we are forgotten.

"We accept the challenge of keeping individuals with acute and chronic mental illnesses, social diseases, physical disabilities and those who have difficulty coping without support out of hospitals and institutions, saving taxpayers hundreds of dollars each day. To the institutionalized mentally ill, mentally retarded, organically impaired and elderly in some facilities we provide care that promotes optimal functioning and dignity.

"'In the community we often work in isolation. Daily we see individuals who are suicidal, severely depressed, homicidal, confused and very vulnerable: a population at risk; a population at risk. It is stressful and demanding work and requires excellent physical and mental health assessment skills."

She goes on to note some conditions of their employment. The title that the editors have put on this particular letter is "Low-Visibility Nurses." Indeed, I think most of these health care workers are low-visibility people. People in my riding have added to the description of Ms. Hodgson with great feeling, and frequently with great anger — more and more anger as I've talked to them in the last two or three weeks.

They say things like: "I feel I'm treated like a second-class person. We are invisible and forgotten."

[ Page 10764 ]

Then they talk about how they feel about their work. They talk about caring. They talk about being committed. They talk about the dangers of their work and yet how they commit themselves to their patients, residents and clients. The task of these people is important in our society; yet I believe there are conclusions to be drawn from the circumstances we face during this labour dispute. The conclusions suggest that in the care of people in our communities, we have in reality a second-tier health care system. It's a second tier for people for whom it is so important to ensure, as the nurse whose letter I read says, that they stay in our community with dignity, support and good health.

Why do I suggest that this is a second-tier system? It's partly because of how we remunerate these people, most of whom are women. How else can we explain a difference of up to 25 percent in the wages earned by these psychiatric and community care nurses as compared with people who work in acute care facilities? In spite of the comparable training, experience and responsibilities of these community and psychiatric nurses with nurses in acute-care services, they are earning $8,000 to $10,000 a year less than other nurses. Wage parity for these nurses is very far away indeed.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the people who are working in Woodlands, Riverview and other long-term care facilities are in the midst of a very significant change in how we care for people with these special needs. We're moving away from large, centralized institutions to community care and to small facilities. Already many of the staff at Woodlands and Riverview in my community are gone.

The staffs of these institutions are available for new work. They are highly trained and skilled, and they have years of experience. They are people with years of commitment and loyalty to their work and to the people whom they help to care for. They all say to me, very strongly, that they have more productive and worthwhile years to contribute.

In our health care system we need their continued work in the service of health. New workplaces and new responsibilities will likely require additional training, some refocusing of skills and perhaps some complete change into another level where there is a high need for their health care skills. Once again, though, these nurses feel themselves as second-class citizens and as part of a second tier where we are failing to recognize what they have to contribute, what they have to give in new ways and new paradigms of health service. We are failing to provide them with the help, support and opportunities to enable them to continue to provide that important service for us in our community. These people deserve to be heard. They are harbingers of a new paradigm of health care.

[10:15]

HON. J. JANSEN: I would, at the outset, like to agree with the comment from the member for New Westminster that nurses are the backbone of our health-care system in British Columbia. There are some 27,000 registered nurses in the province, and almost 98 percent are women. The member today talked about the important component of that group — our psychiatric nurses and our community-care nurses in British Columbia. Indeed they are a very important component.

Community care will be increasingly emphasized in the future. I have made a commitment that we will focus significantly more attention in the future on delivering health care at the community level. These nurses work in a number of different areas and environments, and they are under a lot of stress and deal with very complicated and difficult situations. I have had the opportunity to visit those environments and areas that they work in. At the B.C. Centre for Disease Control I saw their work and stress. I visited all the institutions where nurses work, and I was able to understand from them some of their concerns.

I've also had the opportunity to visit many of the psychiatric out-patient facilities in our community hospitals, and I have spent a number of nights on the street with our community nurses, understanding from them the seriousness of some of the problems they deal with at the community-nurse level, in terms of sexually transmitted and other diseases among those populations in our downtown-urban environments.

I have to say that I share the concerns of this lingering labour dispute. We want to see it resolved as quickly as possible. This morning I spoke to the director of Riverview, where we have some 750 nurses employed, and I'm working with him to see if we can understand some of the concerns regarding this labour dispute. Yesterday we encouraged the parties to come back to the table, and Vince Ready has indicated a willingness to see if we can address some of the issues as quickly as possible. It is in the interests of patients, the public, the nurses and all of us here to resolve this dispute as soon as possible and to ensure that equity and fairness in terms of their remuneration is indeed in place.

We very much share the concerns outlined this morning and are very much interested in seeing it resolved. I have committed myself to phoning the president this morning to talk to him in more detail about some of these concerns and to ensure that we see quick resolution.

MS. A. HAGEN: The Minister of Health has spoken of his concern for this dispute. I think everyone in the public knows that the government plays a very significant role in its resolution. The purpose of my comments today is to emphasize how vital an equitable and speedy resolution of the dispute is for the immediate needs of the people served by the community and psychiatric nurses who are presently involved in that strike.

I also want to emphasize again the importance of this dispute as a harbinger of the challenges we face in this field of health care. We have had demonstrated to us throughout this dispute the two-tier system in real terms — in terms of how we value the most important resource to the effective working of

[ Page 10765 ]

community care, the nurses in those services, and how we must take not a reactive but a proactive stance in ensuring that the people in British Columbia who have committed themselves over so many years to this kind of care stand tall and well served and well supported as they move into a new system of community services.

We've been through a mental health review. We've been through reviews of long-term care procedures. Unless we bring into play in those fields of endeavour the skills and talents of well-qualified people, trained to new work — if that is necessary — and remunerated adequately so we can continue to recruit people to work in these challenging and stressful areas, we will have failed not only the people who are served by such care facilities and such care workers but we will have failed a health system that cannot survive, that will come to a slow, soggy and dismal kind of fate if these services are not maintained.

We cannot emphasize enough the importance of this small segment of our health care service as it is expanded and as its workers — many of them coming into new fields of endeavour as a result of some of our changing values — make life more dignified and more community-oriented for people who are chronically ill.

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

MR. REID: I rise in my place this morning to talk for a few moments about the future of the PNE. I'll preface my comments first of all by saying that I've had some discussions with Keith Baldrey, so anything that I relate will have probably three or four people's input.

Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver Exhibition Association, which was formed in 1907, subsequently became the Pacific National Exhibition Society in 1946. So the VNE, called the PNE, started in 1907 and is 83 years old this year. The first fair that was convened at the current site was in 1910, making the 80-year-old fair what it is. It's not the oldest fair in the province of British Columbia, but it is significantly aged by 80 years.

In the early days it was a five-day fair. It subsequently became a ten-day fair, and is currently a 17-day fair extravaganza.

It's currently under the management of the province of British Columbia and its investments, which are on that Hastings Street site, and the city of Vancouver, which also has some significant investments in Vancouver's Hastings Park. The lease expires on that facility between the city and the association in 1994. It then reverts to a park and recreational-use area. The changing needs and demands of all the communities, and especially the Vancouver community, indicate today that yesterday's interests have been served by Hastings Park. It now must be served by another dynamic community, which has the potential of producing for the agricultural component what has existed for 80 years in and around the centre of the hub of Vancouver.

Now with the Cassiar connector being constructed, which is going to take part of that land away and make it less accessible, Hastings Street being widened, the problems of the residents in the area in Vancouver East, and the two MLAs who don't have time to spend with their residents to find out what the real problems are. But the changing dynamics of the area indicate to me that there is an alternative for the provincial national exhibition — I refer to it as the provincial national exhibition.

I ask the House to consider the Lower Fraser Valley Exhibition Association's current site. It has been in existence longer than the current Vancouver national exhibition site. It has an Agriplex, a racetrack and a community hall. It has the Stetson Bowl, formerly the Kodak Bowl — the finest in British Columbia. It has livestock buildings. It has plenty of current space to utilize, and it has expansion possibilities ad infinitum. It has parking, without any problem at all in the future.

The 1990s are here, Mr. Speaker, and it's time that we started to consider the agricultural community and their needs in relation to a 17-day agricultural extravaganza. We have the site in Cloverdale. It's the centre of the agricultural community of the Fraser Valley. It's the showcase for local agricultural commodities. It has the provisions for all those participating 4-H Club members who want to come with their families, park their little camper at the edge of the site and show off their classic ribbon-winning animals. What an opportunity! If they try to get into the current one in Vancouver, they're boxed out; they're told to go and stay in Squamish, Langley or somewhere else. Don't try to park your camper in and around the exhibition site, because it's put there for the exhibitors; not the agricultural exhibitors but the hucksters.

Mr. Speaker, not only do we have the opportunity of providing the site right in the middle of the finest agricultural community in British Columbia; we have Highway 10 access right next to the site and Highway 15, which runs right along the site. We've got Highway 99, which dovetails with Highway 15 within a mile and a half. We've got Highway 1A, which is one mile to the north. And we've got Highway 1, which is three and a half miles to the north. So we have all of those international accesses. It's within four miles of the U.S. border, where most of the participants for the provincial national exhibition come from — the people who want to participate in agricultural components. So I have no problem, Mr. Speaker, with us giving serious consideration to the future site of the agricultural component of the provincial national exhibition being the Cloverdale area.

Other activities can continue at the Vancouver national exhibition site, because they have got a coliseum. They've got a racetrack that's going to be there for another three and a half years until they must relocate. They've got a B.C. building. They've got an antiquated arena. They have all the buildings that the province and the city have helped to fund. They've got a community that wants a park and recreation development there. The sporting com-

[ Page 10766 ]

plexes should exist somewhere in the centre of the city of Vancouver. But the population growth is now south and east. The expansion in the nineties in British Columbia is into that super area called Surrey, which has a population of more than 235,000 and will ultimately surpass the population of Vancouver. On top of that, it's in an area where....

Interjections.

MR. REID: It's going to have the racetrack, if I had my way, Mr. Speaker. I would encourage the race track in Surrey to be expanded to a full mile track. It has the potential to be expanded to a full mile track. My community would welcome not only rodeos. We're not opposed to anything to do with animals, because that's our livelihood. We're not opposed to anything to do with agriculture, because that's our livelihood. We're not opposed to racetracks, because that's also our livelihood — we do it in a classy style. We currently have a rodeo. We have the second-best fair in British Columbia. When we get the provincial national exhibition, we will be the hub of the fairs of Canada. So, Mr. Speaker, we want to change the name. We want to move it to Cloverdale, and we want to allow Vancouver and all of its people to argue about what they want to have there, in relation to park space.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale, who has done a very good job of speaking for his community and trying to attract our fair from Vancouver. However, I must say that I support retaining the PNE at Exhibition Park in Vancouver with its thousands of part-time and hundreds of full-time jobs  — many for people from east Vancouver. And I support the racetrack at the PNE. I know some members are trying to remove that facility from east Vancouver.

[10:30]

I must say, as someone who has spent all his life in the city of Vancouver, I support the agricultural component as well. For many of us to see the kinds of livestock that are shown in Vancouver is an opportunity we don't get very much of in the city of Vancouver. And we very much look forward — as I did as a child growing up in Vancouver — to the fair, to experience those kinds of things that many citizens of Vancouver might not otherwise get a chance to experience.

But I must say that the current arrangement, the current PNE, has to change. We have now a crazy situation where we have a 17-day fair monopolizing a valuable piece of real estate in Vancouver. Only Social Credit wouldn't appreciate how valuable that urban site is at the corner of a part of Vancouver. The site is surrounded by barbed wire fence, and it's empty for 350 days of the year. There are these dilapidated concrete buildings. It just sits there empty, and then for 17 days it comes to life. So clearly that's not acceptable. The barbed wire should come down. Some of the buildings should go. There should be a magnificent park there.

I think we can accommodate all of the concerns of the people of Vancouver. We can have a magnificent park available most of the year for the citizens of Vancouver and still have a fair for 17 days. It might be different from the fair we have today, but it would still have an agriculture component and still have many of the components that exist today. On top of that, there is potential for other facilities; the Folk Festival, for example, could be held at a new and exciting urban park in Vancouver. We could still have an expansion of the racetrack. We could have modern buildings and new structures for the facilities. So I think we can have it all in Vancouver.

Anybody who's been at that site just has to look at the mountains, the scenery and the location of that facility to see what a spectacular site it is. Surely, if we want an urban fair, we want an exciting urban facility for a fair that can attract the million visitors that we have every year for 17 days. Then we want to retain it there and not move it way out, an hour's drive from Vancouver. It simply won't have the same ambience, the same kind of history that we have at the PNE. I think the PNE has to change. There's no question about it. That site has to change — no question about it. But we can still have all of the exciting....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Yes, the racetrack, an expanded racetrack. I think we can have an exciting fair. We can have the kind of amenities for the other 300-odd days of the year, so the citizens of east Vancouver could have a large, green and exciting park that could be used for a whole variety of things during the rest of the year — and have the fair grounds and the jobs associated with it as well.

I don't blame the member for Surrey at all for trying, but I completely reject the notion of moving our fair from our community — that job-generating and interesting fair that people really like in Vancouver — and moving it all the way out to Cloverdale just because the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale represents Cloverdale. We can have a much improved and interesting urban experience and urban fair in Vancouver if we put our minds to it.

The fair has to change, so I can appreciate why the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale wants to put his oar in now. The fair is not acceptable the way it is, but I think that's not the direction we should change it.

MR. REID: I certainly appreciate the opportunity to respond to that. He talks about "our fair" being the city of Vancouver's fair. It should more fairly be called the "Provincial National Exhibition" because we have representatives from all the agricultural components of the province represented in this House. And the city of Vancouver representatives continually want to harbour the activity of employment.

If the truth were known about the 3,300 people who work at the PNE, and if the second member for

[ Page 10767 ]

Vancouver East would circulate around those people to find out where they actually come from, he would probably find that most of them come from my constituency. They're tired of driving through the smog and smoke down there and crawling over that barbed wire to get to work. They want to go out into a community where we won't put up barbed wire like they did in 1973 when your colleague turned that over to a group of people who put a barbed wire fence around it. Prior to that we had a congenial city of Vancouver and provincial compatible program until your colleague got hold of it.

He turned it totally political, made it into a sham, started to get involved and tried to dictate how it should be run. What a mess you guys made of it in 1973. We took it over after that, but what has happened since then....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm sure the member is very much aware of our procedures and practices during private members' statements and the business about being argumentative....

MR. REID: This is not.

MR. SPEAKER: It certainly sounds like it to the Chair. Please proceed.

MR. REID: That member must surely know that the people who want to work at a provincial national exhibition come from communities where the agricultural component is — out in Cloverdale, Langley and Richmond where all the agricultural land reserve is. That's where the people are frozen into working in agriculture. Let's allow them to have these facilities in their own community and bring those people from Vancouver and their money out to the little community 40 minutes away on the freeway.

Bring them out to Cloverdale, because we have been forced to go into that 40-minute smog, to try to find a parking spot in those sinful corners, in the alleys and in back yards of people who paved their back yards — you probably paved yours — in order to rent it over 17 days. We want that 17-day component. We want you to have the racetrack, the ice arena and the soccer field. We want you to tear down Empire Stadium and build another one. But come on, put the agricultural component where it belongs: out among the real people, the real farmers and the agricultural people — right on!

Make it kind of neat so a 4-H Club member can ride his bike to an agricultural fair after looking after his little sheep in the field in the afternoon. Then in the morning he pedals off to the agricultural fair for 17 days. Bring in those people from Cranbrook so they don't have to go into downtown sin city. They can spend some time out in nice little colourful Cloverdale where there's a rodeo held annually, and where the people love it. They meet congenially with other....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Your time has expired.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: It's inappropriate to attack the home city of the Speaker.

TRAINING IN EDUCATION
OPPORTUNITIES

MS. MARZARI: How are we going to keep 'em down on the farm?

Over the years the problems that face women in our province and in our country have developed pat solutions which have grown and evolved around poverty, wage discrimination and job discrimination. Women are now being told and have been told for the last few years that training is going to be their panacea — training and education and upgrading.

Taking a close look at this band-aid solution, we have to remember that training itself is surrounded and embedded in old assumptions we have about power relationships between men and women.

While the shiny new programs are being introduced and unveiled, certain facts remain. Before I discuss the particular problems and barriers facing women in training programs, let me remind the House that women are still considered residual to the labour market in our society.

Even while 73 percent of mothers are working full-time, 60 percent of mothers of children under three are working full-time, women hold up half the sky in the workplace and comprise 50 percent of the workers, and women now comprise a good number of heads of households in our community, we still face the fact that our community does not recognize that these women exist in the workforce.

We can look at the fact that only 10 percent of the needs of child care are presently being met in our community, women's pay is still 60 percent on an average of what men make for equivalent jobs, pensions still reflect that 60 percent, women are still considered untrained despite years of managing homes, jobs, children and community organizations, and women are still devalued in their nurturing jobs, their organizational jobs and those jobs which reflect their own experience.

The reason our community gives is that women will get married and have children, and they are not counted in the statistics. Despite the fact that women are a cheap labour supply, women still are not called into the workforce to fulfill, shall we say, the classic definition of the law of supply and demand, which suggests that if you've got a cheap labour supply, they will be attracted to the work force and their wages will go up correspondingly. What happens in the case of the traditional laws of supply and demand to women's labour is that women remain at low pay. Women remain at 60 percent despite training.

Second assumption: women's skills are still measured at less value than male skills. This seems to bear itself out in the statistics that we've compiled over the many years.

Margaret Mead once put it this way: whatever men do, even if it is dressing dolls for religious

[ Page 10768 ]

ceremonies, is more prestigious than what women do and is treated as a higher achievement. Jane Gaskell, in a report she gave to a pay equity conference in Toronto this year, May 10 to 12, commented on the fact that women in the labour force have more education than men in the labour force, even though women are paid much less. If women were paid for their education, women would be better off.

The fact is that our community ascribes the value — and it can only be politically and powerfully defined — that large motor strength, outdoor work, work involving large-muscle skill, is more valuable to this community than small-motor-skill dexterity. Even though, objectively speaking, those interactional people-skills are considered more valuable in the management side of things, women, whose whole experience revolves around social and community skills, interaction and family continuity, find themselves devalued in any job they seem to apply for.

Let's carry that through to training programs that we have thus far evolved in our society and in our communities. Most training programs that we have created basically rely on putting women into a cheap labour force situation. Clerical training is generally short — ten to 26 weeks. It generally assumes, according to Jane Gaskell, that women already have training and only need a little brushing up, a little confidence, perhaps, and a decent wardrobe. Very rarely do the training skills that we provide for women have technical skills involved in anything more than basic typing. Managerial skills are not included in most of these short courses.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Training can be short, Gaskell suggested, because it depends on the fact that women already have the skill before they walk into that program. They have the social skills; they've raised their families; they basically know what they're doing; and they're brushing up their technical typing skills. No wonder the skills programs that we've created are so problematic for women. It creates a vicious cycle for most women as they approach the training market and the skill development market. They have a terrible choice: they're either entering jobs that are already depressed in terms of their value and their financial value to the women, or they are entering jobs that because of their very entry to those jobs might become depressed.

Several studies, according to Gaskell, find that the percentage of females in an occupation depresses wages even after measures of skill demands are controlled. An interesting choice, then, for women as they approach alternate employment and try to break down the barriers that exist for them to enter traditional male employment roles. The barriers that exist in many of the training programs that we have reflect these inconsistencies and these problems.

[10:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired. In response, the Minister of Advanced Education.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, I've never heard such a bunch of outdated nonsense in all my life. Good lord! We're quoting Margaret Mead, God rest her soul. Let's look at what's happening in the 1990s. I think really your evidence is out of date. I think your argument is unfortunate, because if there's anything you've said in support of women's training, you've certainly argued against it. You say women are considered residual and untrained. What a terrible thing to say about half of our workforce. I just can't imagine anyone taking that type of a slur situation in talking about women in training.

Let me give you some evidence. Let's look at some non-traditional components, like the university system, for example. In commerce and business administration — and these are 1985-86 numbers and have no doubt improved since this list was compiled — 45 percent of the students are women. Twelve percent of students in engineering — a very male-dominated course of studies for some years, and for some obvious reasons — are women. That's an increase of 7 percent over a ten-year period. Forty-four percent of the students in medicine now are women. Forty-six percent of the students in law are women. In veterinary medicine 58 percent are women. In other words, women outnumber men in that course of study. So I would really argue against the member's argument, and I have to advise the House that the information we're hearing from that member is outdated and certainly has no bearing on what is happening today.

A high percentage of the women enrolled in universities in British Columbia are.... In undergraduate programs women constitute 62 percent of the part-time and 50 percent of the full-time students. In graduate programs women constitute 40 percent of the full-time and 52 percent of the part-time students. A recent survey of B.C. high-school graduates revealed that while those who go on to post-secondary education tend to come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, there were no significant differences in this pattern by gender.

The other thing I'd like to talk about briefly is the notion that women can't do outdoor work. That's nonsense as well. WCB regulations now require that the maximum weight of material that you're allowed to move around is something like 60 or 70 pounds, which most healthy people, male or female, can do. Every day we notice more and more women doing what were typically considered men's jobs, such as being carpenters, operating heavy-duty equipment, driving trucks, all that type of thing. It's very common nowadays. As a matter of fact, in some instances women are preferred in heavy-equipment jobs because they are deemed to be more reliable and take better care of their equipment; they are deemed to be better employees in that situation. So I would have to argue strongly against that.

I have personal knowledge of a young lady in the airline business many years ago who became the one of the first female supervisors in the Canadian Pacific system. She did extremely well until her husband, who was at school at the time, graduated and went back to work and a family came along. This gal went

[ Page 10769 ]

back to a job with the airlines, but out of a supervisory position. She then became one of the first females to work in an airport in Canada. That was always seen as a traditional place for men only. Women in the airline industry worked on planes or at reservation offices but never worked at airports. That young lady became one of the first female employees in the Canadian Pacific system to work at an airport, and did very well — really a vanguard person. I'm happy to recount that story, because we've been married for 26 years, and she's always been a leader in terms of what she does. She has been a very responsible, non-traditional person in that industry.

I can't accept any of the argument that I've heard from the member opposite. She has clearly used outdated information and is looking at things in the past. She is not looking positively towards any changes in the future, but the changes are there, surely. I think continuing to say women are considered residual and untrained is most unfortunate for the very successful women in this province in the many non-traditional — which are actually now becoming traditional — routes of employment and job opportunities.

With that said, I would consider the member's argument irrelevant, clearly out of date and counterproductive in terms of what she wants to deal with.

MS. MARZARI: I'm really glad I chose this topic to speak to today, because the minister's reaction to my comments is the reaction I probably expected. Therefore I think for the record and for posterity we should put in Hansard some of the things that need to be done to rectify the situation that we face now.

The first one is obviously that as we enter any pay equity program, we devalue the notion that job evaluation is going to solve our problems for us, since job evaluation is quite apparently just a part of the power structures that already complicate matters for women in terms of evaluation of their jobs.

The second thing we have to do is to relate training to a much larger interconnected group of programs and visions in which the value of women's work is given merit, and positions of power and influence are given to women on the basis of their work and experience. Training up women should not mean nailing their other foot to the floor, as this government very often does as they push welfare mothers into the position of taking in children and providing unlicensed day care spaces.

The third thing we have to do is educate rather than train 'em up. We have to respect women by giving them access to college and university education which reflects.... Give it to them in a way that they can accept, by making financial assistance available to women over the long term — not the short, one-year term, but over the six to eight years that it might take for a woman who is raising children to get her education or training.

Fourth item: affirmative action. Training happening in a vacuum is only going to repeat the mistakes of the past. Unless we actively encourage and educate our institutions to promote women — our universities, our colleges, our businesses, our own government — we will not be doing women any service. We have to create bridging in dead-end jobs and upgrading clerical workers to management when they so choose, and in terms they can understand. We have to provide geographic access as well as dollars to training programs that exist now so women can be trained and educated in their own communities.

We need a database that will match women to jobs, that will match jobs to what our future needs are. Right now we don't have any numbers as to how many women actually benefited from the famous four-cornered agreement that we signed with the federal government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

MS. MARZARI: Okay. In closing, we need to treat women where they are at, in their communities, and not as trainable commodities.

THE CANADA WORLD YOUTH
EXCHANGE PROGRAM

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, today I'd like to share with you and my colleagues in the House a program that's been going for a number of years in Canada. It's an educational exchange program through Canada World Youth.

I think in today's age, when this world is growing very small, very rapidly, programs like this are extremely beneficial to all of us — and particularly to those of us that live in a country such as Canada, with what Canada has to offer — so we are able to get a broader perspective of what the world is all about.

The Canada World Youth program is a non-profit organization. It offers this opportunity of travel and exchange to students or young people from the age of 17 to 20 years. They're away from home for about six to seven months. Part of the time is spent with an exchange within Canada, where students from the countries they are going to go and visit come here. They live together and work in a region of Canada. Then the majority of time  — more than half the time — is spent in these other countries.

The program actually works in areas in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the West Indies. When I heard about this — because I was fortunate enough as a young fellow to do a fair amount of travelling throughout the world and through parts of the places mentioned here, in Africa and the Middle East — I let the graduating students of my area know about the program and where they could find more information if they were so inclined.

Funnily enough perhaps — from my standpoint — the opportunity was taken up by two of my constituents: one chap called Kevin Foster from Lake Cowichan, and another called Shane Howell from Duncan. They took advantage of this program and had some wonderful experiences. Kevin went to Indonesia for a period of time, and Shane went to Bolero in Africa. Like anyone going to different parts of the world

[ Page 10770 ]

such as where these two young fellows went, they came back with some pretty interesting and wonderful experiences.

The way the program works is not simply that you're off on your own in some boondoggle. There are those communication skills which are necessary to learn because you are with other people who speak a different language. You are in a completely different country and society to what you're used to here in this western society.

It's not for everybody. It can be for some a very difficult and trying time. But these two students, Kevin and Shane, found it to be a very rewarding time. They built some very strong and wonderful relationships with the people they lived with here in Canada and in the homes they stayed in in both of the respective countries that they visited.

Kevin, who went to Indonesia, found a totally different climate than what you would find in Lake Cowichan. It was very hot — 30-degree weather. The people, like the people of Lake Cowichan, were very friendly. The actual growth around the community he was in was very lush. Certainly that is a similar set of circumstances in Lake Cowichan. There was a green, vibrant countryside, and a very different society than what he experienced at home.

His time there, as with most of the students, was spent doing work in the agricultural fields with the people there. They work a good portion of the day. Both of them were involved in agricultural work in different parts of the world. But it was quite an experience for them from that standpoint.

Kevin was saying that, understandably, the people in his country were very poor, but because of the richness and the fertility of the soil there was not a shortage of food, albeit that food was considerably different than what he was used to at home. Their diet there consisted mainly of fish, rice, vegetables, noodles and fruit.

However, he relayed one unique little anecdote about his trip there. There's a particular fruit that grows wild. It's called — and I hope I get this pronounced correctly — durian. It's a very prized fruit. When a villager finds this fruit starting to mature — it's off a tree — it's so rare that they actually set up a little guard-post below that tree and wait for this fruit to ripen and fall. You don't want to walk away from it, because somebody else may be there, and they sleep there at night in case it falls during the night. He told me that this fruit tastes somewhat like a mixture of sweet onion and tuna fish; it's a little bit different. There's no durian, he found, in Lake Cowichan.

He was involved in several other projects besides the agricultural one. In this particular community they were looking to build a dam. Before they went ahead, they had to get permission from the spirits that inhabit the forest. Of course, they went through a ritual and a ceremony, and they ended up having to sacrifice a chicken and say some prayers to get the spirits to agree to allow this dam to go ahead. So he had a very interesting time there. I'm happy to say that he's looking to go to other spots.

[11:00]

In Shane's time away in Africa, food was considerably different. The experience which he found different from here in Canada was that the life pace was considerably slower than at home. In the household of the family he was living with, he was not allowed in the kitchen. Males were not allowed in the kitchen at all, and they were not allowed to clean or wash their own clothes. They weren't allowed to do anything of that domestic nature. He found this to be somewhat difficult to adjust to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, the member's time has expired.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I must begin by saying that I hope the member for Cowichan-Malahat's constituent who was in Bolero, if I caught the name of the country right.... I'm not familiar with where Bolero is.

MR. BRUCE: The community of Bolero.

MR. PERRY: I see; it's a community.

I hope that he will avail himself of the chance to read Margaret Mead, the great anthropologist, because despite what the minister of universities said a few minutes ago, Margaret Mead is still very relevant in the modern world. He may find something of interest to deepen his experience.

I also want to say that it's a pleasure to note that we have more in common with Indonesia than we sometimes realize. Because although the Sierra Club and the Western Canada Wilderness Committee apparently are not aware of this, the orangutan, an endangered species in Indonesia, is actually quite common in British Columbia.

It's a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to respond to an interesting statement on Canada World Youth, because I have some personal connection — however removed — with that organization as well. My colleague the member for New Westminster points out that her son David Hagen also traveled to Indonesia as a Canada World Youth scholar. As well, he had the experience of travelling to Newfoundland and seeing how different the culture and economic status of people is even within our own country.

I have a friend, Brenda Wemp — originally from Chase, I believe — who traveled to El Salvador for Canada World Youth in 1979 or 1980 just prior to the assassination of Archbishop Romero. She became tremendously sensitized to the problems of the Salvadoran people: their poverty, their difficulty in struggling for basic human rights and even the fact that they face death stalking them in the street every day in their simplest attempt to organize to protect rights that we take for granted.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan-Malahat pointed out that the world is growing smaller very rapidly. Sometimes I wonder. Literally, of course, I don't think he meant that. I guess the earth is growing smaller technically, but not rapidly. I think he meant that we perhaps have more in common with

[ Page 10771 ]

people elsewhere in the world than we've had in the past. I wonder if that's really true. I think that actually there's ample evidence that the gulf between rich and poor in this world is widening.

I think of a presentation I heard at the Registered Nurses' Association's annual conference this year. The keynote speech highlighted the fact that the contributions of developed countries like Canada to Third World countries are actually far less now than they were in the past in material terms, and that the drain of resources from the Third World to the wealthy countries is actually accelerating.

I remind you that every second of every day as we debate here a child somewhere in the world is dying or is prematurely and permanently disabled by a preventable disease. I wonder how well we are aware of these concerns. That's one of the tremendous values I see in an organization like Canada World Youth in fostering and deepening an understanding of the rest of the world by young people in this country. I'm sure that the students from Lake Cowichan and Duncan also would have had some very moving experiences in relation to the poverty they have seen in the two countries they visited and in the environmental difficulties faced by people in those countries which were described in the Brundtland report.

I know, from my colleague's experience with her son, David Hagen, or my friend Brenda Wemp, that the experience transformed their lives in many ways. My friend Brenda became intimately involved in the movement to protect the rights of the Salvadoran people and to attempt to resist the activities of the death squads there. She went on to become a law student and to work in immigration law defending refugees in Toronto.

I'd like to add to the member for Cowichan-Malahat's praise for Canada World Youth, in the hope that many more British Columbia youth will have the chance to profit from that experience.

MR. BRUCE: I appreciate the comments from the member from Point Grey. He was mentioning that one of the other chaps went to Newfoundland. Shane too went to Newfoundland. One of the other things that he mentioned was an experience I had. He found himself in this village as the only white man in a country that didn't speak English. I can remember that experience in Tunisia, actually, after quite a long period away, for the first time actually feeling like a minority — the language difference, the race, the culture, the religion. It was at Christmastime, and it finally hit home that not all the world celebrates Christmas. It was quite a shock for me.

The feeling and the idea of trying to live as a minority and what that can mean can be quite an experience. Mind you, you always had that ticket home. All you had to do was get to any airport and you were back in North America. You had a free ride out, in a sense, or a quick turn back. Shane relayed that to me as an experience that he had.

One little note with respect to Shane and how it went with the family that he lived with in Malawi

The owners of the place where he was living had a little baby. How these exchanges and how they will be carried on in the future go a long way by the fact that.... The family so much appreciated the relationship between Shane and the other young chap who was living and working with him there that they named the baby after him. So forever there will be that understanding and friendship between the two of them.

It's funny, at this time in Canada's development.... I can remember, back in the seventies when we had gone through the FLQ crisis and similar things that were happening in Quebec and the rest of Canada, that there used to be extensive exchanges between students throughout Canada. I think it's wonderful that we have the world exchanges, but there's no time like now for us to again move to the aspect of reaching out to one another in this country and instigating a series of exchanges, through the schools and whatever other programs are available, between the peoples and regions of Canada as a whole.

I found when I came home from my year's trip throughout parts of the world that it was overwhelming what this country of Canada has to offer. In fact, I believe that Canada is the greatest experiment in the world where there is such a mix of races, heritages and cultures that are trying to live with a common bond, that bond being Canada. To my way of thinking, there is no room even for discussion about separation of any form between any regions of this country. There is lots of room for discussion of understanding of one another's aspirations. Today we as a country, as a whole, should be looking to further those types of discussions.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 28.

CARMANAH PACIFIC PARK ACT

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In moving second reading of this act, I just want to make a few comments, and I will reserve some lengthy comments for when the debate is closed either later today or next week.

Bill 28 creates a 3,600-hectare class A park over the lower portion of the Carmanah Valley on the west coast of Vancouver Island. It also establishes the Carmanah Valley forest management area over the remainder of the drainage, including its tributary August Creek.

The Carmanah Valley Forest Management Advisory Committee is created to advise the Minister of Forests on all matters pertaining to the integrated management of forest resources within the management area. The committee will comprise a chairperson and up to eight other members representing the wide spectrum of interests in the use and protection of resources in the Carmanah Valley.

The bill provides a balanced resolution to a difficult and highly contentious public issue regarding the protection of a superlative growth of old-growth Sitka spruce trees. The ecological integrity of the

[ Page 10772 ]

spruce grove is maintained, while at the same time forestry jobs and economic stability in nearby communities are supported through careful logging in the remainder of the drainage.

Provisions are made in the bill to extinguish the timber tenures within the area of the new park. This land is part of tree-farm licence No. 44, which is held by MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. That part of the tree-farm licence contains another form of tenure called a timber licence. The bill waives a provision in the Forest Act for one year's notice to the holder before land can be deleted from each of these tenures, thereby enabling immediate creation of the park. Other provisions in the Forest Act regarding deletions remain in effect.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be read for the second time.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the bill. The bill does not, in our opinion, represent a solution either to the situation in the Carmanah Valley or to the hundreds of land use conflicts occurring around this province. The bill, in our view, is based on shortsighted political expediency and reveals a government that is unwilling or unable to understand the need for a rational land use planning process.

It does not offer security to forestry employees, who have seen their numbers dwindle and who are paying a very heavy price in lost jobs because this government doesn't have the guts or the inclination to do a proper job of forest management. It does not convince British Columbians, who are deeply concerned about the environment, that this government has any intention of implementing a rational land use strategy. It offends aboriginal people, who are trying to pursue their legitimate rights and who were not consulted on this bill.

The bill is not a solution, and these are not just my opinions. George Watts, the chairman of the Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council, said: "The government didn't even have the courtesy to talk to us about this. This is just another example of the government's insensitivity to the aboriginal interests." But that's no surprise, because when you go back in history — and not that far — when the former Minister of Forests was asked by the federal Minister of Indian Affairs to consider aboriginal interests before making forestry decisions, his response went like this: "If they want to play silly little games, fine. Let them play silly little games." When the current minister was asked about meeting with the Nuu'chah'nulth, he said he didn't meet with them and he didn't know if his predecessor had met with them.

Mr. Speaker, others are equally offended. The IWA described this bill as a knee-jerk reaction and went on to call for a proper process to be put into place. They reject the valley-by-valley approach. MacMillan Bloedel, in its press release of April 10, said: "This decision is based on politics." Both the Western Canada Wilderness Committee and the Sierra Club called this bill "a non-decision and unacceptable."

We wonder how this decision was made and why it was made behind closed doors in the back room. Why, if we are going to create a park in British Columbia, do we not involve the Minister of Parks? The Park Act clearly gives this minister responsibility. The Ministry of Parks annual report states: "New areas being considered for park status will be evaluated under strict guidelines prior to being designated." The minister was not involved in this process.

[11:15]

Last year the former Minister of Parks said that his staff had been conducting an analysis for five or six months. He also said that he would table it in the Legislature. Where is it? This year the new Minister of Parks said that there was no need to undertake a detailed study. Just as the Park Act is printed on paper, we have a paper Minister of Parks.

Similarly, the Ministry of Forests planning process is too narrowly focused. While Forest Service documents state that the public and industry are saying that a comprehensive approach to land use decisions should be developed, the minister says he would rather fight it out valley by valley.

Group after group, whether they be environmental, labour, aboriginal or industry, have appeared before the Forest Resources Commission arguing for a comprehensive land use strategy. We need to define the working forest to guarantee an economically secure resource base, we need to complete the system of parks and ecological reserves, and we need to examine why other forestry jurisdictions appear to out perform British Columbia, to provide more job security and to create more wealth from their forest resource than we do.

I want to illustrate just one area that was left out of this planning process. A pilot project on intensive silviculture has produced some startling numbers on what we can achieve at a reasonably modest cost. In the case in question, by increasing the silvicultural investment from a base amount, which is normally $3.51 per cubic metre of timber harvested, to $6.21 per cubic metre — a modest $2.70 per cubic metre — we can increase the annual harvest considerably. In this project it showed that the annual harvest can be increased from 88,000 cubic metres annually to 130,000 cubic metres annually, an increase of 42,000 cubic metres of timber per year. At the same time, direct employment as a result of the program increased by 52 jobs.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

If this type of intensive silvicultural regime were instituted over the 320,000 hectares of tree-farm licence No. 44, we could expect an increase in the annual allowable cut of approximately 500,000 cubic metres. At the same time, 500 new jobs would be created, while existing jobs would really be secured. Mr. Speaker, these are real numbers; the research has been done. These are industry figures that I'm quoting.

[ Page 10773 ]

The travesty is that this government has not considered the full range of options. The travesty is that this government talks about compensating forest companies but does nothing about providing opportunities for working people. Let there be no mistake. If a government action takes away a worker's job, that worker should be compensated. But given the opportunity, working people would far prefer work to compensation, security to insecurity. They're not getting it from this government, and they're not getting it from this bill.

Not long ago a Socred member said that it was a matter of choice. I think this bill clearly illustrates that choice. It's a choice between a meaningful environment and jobs accord, and the continuation of valley-by-valley conflict; between the achievement of economic stability for our forest communities and the spectre of job loss and insecurity; between a renewed future for our forests and the continuation of the mismanagement of this administration; between real commitment to environmental protection and a continuation of this government's neglect; and between the lasting economic benefits of a mutually beneficial resolution of aboriginal rights and the continuation of economic disruption and expensive court battles. This is a choice between a government that is prepared to listen to British Columbians and one intent on imposing its own narrow agenda. We reject that narrow agenda, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. MESSMER: I rise in support of this bill which will create another class A provincial park I can say that I am always pleased to work on a park proposal with my colleague the Minister of Forests, and I congratulate him on this initiative. I believe this is probably the first time a park initiative has been brought forward by the Ministry of Forests, certainly according to the people I've talked to over the last number of years. It has been a pleasure to work with him on measures to preserve the special features of this province. Of course, that is exactly what Carmanah Pacific Park will do.

The Minister of Forests had to make a very difficult decision: to define the fine line between the economy and the environment. I've been to the Carmanah. One of my first duties as Minister of Parks was to fly into the Carmanah. For the first time I, too, saw the 267 Sitka spruce trees there. I looked at the Sitka giant and was amazed as its size — I suppose that's because I come from the Okanagan, where we have lodgepole pine, and we harvest that. Some of them are 31 feet around and 311 feet high. I saw the hemlock, cedar and balsam that are mixed in with the Sitka spruce.

I'm amazed at the last speaker suggesting that these giants should be done away with and should not be conserved for the future of our youngsters coming up behind us. The forest in the Carmanah has an appeal all of its own. I believe that it's the government's duty to protect this outstanding forest, and we are protecting it.

It's also government's duty to examine the entire Carmanah Valley and make a responsible decision on the watershed outside our park boundaries. The Ministry of Forests has undertaken that. Some people say that the area outside the park is insignificant because it represents only 2 percent of the tree-farm licence, but I say that 2 percent is very significant to the 13 people who could lose their jobs in the woodlands division of MacMillan Bloedel. It's very significant to the 27 people who could lose their jobs in converting plants. It's very significant to the 150 people on Vancouver Island, who stand to lose their jobs because the Carmanah has been protected,

Don't get me wrong. Our major concern is to protect the trees on the floor of the Carmanah Valley. That is why I've given full credit to the Minister of Forests for his initiative on this program. All the reports show that the park created by this bill will give the giant spruce trees the necessary protection. We're still waiting for a verdict, as you know, on the rest of the valley.

We have set aside land for study to see how it will best suit the needs of all British Columbians. In this study we must remember that the people of Vancouver Island are the ones who will suffer because of our decision. We must remember that our goal is to protect the 267 trees. This protection must continue once a park has been created. Already, because of publicity, thousands of people have visited this very fragile forest. The Carmanah Valley attracts visitors, as you know, from all over the world. We want people to come to see beautiful British Columbia, but unfortunately success has had its price. In the Carmanah the price is the damage to the trails and the trees.

As you're aware, facilities are badly needed. I can tell you what parks staff are doing. This summer B.C. Parks has closed the Bonilla main road, and will improve the Rossander Road entrance to the park. We will improve the parking-lot at the end of Rossander Road and put up some signs to direct visitors to the Carmanah triplets, some of the largest trees. We will upgrade the trails for safety and build a public viewing platform to protect the tree roots. For your information, we'll have rangers in the park seven days a week.

We also intend to develop a pamphlet to tell visitors about the park...

MR. CLARK: No camping?

HON. MR. MESSMER: No, no camping.

... and to develop master plans, and the process will start immediately. As you know, they serve as a blueprint for the use of future parks and the parks that we have. This is the way that we're sure the public has full input into the park.

In addition to this, we will develop a school program relating to the Carmanah. Especially because of the publicity that Carmanah already has received, it takes us off to a very good start. We have an opportunity here to teach our children about the old growth in British Columbia and what we're doing to protect that old growth.

[ Page 10774 ]

In conclusion, once again I must state my support for the bill. Carmanah will be a valuable addition to our provincial parks, and I urge every member of this House to support the bill.

MR. CASHORE: It was interesting to hear the comments of the Minister of Parks. One has to ask about the roles of the Minister of Parks and the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds). Obviously this is seen as a forestry bill, but what we have here is a problem for all British Columbians, because we do not have a real solution.

We have a bill here that represents shortsighted political expediency, where there was no significant or meaningful public participation or adequate study. This bill is not a solution.

When Solomon settled a dispute about the parenthood of a baby between two mothers by proposing, to cut the baby in half, history considered Solomon to be wise. But when the Socred government puts forward a bill to resolve a symbolic land use conflict by cutting the Carmanah Valley in half, it betrays a tired government, bankrupt of ideas, totally out of touch with the values and vision so necessary for the resource and wilderness planning required to develop a sustainable future for our children.

This bill draws an arbitrary line on a map for purely political reasons. It carves up a unique watershed without adequate study, without full involvement of diverse groups. This bill is not a solution; it satisfies no one. It falls to address vital issues Ostrich-like, it refuses to look at the global issues that must be addressed to truly achieve a sustainable future.

Those issues have been canvassed by the people of British Columbia in many ways. They have been brought forward by the working people of the province, by the industry of the province, by the New Democratic Party and by those environmental organizations which have performed such a vital role in drawing public attention and the government's attention to these issues.

All of these groups have called for a royal commission to do with forestry in this province and an inventory of the resources of the forest that would look at that resource not simply as a fibre farm, but as areas of unique treasure within this province where all aspects of biodiversity must be considered. We need an inventory in this province that recognizes the value of the timber, but also the fact that in certain significant valleys where we have an ecosystem such as the Carmanah, there could be a blueprint that would provide a legacy to all of history and that would help us to understand the meaning of the true biological makeup of an old-growth forest.

Such information is vital to the future. The decision cannot be made about where that type of protection should be applied until we have available to us the knowledge that would be gleaned by a proper inventory that encompasses the entire province, an inventory that would deal with such things as wildlife values, fishing values — both sports and commercial — tourism values and archaeological values — the values that represent the heritage and history of the native people of this province, values that would recognize that the wilderness is a value in itself and that it, too, must be considered in making the decisions that would provide for a sustainable future for our province.

We have stated, in consistency with what we did when we were government before, that the park and wilderness area of this province should be doubled. We can also have a viable economy by going through the planning process in a way that has integrity, with public involvement, and that draws together all the wonderful human and natural resources of this province into a planning process to help us decide where those areas should be.

[11:30]

Mr. Speaker, once that is decided, then further decisions can be made with due haste in a way that is satisfying to the people of this province, so they know that the environmental and economic issues have been resolved; indeed, those issues are one and the same.

When we think about the issues we are dealing with today as we look at this bill, we are faced with the legacy of the kind of planning in which this government indulges. The planning I'm referring to is valley-by-valley and watershed-by-watershed, where it appears to be the vested interest — indeed, the game plan — of this government to maintain a divisiveness among the populace, which enables them to continue to carve up the province on such a basis without ever having achieved an overall plan.

Without an overall plan, we show not wisdom but stupidity. Only stupidity could result in the lack of a plan that enables us to go forward and uphold all the values that must be recognized in land use planning in this province. This government has shown that it does not know how to deal with such issues as conflict resolution, public participation or assessment of the values that must be dealt with in coming forward with an inventory. That is regrettable and tragic for the consequences of the future of this province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia — workers, environmentalists, people who operate industry and especially our children — have a stake in the future of the province. All of us want to participate meaningfully and significantly, and the political will is there in the midst of the public. The political will is going to make an appropriate approach for the 1990s and beyond that truly work when it comes to dealing with these situations.

Mr. Speaker, I have been to the Carmanah Valley four times. I have a great appreciation for that area. I have been to other significant areas in the province that are being considered for preservation. There is no question that we have some of the cathedrals of British Columbia there as part of our antiquity, and part of that which we must consider of great value.

[ Page 10775 ]

When we consider values of old growth and the ecosystems, we must also consider the values of such things as endangered species. This government has not demonstrated that it has done studies, for instance, that refer to the marbled murrelet and other potentially endangered species. These studies do not exist. This government had the opportunity to prepare the work quite some time ago, and they were quite happy to sit by and leave that to the company, instead of going forward and preparing that work itself.

In conclusion, I would like say that we must consider the fact that young British Columbians have expressed their concern for the future of the ecological diversity of this province. They have expressed their concern for their ability to participate in the process. We are calling for a process that does not divide this province watershed by watershed, but that looks to the future, the values and the interests that must be dealt with in order to have a comprehensive and workable plan.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this government's inaction in dealing with another valley. Again this government is putting shortsighted political expediency over a genuine desire to resolve land use conflicts in British Columbia. It is time to resolve the conflicts by dealing with the process of decision-making. Right now no such process exists Rather, this government seems to encourage natives, environmentalists, labour and companies to engage in confrontation, whether in the Carmanah, Clayoquot Sound, the Tsitika, the Stein, the Cariboo and so on — in valley after valley, watershed after watershed. This government has followed the legacy of previous Social Credit administrations and has fostered distress and conflict in valley after valley.

What has the government done to bring about a resolution? Let's look back at the record. In 1988 this House was told: "Carmanah is adjacent to Pacific Rim. Let the feds deal with it." The former Parks minister said no decision would be made until the parks branch had completed their study. No study was ever forthcoming. The minister's own foresters have to rely on company figures to determine the value of the Carmanah, because this government has no inventory of the trees there — and, for that matter, no inventory of the forests of British Columbia.

Both the Sierra Club and the Western Canada Wilderness Committee call this plan unacceptable and a non-decision. George Watts of the Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council says this government didn't even have the courtesy to call and ask if the natives had an interest in the Carmanah; yet Carmanah is identified in their land claim. In fact, Carmanah Indian Reserve No. 6 is located less than a kilometer up the beach from Carmanah Creek itself and was occupied as late as the 1920s.

The village of Ucluelet, in a letter to the minister on April 30, expressed disappointment with the Carmanah decision, and the decision did not take into consideration past planning and studies. "The trend in past decisions leads us to believe that the land and employment base for our community, if not the whole province, is threatened," says Ucluelet.

MacMillan Bloedel, the holder of TFL 44, on April 10 said: "This decision is based on politics, not on good forest management...and certainly not on economics." In the words of the company's land use manager, Stan Coleman: "If these kinds of things continue — land use decisions from a political rather than a forestry perspective — I wonder what's going to happen to the rural communities on Vancouver Island."

The IWA local 185 from Alberni: "If this type of knee-jerk reaction continues throughout Vancouver Island and B.C., there will be a lot of people out of work.... A proper process has to be put in place for the province."

We have virtually everyone in British Columbia — natives, communities, environmentalists, workers and the companies — opposing this plan.

Let's look at the job loss that will be generated by the company's decision. In 1987 dollars, the annual government revenue from the allowable cut in Carmanah is estimated to be $4.3 million. That's $2.4 million to the province and $1.9 million to the federal government. Three hundred direct, indirect and induced jobs in the Alberni region are due to the Carmanah, and aggregate earnings will be $2 637, 440 annually. That breaks down into 32 direct logging jobs at $47,780 average, for a total of $1,528,960; 68 direct milling jobs at $43,392 average, for $2,950,656; 80 indirect and induced jobs at $32,968 average, for a further $2,637, 440; and other jobs in the province that will generate $6.6 million, inclusive of the $2.6 million in the Alberni region. Over $11 million of annual income is generated due to the inclusion of the Carmanah in the cut of TFL No. 44.

Job loss in Alberni has been extreme: from 6,000 jobs in 1979 down to 4,000 jobs today. Housing prices in Alberni are an average of $46,000 — a decrease. The population decreased 1 percent last year. We must talk about compensation for the workers laid off and compensation for the community, which will suffer dramatically from this government's decision.

Everybody agrees that the big trees must be protected, but if this government were truly interested in saving large trees, it would have looked at including Cathedral Grove, which has a quarter of a million people visiting it every year. For over 20 years the government has not made a decision on Cathedral Grove, privately owned by MacMillan Bloedel, where they do not need permission to cut the trees, where they could go in tomorrow....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, second reading is the principle of the bill, and the principle of the bill is to deal with Carmanah, not to deal with other areas of the province. I must ask you to be relevant.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The government moves to preserve the Carmanah Valley to the exclusion of other areas of British Columbia where more people visit. Everybody agrees that the big trees must be protected, but this decision does not bring in a plan

[ Page 10776 ]

that is comprehensive, that satisfies everyone and that takes into consideration all those people in this province. Therefore we will oppose this bill.

MR. SERWA: It's a real pleasure to rise today to speak on the philosophy and principles of this bill, a very interesting proposal showing the government's continuing care for a balance in decisions on the resources of this magnificent province.

The British Columbia forests are a unique resource in our province, and they're a source of our exceptional lifestyle. In terms of revenue, they're certainly the mainstay of our provincial economy. They also offer a host of recreational opportunities. I'm very pleased with the decision to create a major provincial park in the Carmanah Valley because, as has been said so often this morning, the large trees are unique and very special, and we must maintain the protection of the diversity of the environment in order to protect the unknown.

There is an enormous task in protecting and managing the recreational resources of British Columbia as well as the forests. The government has made a very strong, sound, well-reasoned proposal in this particular case. As part of the debate here, I think it's very important to see where the other guys, the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, are coming from. It's part of the philosophy and the principle of the bill, but in the process of debate, one has to determine where these individuals are coming from and what they really care for. All too often they are looking for press. That's a major concern of that group of individuals. They're not concerned about anything except press and the lust for power.

The Carmanah decision was a well-reasoned compromise between the necessities of aesthetics and economics. It supported the philosophy of the Brundtland commission that ties the economy and the environment as integral to each other. Half the region has been dedicated to an enormous provincial park, and half has been given qualified approval for logging. There are very strict approvals necessary for that logging procedure. Certainly the hydrology of the area is the major concern for the type of logging activity that will take place. I know that our major forest companies, in this particular case MacMillan Bloedel, are certainly qualified to log in sensitive areas and do an outstanding job of logging.

I recognize that this particular decision has thrown quite a monkey-wrench into the gear train of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. That group of opposition members has for a long time, since they have not had any power in the province of British Columbia, accumulated an inordinate amount of special self-interest groups. They are a party that without any qualm supports a wide variety of diametrically opposed groups. As long as they don't have power, this seems to be quite acceptable and agrees with their philosophy of fence-sitting. There is certainly an uncomfortable coalition between the unions, which are certainly the fuel and the source of funding and manpower for their political aspirations, and the greens, the part of the NDP party that purports to care. It's a fairly recent innovation, Mr. Speaker, that they propose to care about the environment.

[11:45]

Interjections.

MR. SERWA: No, no, the principle of the bill that I'm alluding to is very important, because I'm getting to that. But first of all, in the course of debate we have to show what axe is being ground — if you'll pardon the very poor Shakespearean pun — by the NDP.

The NDP green party indicates that the decision was a cop-out, and at best a delay. Okay. This was the NDP caucus meeting, and the meeting was no sooner over than the greens were publicly declaring an intention to push harder than ever for the party to adopt preservationism. Preservationism: I don't think I heard the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) say anything about that. But the green party and those urban areas where the NDP get their support are very concerned about that.

I think the party has to recognize that their money and a lot of their muscle-power and manpower comes from the International Woodworkers of America. What are they saying now? They're saying the same thing that their hon. leader says: "We've got to sit on both sides of the fence, and hopefully we'll muddle through."

You have to see clearly where these people are coming from. They have no objectivity when it concerns the philosophy and principles of this particular bill. The logging is to be stymied by an environmental protest. Certainly the IWA is at distinct odds with the preservationists. What do some of the members of the IWA have to say about this? What is their position with the philosophy and principles of this important bill?

David Haggard, first vice-president of the IWA Local 1-85 in Port Alberni, said: "If all the areas that are under dispute in our local area are settled the way the Carmanah was settled, we'd see about a 40 percent reduction in our membership." What does a 40 percent reduction in their membership do to the party coffers and the opposition party that is trying so desperately to assume the reins of power and become government? Here they're faced with a decision, and it has created a dilemma in that party.

Mr. Haggard is infuriated by the government's decision to study the half that was left for cutting before any cutting could be done. The Carmanah has already been studied to death. Earl Foxcroft, president of Local 1-85, remains confident, however, that the New Democrats have no intention of going preservationist. His impression of the policy convention led him to believe an NDP government would have put far less forest aside for parkland.

Where do those people stand who are calling for 11 percent of the provincial area of the province of British Columbia to be parks? I don't think we would have lost any jobs, because the NDP would have found other areas for us to cut. Greens in the NDP would be horrified, of course. They would certainly

[ Page 10777 ]

be horrified because, believe it or not, they had a different impression of that caucus.

You wouldn't believe it: a very absolute and very important decision, and two different parties had different concepts. How could you get that from a fence-sitting party? I don't know how that happened.

What did Mr. Hersog have to say? They took what Mr. Harcourt said at the convention to mean that he would not log the Carmanah. What about the jobs in Port Alberni, Mr. Member from Port Alberni?

The Leader of the Opposition said he would not log the Carmanah. But — you wouldn't believe this — the Leader of the Opposition has also said he would preserve it all for parkland. It's whatever is convenient. So there you are. You can have it all logged, or you can have it all parkland.

Mr. Speaker, what do some of the members who have a vital interest in the philosophy and principles of this bill have to say? The hon. member for Alberni was asked what would happen. He was asked what the NDP would have done in the Carmanah. "Without studies," he replied, "I can't say what the party would have done."

Would it have permitted any logging at all in the Carmanah? "Not necessarily," he replies. However, the former jeweler and watchmaker says he believes that over time, the NDP could have found a solution that would have preserved jobs. He was sure of that.

He wants more studies. Some of them are saying the thing has been studied to death; he's calling for more studies. Where do they stand on that? I heard the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) just say the decisions were made — believe it or not — behind closed doors. After all these studies, he's saying that the decision was made behind closed doors.

Guess what group here in the Legislature of the province of British Columbia opposed the bill that we put forward — the referendum legislation? Who do you suppose opposed having the people involved in decisions? You bet. It was the people who lust for power, and who know better than anyone else.

What is the member for...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps the member could relate all of this to the principle of the bill which we're currently dealing with. I've listened carefully — well, not that carefully, but I have listened — and I haven't heard very much of it that relates to the principle of the bill.

MR. SERWA: Thank you very much for your direction, Mr. Speaker. I'm certainly coming to that. I wanted to establish, before I went on with the philosophy and the principles of the bill, the importance for those listening and those who will watch the TV commentaries and read the newspapers to know specifically where this biased argument and this fence-sitting is coming from. I have to establish that foundation before I continue on the philosophy and the principles.

I will say only one more thing on that. What did the member for Prince Rupert say on this? He said he would like to see more timber rights given to small business entrepreneurs, and I think we would have to agree. He would like to see more value-added products, and I think I would have to agree with that. He's correct that it would mean more jobs, and I have to agree with that. This government has always been committed to creating jobs in the province of British Columbia.

But he says: "But as far as logging the Carmanah is concerned, I've never ruled it out. As for preserving it instead, the concept of the park is not a bad idea." So there you are, hon. Forests critic: you can have it either way.

Mr. Speaker, this particular bill is well deserving of the entire support of the government of the province of British Columbia. It's entirely deserving of the support of all of the members of this Legislative Assembly. It is good legislation. It is a well-reasoned, reasonable process which protects old-growth fir at the same time as protecting jobs. None can do it better. I give a great deal of credit to our government, which has had the wisdom and the sense based on solid reason to make such an objective decision.

MR. SPEAKER: I presume the second member for Nanaimo will make the appropriate correction. It is spruce that we're dealing with and not fir.

MS. PULLINGER: It is indeed spruce that we're dealing with. Yes, that's right.

Like my colleagues, I rise in opposition to this bill. I'm happy to say that my opposition is supported by environmentalists, native peoples and forest workers. We all know that the opposition stems from the fact that this bill in no way represents any kind of real solution to the Carmanah question or to any of the other land-use and resource-use questions facing us in this province. This bill perpetuates the shortsighted approach of this government that prefers to deal with land and resource-use issues valley by valley and watershed by watershed. This government in this bill does nothing to slow or stop the increasing conflict around this province over forest issues specifically. It does nothing to give British Columbians the badly needed, long-term, comprehensive land and resource plan for this province.

As well, the process involved in coming to this decision has been terribly flawed. People in this province have made it abundantly clear over all sorts of issues like the Tsitika, the Carmanah Valley and the Chilcotins that they want a voice in decision-making. They're tired of top-down decision-making by this government and this cabinet based on its own political priorities, which this clearly is. It's an opportunists' bill that is shortsighted and designed to meet political ends, not environmental or forestry ends. On those bases I oppose this bill.

This bill also shows that this government is seriously out of touch with British Columbians. Above all, this bill and the scheme on which it's based illustrate one thing, this government is seriously out of touch with the aspirations of all British Columbians who desire a new approach to the contentious

[ Page 10778 ]

forestry and land-use-conflict issues facing us and dividing us. Over three decades of successive Social Credit governments have mismanaged our forests to the point that these....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Successful.

MS. PULLINGER: Not successful — successive.

...to the point that these conflicts have become ever more intense and disruptive. Social Credit has abdicated responsibility for the stewardship of British Columbia's resources.

Staffing and funding cutbacks have destroyed the capability of our Forest Service and make it impossible to judge with any kind of accuracy the sustainability of current harvesting levels or the adequacy of restocking and silviculture programs. I would suggest there's good reason why the government won't look into those things. The government's neglect has led to wasteful and environmentally damaging logging practices. Those have resulted in unnecessary destruction of fish and animal habitat that has resulted in erosion and alteration of drainage patterns and the creation of ugly scarred landscapes in some of our more scenic areas, which, as we're all well aware, is very damaging to the tourism industry.

Recent articles in some widely read international publications such as Outside magazine, the New Yorker and National Geographic show that British Columbia is getting an international reputation for such wasteful and irresponsible practices. That too is damaging to the tourism industry — our second-largest industry.

Studies also show that in British Columbia we lag far behind other forest jurisdictions in the amount of employment and value-added for each cubic metre of wood cut. We could do much better.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must interrupt you as I've interrupted others. This debate would be appropriate during estimates or at another time, but debate has to be directly related to the principle of the bill. I have not heard anything in some time that's related to that. The general area of forest practices and forest management in the province really isn't appropriate at this time. There will be another opportunity in this session.

MS. PULLINGER: It's very clear that this bill is based on political opportunism and is intended to meet political goals rather than environmental goals, native people's goals or the goals of better forest practice. There's no question that this is not an environmentally sound bill. Let's not forget that the Forests ministry's evaluation released at the time the decision was made — and this is directly relevant to the bill; this is the basis on which the decision was made — said: "Detailed ecological classification has not been done for the portion of the Carmanah Valley that is outside the proposed reserve." It also made clear that the strategy for preventing windthrow damage to the lower and middle valley has not been shown to be effective.

[12:00]

The minister's report, on which this bill is based, shows that hydrological work does not incorporate floodplain mapping or take proper account of erosion hazards. The same report shows that data on wildlife habitat are 13 years old and haven't been updated. It shows that a comprehensive recreation plan has not been prepared for the area. An accurate cost-benefit analysis is not currently possible, due to the absence of data. In short, the homework hasn't been done. It's not environmentally sound, and it's a bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing concerning the principle of this bill is that there is a better way, and British Columbians are calling for a better way. I would say that British Columbians are way ahead of the government on this bill. Across the province those with a stake in our forests are unanimous in their conviction that there is a better way and that fundamental changes in our approach to forests are urgently needed.

For instance, the IWA recognizes an urgent need for sustainable forest practice. They're not happy with this bill. The Wilderness Tourism Council of British Columbia stated that forest tenure policies dating from the 1950s, can't accommodate growing tourism values. This bill doesn't address that. The Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C. has stated: "It is becoming increasingly necessary to plan for the use of forests for the social, economic and environmental well-being of the province's citizens. Without this holistic context, the well-being of B.C.'s citizens may be sacrificed." Obviously they're not happy with this bill.

Both the Sierra Club and the Western Canada Wilderness Committee have actively promoted a systematic approach to doubling B.C.'s unique system of parks and wilderness. This is not systematic; it's ad hoc. They've expressed their opposition to this bill.

A year-long study by the natural resource management program at Simon Fraser University has confirmed that our parks and wilderness areas can be doubled without serious long-term harm to the forest industry, but the Forests minister considers this idea irresponsible, and it's not addressed in this bill.

MacMillan Bloedel's chief forester has stated: "With the issue of allocation of timberland resolved, many of the others will appear simpler to resolve. Without any overall plan for land use... he current level of confrontation and uncertainty...is making it difficult to attract the investment of a globally competitive industry."

Even the vice-president of Fletcher Challenge has stated: "British Columbians do not believe we're adequately managing their forests or that the Ministry of Forests is effectively protecting the public interest." There are other forest companies. The Council of Forest Industries has stated similar things.

Canadian Pacific Forest Products has stated: "The only way to resolve the confusion that has put British Columbia's forest industry in crisis is to develop a management system integrating the economic, environmental and emotional values of the forest." This bill is ad hoc. It doesn't address those concerns.

[ Page 10779 ]

The Association of B.C. Professional Foresters has called for a comprehensive provincial land use strategy, improved inventories, increased public involvement and more local participation — all things that this government consistently refuses to do.

The Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers' Association has recommended the creation of forest boards to oversee planning in all forest-based regions.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, again we're getting into the estimates of the Minister of Forests. You see, we can't talk about what isn't in the bill, or what you would have put in the bill had you had the opportunity, or what other people think should have been in the bill; we can only talk about what's actually in the bill.

I know that when I'm in the Chair members get a little exasperated because I try and enforce the rules as they have been adopted by this House; but those are the rules, and I must ask you to stick to the principle of the bill. You may be speaking from a text prepared by someone who was assuming I wouldn't be here today, but unfortunately that's not the case. So please proceed in order.

MS. PULLINGER: We would never assume that you wouldn't be here, Mr. Speaker.

What I'm arguing is that this bill is of an ad hoc nature, and therefore it's a bad bill. It does not meet the needs of the people of British Columbia. It's a flawed bill, both in its process and in its intent or effect.

The report of the Carmanah Community Committee recommended a number of things in relation to the bill, and obviously that was part of the decision making process.

All of the conclusions are things that we on this side of the House, the New Democrats, have advocated, have asked for and are committed to. The government, in this bill, has refused to acknowledge these things; for instance, a process such as the New Democrat Premier of the Yukon, Tony Penikett, has had to deal with land use. This bill is simply an ad hoc bill that cuts the Carmanah Valley in half, on an arbitrary line, without appropriate studies. As I have stated already, no comprehensive inventory has been done, as this report on the Carmanah suggests ought to happen. The process is flawed; it hasn't involved that.

As well, we need a change in forest practices. That issue isn't addressed in this bill. It is in fact skirted around. It appears to be simply buying time.

In conclusion, I would like to say again that, like my colleagues and like so many groups in this province — environmentalists, natives and loggers — I am opposed to this bill because it is simply a political bill and does not meet any of the needs of our land or resource use in British Columbia, or the Carmanah Valley question.

MR. BRUCE: Today is an interesting day, and I think it's a good day for British Columbia. What we're talking about here in this bill is the creation of another class A park for the people of British Columbia, and indeed, the people of Canada. The Carmanah, as everyone in this House knows, is a very special and unique valley. The area set aside for a park will preserve it for all time for the people of this country and this province.

I'm a bit surprised that the opposition would oppose this bill, in that we are talking about the creation of a park. When one goes to the Carmanah and gets down in the lower valley and walks through those big trees — as I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the House have had the opportunity to do — it is truly a wondrous experience. There's almost a romantic feel to walking through the forests of Carmanah.

It will have a considerable impact on many people within the community of Cowichan, Vancouver Island and British Columbia as a whole. Even today, literally hundreds of people are coming from afar to visit my community and go through to the Carmanah to see the park itself and the giant trees. Already we know that the Ministry of Parks is working to come through with a comprehensive plan for the services required for the visitors. From that standpoint, I can see in the long term — and, indeed, the short term — significant economic values to the community as a whole. The fact that people have recognized the Carmanah as a major attraction and that we in Cowichan have embarked upon an ecomuseum concept — the baseline story being forestry and the fact that this is really our heritage forest — will go a long way to attracting many more people. Today is a good news story.

Here today we are debating a bill creating another class A park — a very large park of some 3,592 hectares — for the people of British Columbia, and for the life of me, I can't understand that the opposition would rise in this House and speak against such a bill. Albeit, I'm sure there are concerns of other aspects of forestry management. I know we'll hear from them during the debate that will ensue throughout those estimates, but why would they stand today and oppose such a bill? I think it's a question that has to be asked, and one that has to be answered by the opposition sometime between now and the next general election.

I had some concerns about this bill, about the size of the area being set up as a park, and I would imagine that you could ask literally hundreds of people — certainly everyone in this House — their opinion of how it should or shouldn't be, and all of us would come back with some variation as to the size and description of the Carmanah park. But in the final analysis, a decision has to be made. I think it's interesting that when we talked about land use and environmental problems, the member from Port Alberni talked about trying to develop a plan that would make everyone happy, that would satisfy everyone. As much as we would all like to achieve that, and as ideal as that may be, in reality it doesn't happen. We could plan and plan some more and continue to plan, and even after years and years of

[ Page 10780 ]

planning, whatever was brought forward would still have its detractors.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The NDP is known to like to plan. There's nothing wrong with planning, but when planning gets to the point where it's really a means of nothing more than standing off a decision, you will bring the province to a grinding halt. It was truly time for a decision to be made. This government and this minister have made a decision. In the main it's in the best interests of all the people of British Columbia.

I could speak quite strongly about specific groups within my community that oppose this because the area being preserved is too large. I could speak in the same vein with people who oppose this legislation because the area being preserved is not large enough. However, the fact is that this legislation sets out another class A park for the people of this province. It sets out a process for what we will do and how we will deal with the remainder of the Carmanah Valley. This legislation has attempted to please as many people as possible, knowing full well that when it was brought forward, it would not please everyone. But you know, the opposition continues to harp on the fact that this is a political decision. It's funny enough that here in this Legislature political decisions are made. If it were simply made on the basis of economics, a completely different decision would have been brought forward. But that's what the political role does. It tries to balance out those decisions, those thrusts that need to be done — one from a business point of view and one from a social point of view — and it's kind of that element of politics. So indeed it is a political decision; there are no two ways about that. Every decision in this House is basically a political decision.

It's interesting to note that within the makeup of the opposition, and perhaps this is why they have not come clean.... I've not heard what the opposition would do, and I would like to know. Would they actually have logged more of the Carmanah? Are they saying that the area that has been set aside...? Are they against this bill? Are they against the creation of this class A park because it's not large enough? Are they saying that the 3,500-plus hectares is not a large enough park as it affects the Carmanah Valley? Should it have been 4,000, 5,000 or 7,000 hectares? How many hectares would they like to see as a park?

Or do they think the park being created is too large? Is it that the 3,500 hectares is too large a park? Is it that the opposition, my friend for Port Alberni, the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) and others would prefer to see a smaller park? Is that what they were about? Would they like to have seen 2,000 hectares, 1,000 hectares or 500?

AN HON. MEMBER: All of the above.

MR. BRUCE: All of the above. What is it they were looking for? Or are they opposing this bill because they have problems? They have problems when one of their main supporters — and my colleague from Kelowna brought this forward — when we talk about the IWA and the concern it has, and quite rightly so.... The concern that the IWA....

[12:15]

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE: No, no, the jobs that are necessary for the survival and the stability of communities like Port Alberni, Cowichan, Chemainus, Port Hardy and Port McNeill — it goes on and on. Almost 95 percent of the communities that are found in the province of British Columbia are dependent upon the forestry sector, and dependent upon government making decisions in spite of the fact that not everyone will be happy. You know as well as I know that there will not be a case where everyone is happy with the decision. Maybe the opposition is voting against this bill not because the park is too big and not because the park is too small, but because they have a problem with their own organization on what the decision should have been. I suspect that if a figure such as the president of the IWA, Jack Munro, were to come forward as strongly as he did in his comments on the Carmanah, the opposition — the NDP, the socialists — would have a problem with any decision on the Carmanah.

Jack Munro, on the Dave Abbott Show on January 9, had a few important comments about the Carmanah. Jack fully appreciates the need for community stability Jack says we have to be able to log in parts of the Carmanah. Nobody wants to cut down those big trees, and clearly that's what we're saying here. But we have to make up our mind. Listen to this, my colleagues in the opposition: we have to make up our mind. Are we going to have communities like Port Alberni or not? Are we going to have elected representatives who are prepared to stand up and make a decision based not on special interest groups but on the well-being of the majority of the citizens of British Columbia?

I can well understand why the NDP have problems standing here in the House and supporting this bill. It's not because they have problems with the idea that it's a good bill; many of them would love to support the fact that the Carmanah Valley is a class A park and that it's a good park for British Columbia. Many of them would like to stand up and say that they want to oppose it because it isn't large enough and that they should preserve the entire Carmanah Valley. But if they did that, cart you imagine what Jack Munro would have to say? Can you imagine what the thousands of workers of the IWA would have to say when there are thousands of families that are dependent upon the forestry sector and their ability to work in their communities and to keep their communities alive? Do you know what they would have to deal with if they were to stand up and say that? So they don't. But they stand up when we talk about this issue, and all they've got to say is that there's something wrong with the process. It's the process;

[ Page 10781 ]

it's not the decision. There wasn't enough consultation. There wasn't enough study.

Let me tell you about the consultation. We have had consultation up and down Vancouver Island and throughout this province dealing with the Carmanah. We've had consultation from the people across this country of Canada, never mind just the people in British Columbia. We've had consultation from people throughout North America and from around the world as to what should happen with the Carmanah. How much more consultation should we have? Should we wait until we discover life on Mars and see if there's somebody there who we should consult with? Who are we going to consult with? What happens when half of your supporters don't want the park being created and the other half of your supporters want the whole thing created? How do you make a decision? God help us in this province if the socialists ever become government. There will never be a decision made in this province, my friends.

They talk about a political decision being made. As I mentioned to you, let's face it, it is politics. Let's listen to some of the reasons they had at their latest convention dealing with the whole issue of the Carmanah and the concern that the green wing of the NDP wanted to have a moratorium placed right across the entire Carmanah.

Here's what Larry Kuehn had to say. You all know him: the former president of the BCTF, involved in Solidarity and, of course, an NDP activist. This happened at their regional convention in June '89. Let me quote Larry: "Harcourt made an impassioned" — yes, it really was — "plea to the delegates not to pass a resolution calling for a moratorium on logging in Carmanah." Do you know why? According to Larry, Harcourt claimed that passing the resolution would upset a portion of the party's constituency and — hear this, my colleagues — threaten the party's chances in the next election. Now who is being political, my friends?

The government comes forward with a good park plan, a plan that's going to satisfy all people of the province — not special interest groups, but all of the people. But what does the opposition do? They plead with one another: "Don't bring this through, because you're going to upset a portion of our supporters, and it might threaten our chances of becoming government." I've heard from a number of opposition members here that this is a political decision. Of course it's a political decision: it's made by politicians. But it's made in the best interest of most of the people of British Columbia, not special interest groups. That's who they represent; they only represent special interest groups.

Where do they stand, Mr. Minister? Does this legislation that's been brought forward not create a big enough park? Should it have been all 7,000 hectares? I'd like to hear from the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) and the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen): should it all have been park? Can I go back to my people in Lake Cowichan and say: "Doggone it, the reason those guys in the opposition are against this is that they want to make the whole thing a park. They don't care about your jobs. They don't care about the future of your community. They don't care about the stability of Vancouver Island. They just want to make it one huge park"? I don't know, because they haven't told me. Should I be going back to the other side — the other groups, the environmental groups — and saying: "The reason these guys voted against this Carmanah legislation is that the park wasn't large enough; it had to be a great big park"? You'd go back to the logging sector and say: "The reason they didn't vote against it was that they wanted to log the whole thing." What other conclusion can you come up with? It's one or the other: either the park isn't big enough, or the park shouldn't be there at all. It's one or the other. They have not yet enunciated what they are opposing.

The best I can hear from their opposition to this park is process: there wasn't enough consultation, Mr. Minister — the hours and hours of input from Ministry of Forests staff, the open houses that were handled by MacMillan Bloedel and, yes, my own committee that I chaired throughout my community. I took the initiative with the different leaders in my community and went around my community to find out what my community wanted. Did the member for Alberni do that? Did anybody else do that? Why didn't you do that? That's our way of participating. I put my report and my recommendations to the minister and said: "Mr. Minister, this is what we would like. See what you can do to make the most of what we've got from our recommendations and draw it through with your legislation." I'm pleased to say that a fair amount of what came from that committee is included in this legislation.

It's incredible when they go on about this whole issue of a park or not a park. When we talk about land use management decisions, what would ever happen if the NDP — the socialists — became government again? Let the people of the province of British Columbia understand that if the NDP ever became government again in this province, it would come to a grinding halt, and it would not have a future, as we have for the people of British Columbia.

I hear about all this consultation and how you develop consultation and compromise, and how it is when we talk about an issue like the Carmanah and try to reach a decision that's best for the majority of people. Do you know what that is, my friends, when you try to reach a decision when there are opposing and different views? Usually it's a type of compromise. But my friend here from Alberni stood up in this House and is opposing this legislation. Yet in the Alberni Valley Times on April 11 — just a couple of months ago — he said, after talking about consultation and all the rest, that it's in a sense a compromise that we can log half the valley, hopefully. What's wrong with that? It seems to me to be a fair statement. But why not stand up and say: "I live in a community in Port Alberni that is dependent upon the forestry sector. I have moms, dads, kids, schools, hospitals and all that make up that community and which are dependent on the forestry sector, and we've got to keep it alive."

[ Page 10782 ]

I can understand the merits, uniqueness and heritage values of the Carmanah, and it's got to be preserved. In the broad sense, somehow we've got to work out that compromise so we can have both the logging jobs and those heritage valleys.

It seems to me that I could stand up and say to Mr. Minister: "It should have been 2,000 hectares,"or "It should have been 6,000 hectares." But let's face it, what we have is a compromise that is good for all of the people of British Columbia, not just the special interest groups.

So stand up. It's a great day for British Columbia and for Canada. It's another beautiful class A park and a remarkable stand of trees that has been saved because this government made a decision.

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE: What would they have done? After what we've had now.... We've had months and months, almost years, of discussion about the Carmanah. What would they do? We would have more studies. On and on it goes, and that's what they're all about.

But maybe, my friends, we can actually find out where the opposition actually stands. The Leader of the Opposition had a few comments a while back. Maybe if we listened to what he had to say, we could actually find out where the opposition stands on this issue. If he was here, he would tell us, I'm sure. I'm sure he would say to us: "Read my lips." But since he's not here, and since we can't read his lips, maybe I can read into the record where I think the NDP, the socialists, actually stand on the issue of the Carmanah.

Interjections.

MR. BRUCE: Can I quote to you, my friends? I'm sure you would like to know. I'm as confused as you are as to where they stand. Let It be clear. The people of the province need to know where the NDP, the socialists, stand when it comes to major, hard-decision issues.

This is the Leader of the Opposition speaking: "I want to conclude by saying to Claude Richmond: 'Claude, don't you issue a permit to log the Carmanah.' I want to say to you who have read this motion and don't see the M-word in it.... You don't see the word 'moratorium.' Read my lips. Do not log the Carmanah." That's where they truly stand.

The opposition — the NDP, the socialists — don't care about the IWA. They don't care about the moms and dads, the schools and the hospitals, the mortgages and the family life. They don't care about the community stability that's inherent in this. "Don't you log the Carmanah." Let it be clear: that is where the NDP, the socialists, stand. The people of Vancouver Island and throughout this province in communities dependent upon the forest industry, who make up 95 percent of this province.... If you ever elect a socialist NDP government, you will shut down this industry, because when it comes to issues that are hard to deal with, they won't log it. That's what the Leader of the Opposition said.

Let me reinforce that a bit so that we understand he's not only one. Here's another member of the federal House, Svend Robinson, speaking to the convention on the compromise resolution. Let me read this to you: "We are not planning policy based upon reading people's lips." There seems to be a problem between him and the Leader of the Opposition. "We plan policy on the wording of resolutions that are adopted at this convention." So they woo for a compromise.

[12:30]

Let me go on. This was all part of that debate. Adrienne Peacock, a member of the green caucus of the NDP — dealing again with the issue of the Carmanah and where the opposition actually stands, said: "I think the Carmanah should be saved and that we should be ready to bite the bullet and say: "We're going for preservation.'" Now listen to this. "I feel enough studying has been done for the Carmanah. Preserve it all." That was part of the green caucus on the Carmanah.

Let us come back to a man that understands the need, the aspirations, the will of the little guy, the community stability. Let us come back to what he had to say. Let us come back to that man Jack Munro, who has been a great British Columbian and done much for the province of British Columbia. Let's hear what he had to say after all of this, in the same debate. As they talk about more studies — and you can just see Mr. Munro standing there at the convention. I would love to utter the words that he probably included, but they've been cleaned up. Would you like to hear what Jack Munro says? He said: "We need another study on the Carmanah like we need a hole in the head." That's Jack Munro.

Yet members here continue to say: "Process; more studying; Mr. Minister, we need more study. Don't make a decision. Can't we stand on the picket-fence a little bit longer?" Does it really matter what happens to the livelihood of the people in the communities that are dependent upon the forestry sector? Does it really matter what happens to their livelihood or what happens to their communities? I'll tell you that as long as I'm a member in this House, I'll fight for that working man; I'll fight for that IWA member; and I'll fight for his job. If nobody bloody else will, I will and so will this party; so will this government. It's the little people of this province who make this province tick. It's the little people who live in those little communities — Port Alberni, Lake Cowichan, Chemainus, Crofton and the rest — that built this province. It's those IWA workers, those loggers, those woodworkers. We're not going to leave them out in the cold. We're not going to leave them out there. We're not going to walk away from them because we can't make a decision. We are going to represent their views and their wishes in this House.

Shame on the opposition! Shame on the opposition for standing here and opposing this particular legislation. After they have tried to say over the years that they represent the working man, the little man, they

[ Page 10783 ]

haven't got the courage to stand here today and say this is a good piece of legislation because it represents both the values, the heritage and environmental values of the Carmanah. Yes, it represents the ideals and aspirations of the little man, the IWA worker, the people that represent the province of British Columbia. Shame on you! All you can do is represent special interest groups.

Look at it from the standpoint of what's important for the people of the province of British Columbia. What's important is fair and equitable decisions, and we've got a decision here; we have an opportunity where we have an excellent park being created for the people.

I can't understand why the opposition would not join with us today in bringing this legislation forward, in standing unanimously and supporting this legislation. We hear the argument from the opposition that it's process; that it's planning; that there should be an overall master plan of land use throughout the province; that every region should be separately planned, and every watershed should be looked at and brought together, and when the whole mosaic, the whole puzzle, is put together, finally we will make a decision.

Mr. Speaker, I'm a young man, but I'm growing old, and I'd be an old, old man by the time the opposition ever came through with any decision dealing with the Carmanah.

This is a good bill. This is a good park for the people of British Columbia. It is a good park for the people of Cowichan. And let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that not only will we have the park that will be created there in the Carmanah, but we will have logging activity in the upper Carmanah to preserve those forestry jobs which are necessary for the residents of Cowichan, Port Alberni and Sooke, necessary really for the residents of all of British Columbia.

We will look after and undertake to make sure that where there are special heritage values within the forests, we will preserve them, but we will not do it at the expense of jobs for the people and the community stability that is found and necessary throughout the province of British Columbia. We will look after the interests of community stability of the little people, and we will look after the interests of the IWA.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

No, Mr. Speaker, it's obvious to all that the NDP, the socialists, are caught on the horns of a dilemma. There they are again, trying to satisfy special interest groups, trying once more to be all things to all people all of the time; and that you cannot be. All you can do is the best, but the time comes when you do have to make a decision, and that is tough, because when you make decisions, my friends, there will be those who disagree with the decision that is made. But when you are in a position of authority, when you are government, you have to make those decisions. You have to make decisions based on the best interests of all of the people of British Columbia.

This government knows that this legislation will not only create a beautiful and wonderful park called the Carmanah Park but at the same time, within that valley, we will have preserved the jobs for the men and women that make up the province of British Columbia, the men and women who live in the communities of Lake Cowichan and Port Alberni.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member, your time has expired.

The first member for Dewdney has an introduction.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, I would appreciate it very much if you would welcome to the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Jim Randell, a Member of Parliament for Queensland, Australia. With him is his guest Rachelle Szabason. Please welcome them.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move that the debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I realize that there are many other members who wish to speak on this bill, so we'll pick it up again on Monday. With that, I wish everyone a very pleasant weekend. I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:38 p.m.