1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 1, Number 8
[ Page 129 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
B. Copping: Hon. Speaker, I'm very pleased to introduce today Prof. Karl Friedmann and 20 students from the Simon Fraser University department of political science. Would the House please make them welcome.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce to the House today Prof. Derek Mosley, chairman of the department of classical history at the University of Warwick, England. He has travelled all this way to witness this House in session today. Could the House please make Professor Mosley welcome.
Hon. L. Boone: In the members' gallery today are two special guests whom I'm pleased to introduce: His Excellency Alfredo Ungo, Ambassador of El Salvador to Canada, who is residing in Ottawa; and Mr. Jeffrey Moore, honorary consul of El Salvador at Vancouver. The ambassador has been attending Globe '92 and has taken this opportunity to visit Victoria. Would the House please welcome them.
Hon. M. Sihota: Madam Speaker, I'm pleased with the introduction that the Leader of the Opposition made. I had the good fortune of studying at the University of Warwick in the seventies, and certainly on my behalf and on behalf of members on this side of the House as well I'd like to welcome Professor Mosley here to Victoria.
P. Dueck: It is my pleasure today to introduce Kathleen Siemens, a niece of my wife. She's here from China, where she has spent four years with the Friends of China, and she's going back again in a few months. Accompanying her is a friend of hers by the name of Arlene M. Snyder, who is with Petro-Canada in Calgary, where she is aviation administrator. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the hon. Minister of Social Services, I would like to ask the House to welcome 32 students from the community social service worker program at Douglas College, along with their instructors, Sally Nordman and Bob Shebib, who are in the precincts today. A warm welcome to all of you.
D. Mitchell: I would like to ask the House if they would welcome to this assembly today a guest from my constituency, a successful young businesswoman and entrepreneur, Kristi Wells from Whistler, B.C.
V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker and hon. members, with leave.
Leave granted.
V. Anderson: On this anniversary of the disappearance of Michael Dunahee, it is appropriate that we formally remember Michael, his family and all those who have aided, and are still aiding, in the search to find him. Also, we should remember all other families greatly saddened by a similar loss in their lives. Let us not forget, and let us not cease to care.
Hon. Mr. Blencoe tabled the 1991 report of the Assessment Appeal Board of British Columbia and the 1990 report of the British Columbia Assessment Authority.
Hon. Mr. Gabelmann tabled the 1990-91 report of the Motor Carrier Commission, the 1990-91 report of the British Columbia Police Commission and the 1990-91 report of the Legal Services Society of B.C.
COMPETITION FOR JOBS AND INVESTMENT
G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Finance. For some time now the hon. minister, along with the Premier of this province, has been sowing the fear in the hearts of British Columbians that we're due for major tax increases. Do you recognize that the principal jurisdictions within which British Columbia must compete for investment and jobs are the states of Washington, Oregon and California, and the countries of the Pacific Rim?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes.
G. Wilson: A supplementary to the minister. I'm delighted to hear that. In light of the fact that the minister does recognize that those are the principal jurisdictions, could he explain how he can defend this Peat Marwick report which he has repeatedly cited as his source to justify this government's position that there is some tax room to move in; this independent report which in fact makes absolutely no meaningful comparisons with respect to the states or countries with whom this province does 81.6 percent of its business? How can this be seen as any kind of comparative document, when all it does is make comparisons with Alberta and provinces in eastern Canada?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm rather surprised that the official opposition would seek to discredit the Peat Marwick report. What is it that you don't like -- the fact that they exposed that we have a record deficit or that the previous administration lied about the size of the bureaucracy? Are you concerned about the fact that they exposed that the Island pipeline is over budget? Are you concerned about the fact that they exposed that the previous administration ordered Crown corporations to essentially fabricate the books in order to inflate the revenue to the government?
I'm surprised that you would stand here today and say that the Peat Marwick report is anything more than an objective analysis of the state of the finances as we've inherited them and, in fact, anything more than an exposé of the absolutely scandalous behaviour of the previous administration.
[2:15]
[ Page 130 ]
The Speaker: A final supplementary by the Leader of the Opposition.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, it would have been good if the Minister of Finance had enrolled in my course on Pacific Rim economies when I was teaching it. Maybe he could understand what my concern is. Quite basically, my concern here is that the Peat Marwick report states very specifically that Alberta is the only province that borders on British Columbia; it is to Alberta that residents of British Columbia most often look when making tax comparisons.
Mr. Minister, do you not realize that any increases in taxation are going to have the net effect of driving more businesses south of the border to those economies that we must compete with? Do you not realize that any tax room that this document says there is, is simply going to allow British Columbians to find themselves in a less and less competitive situation, as we look at the borders of the other...?
The question specifically to the minister: can you tell the people of British Columbia if you do not agree that any increase in taxes in this province will only serve to drive more British Columbia business south of the border and create a net loss of jobs?
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker. I defer, of course, to the Leader of the Opposition's expertise in this area. It would be beyond me to compare my knowledge to his. But let me say this: when we have a choice to make about taxes or revenue, this administration will be fair, unlike that member, who campaigned in the last election for a flat tax -- a regressive measure that would be punishing for the poor and would let the wealthy in this province get off easy.
CARIBOO MOUNTAINS
LOGGING MORATORIUM
R. Neufeld: During the election campaign the member for Cariboo South stated in his campaign literature that he would ensure there was: "No significant encroachment of parks on the commercial timber supply." He also committed to "unlock the 30 percent of Cariboo forest land from moratoriums and planning holdups." Can the Minister of Economic Development tell us which 30 percent of the Cariboo he was referring to and how he can reconcile the promise with yesterday's announced moratorium on logging in the Cariboo Mountains?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I thank the member for his question. There's no question that this government has moved rapidly to establish a process that will see some sanity in land use planning in the province. When you start throwing figures around, I used the best available, and the 30 percent figure was one provided to me by the forest industry, not the administration of the previous government, who couldn't prepare any of the comparative figures for us when we wanted them -- and wouldn't, because they were afraid to deal with the issue of land use. We've met it head-on and made some tough choices, and we'll continue to do that.
R. Neufeld: The current Premier told the Save Our Jobs rally last summer that the Cariboo has already provided its share of parks in British Columbia. The Williams Lake Tribune reported that setting aside more area for parks in the Cariboo will not be on the NDP leader's agenda. Will the minister now confirm that he will hold the Premier to that commitment, given his own promise to free up timber supply in the Cariboo Mountains?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think your question is perhaps more appropriately directed to the Minister of Environment or the Minister of Forests, who made the announcement. As to the issue of whether or not this affects small business, I think the decisions taken will clearly maintain small business logging operations in the area, and will maintain both the option of logging in that area and the option of wilderness protection in the general region.
The Speaker: A last supplemental.
R. Neufeld: I suppose it is fitting that Jack Munro is stepping down today from the IWA to serve as chairman of the Forest Alliance, and I would like to take this time to commend Mr. Munro for his work with the IWA. I'm going to use a quote from his book....
The Speaker: Could the member quickly get to his question, please.
R. Neufeld: The bottom line is that you can't keep taking the land base away or we'll have no industry. Will the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade stand up now on behalf of small businesses which depend on forest exports and keep his word that they can keep working?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I am happy to inform the member that I'm in constant discussion with members of the small business community. The previous administration saw a tenure system develop which had a minimal amount of timber available for the small business program. We've seen a reduction in jobs in the forest industry and are addressing this amid the structural problems in the economy. We will in due course structure....
R. Neufeld: Structural problems.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Do you know what "structural problems" means? The member perhaps needs an explanation. I'd suggest that when we debate the estimates of my ministry we could get into a discussion about that. Structural problems in the economy have to do with the way in which it's organized and how businesses and firms fit into that.
We are happy to report that we are concerned about small business. Unlike the previous administration, we intend to be more aggressive in seeing that they have their place in a mixed economy.
[ Page 131 ]
FUNDING FOR HEALTH SERVICES
L. Reid: My question is to the Deputy Premier. The question is about adequate funding of the many health services in place around this province. Your government has arbitrarily terminated a planned oncology program in Richmond for the lack of $78,000. In fact, these dollars were promised by your government's Health critic during the last election. Your government has also halted a diagnostic and treatment centre on the Sunshine Coast for the lack of $68,000. The Esquimalt Wellness Centre has had its budget gutted by your government. Why is this NDP government funding private clinics at the expense of our community-based health services?
Hon. A. Hagen: I will take those questions on notice for the Minister of Health.
The Speaker: There are no supplementaries on a question taken on notice.
SOFTWOOD LUMBER TARIFF
W. Hurd: My question is for the Minister of Trade and Economic Development. Is this minister concerned about the appointment of Bill Lang by the U.S. Commerce department to head up the investigation into Canadian softwood lumber? Is he aware that Mr. Lang is one of the most notorious members of the U.S. lobby, the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports? We know this government has merely been riding Ottawa's coat-tails on opposing the Lang appointment, but what action have we taken, as a province, to protest the outrageous appointment of someone like Mr. Lang? Is B.C. prepared to do anything on its own to press our concerns on this punitive softwood lumber tariff?
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let's hear it for the loggers -- one for the loggers.
The Minister of Forests is presently down in Oregon making alliances with people down there.
An Hon. Member: On a holiday.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Not on a holiday; I think that's a bit gratuitous. It was a serious question, and I don't think we should joke about it.
The Minister of Forests will be spending three and a half days down there in intensive efforts to raise the issue politically. We don't think some obnoxious functionary who is sent up here to look at our books is going to have any impact on this deal. What's going to have an impact on the deal is us going down and building alliances with the people in Oregon and Washington to get pressure on their administration to back off this rather ridiculous case.
Furthermore, I'm happy to report, I'll be going down Thursday night and spending Friday in an intense series of meetings, building up the lobby to try and get some movement there as well.
With respect to this fellow, no, we don't coat-tail on the federal government. The federal government has already registered an objection to this person being there. If you feel that this person is obnoxious, then I suggest you write a letter to help us, as well.
W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, it's that kind of laissez-faire attitude that got us into this mess in the first place.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! Member, could you please ask your question, and do so as briefly as possible.
W. Hurd: This tariff will have a particularly devastating impact on one segment of the B.C. lumber business; I refer specifically to lumber remanufacturing and value-added. The situation is so serious that today B.C. lumber manufacturers have thrown up their hands and are already expanding into U.S. border states to beat this tariff. Is this minister prepared to stand by and allow jobs to go to Bellingham? Can he share with this House any strategy that he has for halting the flood of investment and jobs south?
The Speaker: The minister -- a brief reply.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're very pleased to say that we are working on an industrial strategy for the province that addresses the structural problems in the economy. Value-added manufacturers are in the category that we target as very important for growth in the province. As I explained to you, the Minister of Forests and I are both putting in as much time as we can to ensure that the competitive climate of our industry is positive for them.
With respect to the whole trade issue, this is a mess that this government did not put us into; it's a combination of the federal government and the previous government, and we intend to get us out of it.
The Speaker: Does the member have a final, brief supplementary?
W. Hurd: Does this minister even know that the Council of Forest Industries of B.C. is in Washington, D.C., as we speak, fighting on behalf of hundreds of B.C. sawmill operators? When is this minister, and the Premier for that matter, going to spend some time in Washington, instead of on the Club Med circuit in Japan and Switzerland?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I'm aware that the Council of Forest Industries has its own lobby and its own self-interest. We are actively involved....
An Hon. Member: Where's the Premier?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Would you like me to answer the first question before you throw in another one? No. Well, maybe you'll be quiet then. Yes, we're well aware of the moves of the forest industry lobby. We share information on what we are doing, and we're trying to
[ Page 132 ]
have a complementary campaign with the federal government, other provincial governments and the Council of Forest Industries. I am happy to say that we are putting significantly more effort into this battle than was put in by the previous government, and we will put whatever resources we can afford into it. I suspect that, barring more severe protectionism by the United States, we will be successful. However, it's not easy, when you're a small trading province like we are, to battle the giant across there.
The Premier did speak on this issue and has had conversations with governors, and there will be efforts to meet appropriately at the appropriate time. It isn't just a matter of running off blindly. It's a case where you carefully consider your strategy, do some research on the findings, take the best advice from political strategists, and get down there and do the job.
The Speaker: The bell does end question period and I would again ask members, in the interests of the House and the good and efficient use of question period, to review carefully the standing orders to ensure that questions are brief, precise and without argument, and that answers are equally brief and precise and address the question.
Hon. G. Clark: I would like to inform members that the House will be sitting tomorrow from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. The ordinary time for adjournment as contemplated by standing order 45(a) shall be 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday by agreement.
[2:30]
(continued)
M. Farnworth: I'd like to welcome those of you who weren't here for this morning's double-header back to the second half this afternoon.
I spoke briefly about some of the concerns of my riding as they related to transportation, transit and education.
I talked about fairness and how the throne speech addresses the fundamental issue of fairness that people were raising. In the last 17 years people in my riding have come to understand what fairness means and what it doesn't mean. For too long in my constituency fairness seemed to mean a temporary Bailey bridge that 26,000 vehicles a day went over. It came to mean temporary trailers at schools -- the second highest number of temporary structures of any school district in the province. Fairness came to mean a temporary courthouse. Never would a decision be made.
The throne speech and the actions of this government address that. A decision has been made on a courthouse, and we will be getting a permanent facility. The throne speech addresses school construction so that we can get rid of those temporary structures. The people of my constituency are looking forward to no more temporary government fairness but to permanent government fairness.
Another issue, and one that is central, is land use. As I've stated before, we're prepared to accommodate the growth that different parts of Canada and other countries send to us. But we want to preserve that which contributes to the well-being of our lifestyle in our riding.
We have planned communities that try and accommodate the needs of business, industry, residents and the environment. The Port Coquitlam riding contains more Crown land than any other riding in the lower mainland. It is land that has been squandered with a shortsighted, piecemeal sale approach, and that is ending. We are involving people in the decisions that are going to affect our communities for the next 30 and 50 years. Environmentally sensitive lands such as Colony Farm, Mount Burke and the Widgeon marshlands.... We are dealing with issues that should have been settled years ago but kept getting shuffled to the back of the deck because they weren't deemed to be priority items. Well, this government is ensuring that those issues are a priority. That's what this throne speech does, and that's why I'm so proud to speak in favour of it, to show the people of my riding that we are doing things.
The women's centre in my constituency recently received a grant, announced for International Women's Day. It's the second-oldest centre in the province. It had been supported by the local council enthusiastically, without argument, right from the very beginning. It never received Secretary of State funding from the federal government, and it was subject to the vagaries of provincial funding. But the announcement has guaranteed long-term funding, and that ensures that the over 1,000 women a year who come to our centre do not have to fear being turned away. That's the action and commitment that this government is delivering to my riding.
Finally, I'd just like to reflect a bit on this chamber and the role that all of us play as heirs and custodians to 750 years of political evolution, for which many individuals -- men and women -- over the years of this and previous centuries have often given their lives to ensure that we settle differences in a chamber and a forum such as this. We have a responsibility to ensure that what we do today carries on for another 750 years. I look forward to the challenge of working with each and every one of you in making British Columbia a better place for all the people of this province.
A. Warnke: On behalf of the people of Richmond-Steveston, hon. Speaker, I would like to extend to you my congratulations, my congratulations to the people of your riding, and as well to the Deputy Speaker for serving in this assembly. We look forward to your being the Speaker.
The campaign of last October was not my first; on two previous occasions I had been a candidate. I think it's entirely appropriate at this time that I extend to the people of Vancouver-Point Grey my sincere thanks for the support they extended to me in the provincial election in 1983. I was unsuccessful in the 1988 federal election campaign in North Island-Powell River, but I tell you, the people of Powell River extended to me
[ Page 133 ]
tremendous support, which I appreciate to the present day. I might add that North Island-Powell River is the most beautiful riding in all of Canada; but I have a special feeling, obviously, for the people of Richmond-Steveston, who have extended to me their trust and their confidence, which I intend to respect for this administration. I hope they, in four or five years time, will extend that to me, because I will commit myself to the riding and serve the best interests of the riding as best I can. I'm most proud of the trust they have extended to me, and of course of this moment. As well, I've lived in many different parts of British Columbia -- Agassiz, Chilliwack, where my Mom and Dad reside, Burnaby and also where I've worked, in Nanaimo and Powell River. I'm pleased to share a collegiality with the member from Nanaimo, who also worked at Malaspina College, where I have taught in the last few years.
I would also like to mention that some of the Members of the Legislative Assembly who preceded me in Richmond have contributed a great deal to this House. I especially want to give some tribute to them: Harold Steves, whom I believe some other members on the other side of the House recognize; Nick Loenen; and the Hon. James Nielsen, who was also Minister of Health.
Steveston has a tremendous heritage -- a rural and a fishing heritage. But at the same time, Steveston has undergone a tremendous transition in the last ten years. Richmond itself has been transformed in just the last 20 to 30 years from a rural community to an urban and suburban community. So Steveston, like other parts of Richmond, faces the challenges of modernization, faces the challenges of urbanization and transportation, while at the same time we are trying to maintain our community. It is a community consisting of families. It's a family-oriented community, a very caring community. It's especially a place which is sensitive about housing seniors. Indeed, last year and again this year I visited places such as Lions Manor, which takes care of its seniors. It provides a model for some other parts of Canada that I haven't seen elsewhere, even in some of the most sophisticated cities such as Calgary, Toronto and Montreal. Extended care is given to the seniors while right next door the families are kept in an apartment so they don't have to travel 20 miles from one part of the city to the other to see their own family.
Concerns as well for the people of Steveston are health, education, the needs of a community. It is a beautiful place insofar as there are beaches and dikes on which people can ride, walk, jog. We can even fly a kite. If any member opposite wants to tell me that in a moment of jest, I'd like to go out to Garry Point Park. And that's probably where you will see me. If I in jest return such a jest, I hope they join me in Garry Point Park, in which on almost any given day many different kites are flown. It's an ideal recreation.
Steveston strives as a model to accomplish for our community and for our people a place to grow up, a place to raise a family. Steveston people are very sensitive to the needs of the next generation. Indeed we, beyond that, are sensitive to our legacy. We can easily point to the failures of previous generations. We can easily point to the waste of previous generations, but at the same time, we have to be very sensitive about our own legacy, and this is the significance of the throne speech. This particular throne speech, because it does mark a new era in British Columbia politics, also marks a new era in which our generation is on the threshold of establishing a new legacy. At times we have been smug to look at previous generations and account them for their mistakes. We have to be very careful, however, as to whether we are not making mistakes. We can be pretty wasteful too. We can pollute the waters, the air and the earth, too, despite the fact we are ecologically conscious.
We can be very materialistic. We can be spiritually corrupt despite the fact we tend to look at previous generations and think how morally superior we are with regard to race relations, and so on. We have to be very careful of that. We have to be very careful to keep our country united. We can destroy that, and it is tremendously sad when we think of previous generations who have made their contributions in war and in peace to keep Canada united, democratic and free. Each generation of British Columbians and Canadians face challenges, and it is up to each and every generation to respond to those challenges. It is from this that we forge a legacy.
[2:45]
A new era has begun, and it has begun with this throne speech. In the riding of Richmond, while we enjoy jogging, biking and being with our families, we have some sore points too. We have some sore points with the previous government. The previous government had asked for our school board to be fiscally responsible, and indeed, we were. The school board of Richmond was, in fact, very responsible in the early 1980s, and yet what had really hurt us so badly is that the previous government did not even recognize that contribution. We hope this new government will recognize the contribution the people of Richmond made in the 1980s.
We are very concerned about health. I was very impressed, as I mentioned a few moments ago, about how seniors are looked after in the city of Richmond, particularly in Steveston. I am also reminded of last year visiting something called the Pathways Club House, where people in their twenties with very few financial resources had allocated themselves to caring for disadvantaged youths; people who illustrated a sensitivity toward mental health issues, especially concerning the youth. I was most impressed by that because of their dedication to such an issue, despite the fact they had not received the financial resources so necessary to deal with some of the severe problems.
Another issue in Richmond that's a little bit of a sore point is transportation. Indeed, it was almost comical in the last five years where under the previous government, in order to deal with the tremendous traffic going into Vancouver from Richmond, people had to cross a two-lane bridge at rush hour. And all the previous government did in that time was to advocate a promise in 1986, and they responded by putting up a sign: "Under construction, gratis of your government." That's as far as they got. I think the people of Richmond are hoping that this government will act very quickly to
[ Page 134 ]
do something about the traffic congestion in Richmond, as well as to appropriately address the issues involving rapid transit.
People of Steveston, in particular, are very sensitive about their environment. Richmond is located on a delta. It's ecologically sensitive. It is very vulnerable not only to floods, but it is vulnerable in many different ways. As a result, the people of Steveston and Richmond have had to be ecologically conscious because they've recognized that their community is vulnerable. As a result, they're very vigilant toward any sort of rapid development.
Some of the members might recall an issue that was raised in Richmond a few years ago regarding Terra Nova. Terra Nova symbolizes for people in Richmond that we do not want rapid overdevelopment. We want planned development.
From my perspective as we forge a new legacy and embark on a new administration, all of us in this chamber should recognize the significance of this particular throne speech, as it signals the course we are about to embark on in fulfilling our generation's destiny. But one problem I have -- and where I really want to allocate time to today -- is in discussing the role of this chamber as we are facing certain constitutional issues. Involved in that as well are some questions about parliamentary democracy itself. I want to emphasize in the strongest terms possible that it is not parliamentary democracy that is at fault. Parliamentary democracy has served us well, and I believe that provided we know our role as legislators, it will serve us well into the future.
But the problem as I see it is something called growing executive federalism that has been practised in Canada in the last 30 years. True, there has been something called a constitutional crisis for the last 30 years. True, there is something called a Quebec question. But I would suggest that even if we were to leave those questions aside, we would still find ourselves with the phenomenon of growing executive federalism, simply because the first ministers have found it rather convenient to make deals not only on the constitution, but indeed on those aspects that affect our daily lives: fisheries, logging and energy. First ministers have constantly made deals, and I would say that executive federalism has persisted even outside of facing those constitutional problems.
I would like to suggest that all legislators be very vigilant and understand some of the challenges before us, because I do believe the various executives across this country in the various provincial parliaments and the federal parliament, and ourselves as legislators, may be headed toward some collision course.
One hundred years ago in the province of British Columbia, until 1903, it was very common for the Premier to serve two to three years in this very Legislature. It was a setting in which the legislators had power and authority. The cabinet exercised power and authority, but truly the Premier was first among equals within that cabinet. Premiers had to have the confidence not only of their cabinet but, indeed, of all legislators. I don't think it was a bad system. There are, perhaps, some very good reasons why, in this century, power has been usurped by the executive, but a century ago those legislators contributed a great deal to the development of this province. They laid the foundations for a democratic government which we all enjoy. As I see it, maybe we should look at the past and at some of the ideas, not because they're old, but because somehow they begin to ring true when we talk about how to develop democracy in our community.
And if, from time to time, we become vigilant in this House, and legislators and parliamentarians are making the government's job tough, I would say that the Legislature and the parliament are doing their job. So we on this side of the House may well be very vigilant in dealing with the government. I believe that when it is appropriate, we should be vigilant, because it is the role of the Legislature to pursue the best interests of the people and, indeed, to make sure that government is responsible to them.
I believe that the expenditures must be subject to very tough scrutiny inside this chamber, because I'm not so sure that this was the case in the past. I hope and believe that we're all looking with anticipation to the future, wherein we remain vigilant. It is our role to take a look at the expenditures and make the government accountable. I believe that if this is the case, and provided that legislators do not acquiesce in the face of the executive branch of government, then this government will be accountable and responsible in the pursuit of the good.
We do face a tremendous challenge within this year, perhaps for the rest of the decade, depending on how events unfold during the rest of this year, but we must do whatever we can to have Canada remain united. It is the test of this generation. It will be our legacy whether, in fact, we contribute so much as to keep this country united. If we dedicate ourselves accordingly and we act accordingly, with moderation instead of the extremism we have seen in the past, I believe it is possible to keep this country not only united but strong and free for the future.
One way to describe this government in the past decade -- and perhaps it may be at times one way to describe this very chamber -- is the omnipresence of extremism. And I would like to turn an old phrase -- actually a little bit over 20 years -- around. I believe that in some ways extremism, when exercised in parliament and in other democracies, is a vice. At times, moderation in the pursuit of justice is a virtue. When we reflect on a very old principle of democracy asserted by Plato, the fundamental features of a democracy are that it is virtuous, that it is just, and that it pursues the good -- all guided by those who practice wisdom. I will dedicate myself, and I am confident that all members here as well will practice wisdom. If we are all wise as legislators, I believe we will provide good and just government.
H. De Jong: As I rise today to speak on the throne speech, I wish to first congratulate you, Madam Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Committee Chairman for your respective positions. I'm sure that your task will be challenging but rewarding in allowing the democracy of government to come to full expression through
[ Page 135 ]
the legislative process. You may be assured of my support and, I'm sure, of my colleagues' support in keeping the decorum in this House at the highest level for those who visit this Legislature and those watching the proceedings in their living rooms.
Having said this, hon. Speaker, my view of a throne speech is that it provides a blueprint of what the government plans to undertake in the coming year. In the building trade, a blueprint in most cases provides a clear expression of a concept plan drawn up by an architect or a group of architects. A concept plan usually reflects the need for space required now and in the future, and an overall sketch of the facility, recognizing the surrounding landscape and its service to the people of the community.
[3:00]
However, reading through this speech makes me and, I'm sure, many other British Columbians wonder who the architects drawing up this concept plan were, and whether the architects really took into consideration the public of British Columbia. I suspect that the draftsmen involved in the blueprint have had difficulty in providing a clear picture of what this government is really intending to do. Recognizing the many conflicting statements which have flowed from the lips of the Premier and the Minister of Finance as to the state of the economy and the financial status of this province, I believe the concept plan and the blueprint in this speech are simply not affordable, nor do they reflect the views and aspirations of most British Columbians.
The speech refers to open government. The fact that the Premier has been reluctant to answer to questions on the implementation of the fair wage policy and whether he would commit to have these debated in the House is just one example of not having open government. The Minister of Health allocating funding for abortion clinics without any debate on the minister's estimates is another example, and the list goes on. So much for open government.
The member for Parksville-Qualicum made reference in his speech the other day to the popularity of the federal Reform Party and the strong following it has because of the open government it is espousing to provide when elected. True, hon. Speaker, the public of British Columbia are indeed looking for a more open and approachable type of government. The people have a right to know, especially at election time and after that, what the candidate stands for and what type of government he or she is aspiring to provide. But credibility of such open government can only be achieved if, when they are in fact elected, they also perform accordingly. However, that the Reform Party of Canada is so popular in the west is not just because of the open-government promise; they are popular because they are promising to get government out of people's lives, and they will provide equal rights and opportunities for all Canadians.
This government, however, appears to be moving in just the opposite direction. They want to make all people equal in economic standards. They tried this for many years in eastern Europe. Did they achieve their goal? We all know the answer. Did it bring prosperity for all? We all know the answer to that as well.
One of the government members stated the other day that this government will look after the poorest and weakest in society. Indeed, that is a very honourable commitment, but is it really true? Hon. Speaker, why would this government want to spend millions of tax dollars for the performance of abortions in unapproved health care facilities? This is all to be done under the umbrella of women's rights and privileges. I doubt that this is of such importance to British Columbians in general.
Moreover, British Columbians would have applauded this government if they would have placed an equal amount of money towards counselling women in these circumstances. As human beings we have all been divinely created, people being the masterpiece of the divine creation. Should it not be the government's responsibility to provide more counselling when people fail to counsel their children or are incapable of making decisions for the protection of the most important part of creation? While we were all created with the power of choice in our responsibilities and privileges in life, in view of the fact that there are 100,000 abortions performed in Canada each year, I firmly believe that these people need counselling more than anything else. The traumatic effect often experienced due to the neglect of counselling and the resulting abortions will not only be costly to society but will leave a scar on governments who fail to provide the most necessary counselling.
I am happy to say, though, that in our own community we have several organizations, totally without expense to the government, that are providing a very valuable service in terms of a fair amount of counselling for people who find themselves with these kinds of problems. The future of any country or nation is in our youth and how we prepare them for life -- especially in assisting the weakest, the poorest and those who have no means to defend themselves.
Hon. Speaker, it appears to me that this government, through its various statements and the Speech from the Throne, is trying to achieve something which has been tried in eastern Europe for many years and has ultimately failed. The basic underlying principle of the various isms to make each and every one equal. To achieve that the government is not only reaching its hand into everyone's back pocket, but it has to reach into people's lives. As the late W.A.C. Bennett once put it, the government's responsibility is to provide equal opportunity for all and special privileges for none.
The so-called fair wage policy is not only going to present a massive tax burden for British Columbians, but it's discrimination of the highest degree in the workplace. It throws one of the strongest principles out the window and that is the principle of productivity and competitiveness, which British Columbians and people from all over the world have cherished. In my opinion, this fair wage policy, as it is called, is in a very subtle way going to strengthen what big unions have sought to achieve for a long time: to protect the non-productive element in society at the cost of those who have the desire to achieve something in life, whether they are working for an employer or self-employed.
[ Page 136 ]
Does this word "fair" really mean that open-shop employees are paid unfairly? I do not believe that is true. Why has the government singled out construction workers? Why not those in other parts of the workforce? Studies have shown that the average wage-benefit package in the open-shop construction sector is in excess of $20 per hour. Why would the government single out that area? The only group which supports this proposal is the building trades unions, and perhaps they are some of the architects who have been working behind the throne speech to provide a concept plan. Is the reason for this policy of legislated wages that the trade unions have bargained away their competitive edge in the construction market? Perhaps the place to regain their competitiveness is at the bargaining table, where they lost in the first place.
It is not legislated wages that will guarantee quality or quantity in construction -- far from it. In contrast, it is the accepted construction codes and inspection that determine the quality and quantity of the work.
This legislated wage proposal has the potential of creating two types of construction workers in the province: those working on government contracts and those working for the private sector. Yet we all know that no contractor can survive on government contracts alone. What is the result going to be? In my opinion, it will be that because of a lack of competition, prices will be driven even higher on government contracts. How can this government even begin to think that they can afford this if the province's financial position is in fact as bad as they have made it out to be?
Madam Speaker, there is no exploitation in the construction industry today, contrary to what this policy would tend to indicate. I would urge that this government first of all have this proposed policy, prior to its implementation, debated fully on the floor of this Legislature; furthermore, if the government is still of the opinion to proceed with it, that it be further evaluated by an impartial tribunal before being acted upon. Legislating wages for one industry, based on current facts, is discriminatory and wrong in principle.
The cost of this proposed exercise is not just going to be limited to government. A much more serious threat will be the lack of enthusiasm of thousands of workers and employers who have had excellent working relationships over the years now having to comply with unions whose interests have moved to interference in a competitive workplace. History has taught us that a socialist government dominated by big labour can expect to experience more confrontation and labour unrest than a government which supports the basic principles of private enterprise.
To turn to an easier subject, which is my partly new constituency of Abbotsford, a good part of my new constituency, with about 5,000 people, used to belong to the Chilliwack constituency. The balance of the 38,000 population used to be in the Central Fraser Valley riding, which was a double riding at the time. This includes all of Yarrow, the newly added area, Chilliwack River valley, Cultus Lake and Columbia Valley. All of these areas bring their unique concerns and problems. To some of these problems I have already been giving considerable consideration over the past two years.
One of those in particular I'd like to highlight is the flooding which occurred in Chilliwack River valley back in 1989 and in 1990. Much of that flooding was due to -- as I see it and many other people from the local community have stated it -- the fact that even perhaps with good intentions to protect the environment, the rivers, in particular the Chilliwack River, have been neglected and need a steady maintenance program. I'm happy to report that much of the cleanup, in terms of stumps, trees and various items, has already occurred, but the river bottom is almost as high as the land along the side of the river. So we can build dikes higher and keep on neglecting the work, but it's not going to solve the problem.
[3:15]
This coming Saturday, there will be a meeting in Chilliwack River valley where Hay and Co. will be presenting their draft study. I'm happy to note that the member from Chilliwack will be there as well, along with the federal MP, because this is a major problem. I would urge the government, specifically the Minister of Environment, that while the federal government has committed a lot of money to the Fraser River cleanup, the tributaries, such as Chilliwack River valley, are also going to be taken into consideration under the Green Plan, which I believe the federal government promised some $100 million to over the next five years. It's urgent. The sport fishery, which was a major contributor to the economy of the Chilliwack River valley, almost disappeared. And if continual clay slides are going into the river, it will disappear in time.
The Abbotsford area, which I represent, outside of its urban area, is largely agricultural. There are a lot of raspberry, strawberry and dairy farms, as well as poultry and hog farms. Some of these areas have had hardships over the last couple of years -- in particular, the raspberry industry. Much like the grain-growers in the Peace River area, they've really had some very difficult times. I must applaud the Minister of Agriculture for having provided money for the fruit-growers in the Okanagan, who have experienced similar problems, but I hope that in the other areas, particularly the raspberry-growers in the Fraser Valley who have had problems similar to those of the fruit-growers in the Okanagan, a replant program is also going to be provided, so that those farmers can again make a living off their farms.
There was a short letter in the paper the other day from a Mrs. Mary Clarke from Comox. It is headed: "Back our farmers." I would just like to read the last paragraph of this: "Canadian farm families are the backbone of our country. They didn't choose this work for a soft, cushy life. They are worthy of support of the government and the public; or we'll find out to our sorrow when it's too late."
The previous administration made a number of commitments to the Abbotsford-Matsqui area -- it's basically one community. One of those was a new hospital for our fast-growing area. I trust that this government will go through with those commitments that were made prior to....
[ Page 137 ]
Hon. T. Perry: Which commitments?
H. De Jong: The Minister of Advanced Education asks which commitments. I will just go over them. In fact, it's very timely. This is a new hospital. Several schools have been committed to be built. Some are already in the drawing stages. There are two high schools and, I believe, three or four elementary schools. There is also the commitment of a new overpass at 1 and 401 highways. There's the commitment to a four-lane Highway 11, which is essential, particularly from Highway 401 to the U.S. border. Having reminded the government of these commitments, I trust that they will be fulfilled in a very short time.
In conclusion, hon. Speaker, while my philosophy of governing is quite in contrast with that of the government side of the House, I believe very strongly that the government is really not addressing the issues, but instead, in their speech, they have tried to camouflage the real agenda of this government, which is not necessarily to provide equal opportunity for all British Columbians but to make all British Columbians equal, and that's totally contrary to my philosophy.
The only way the government can do that is to dig and, yes, hon. Speaker, to dig deep into the pockets of most British Columbians. Unless I have misread the fuzzy lines in this blueprint, I along with many other British Columbians am very fearful of what may come down on Thursday of this week. What makes the reform movement in this country popular is that they say they will get the government out of people's lives. I see the exact opposite of this in the throne speech now under debate.
Because of the content of this speech I will simply have to say that I cannot support the throne speech delivered last Tuesday.
H. Giesbrecht: It is with great pleasure that I rise to address this House for the first time as the representative for Skeena, and I'm extremely grateful to the members of this House who are here to share this occasion with me.
I'd like to begin by offering my congratulations to you, hon. Speaker, on your election to the office of Speaker, and I trust that I will not make your task any more difficult.
I also want to congratulate the Deputy Speaker on his election. Unlike my colleague the member for Yale-Lillooet, I was a little past grade 3 at the time he was first elected to this House, but I remember his name when it was still associated with the B.C. Lions, and that was when they were winning. His 20 years' continuous service to the people of Vancouver Centre and now Vancouver-Burrard is just about equal to the length of time that I've been involved in politics.
Who would have thought that 20 years ago, working on Hartley Dent's campaign in Skeena, it would all lead to this? So I would like to pay tribute to those who came before me. After Hartley Dent in 1972 came Cyril Shelford, a person well remembered in this House, who served as Agriculture minister under W.A.C. Bennett. Then came Frank Howard, who was probably one of the best political street fighters that this House has seen for some time. Last fall I came across many constituents who still fondly remember Frank. He was, as they said, a representative of the people. I also want to pay tribute to my predecessor Dave Parker. We surely often disagreed, but no one could question his commitment to his ideals, and like all of those before him he did his best; no more can be expected from any of us.
I've travelled this province extensively. After a few sojourns in other countries and provinces I have come to the conclusion, as I'm sure all of us in this room have, that we in British Columbia have much to be thankful for. I, of course, am a committed northerner, and I intend to make most of the people in this House painfully aware of that fact during my tenure. I am committed to probably the most beautiful part of the province. Skeena means water of the clouds, and the scenery is as beautiful as the name is poetic.
It's a relatively large riding. If you drove from one end to the other it would take about two and a half hours, and then you'd have to take a floatplane or get on the Alcan boat to go to Kemano. Given the size, it has quite a range in demographics. We have substantial aboriginal populations throughout Skeena, along with a very healthy mix of ethnic groups.
Naturally, there is a wide range of opinion and expectation and, of course, a wide range of concerns. Our constituency office is a very active place, dealing with all the general provincial issues that most of the constituency offices deal with, including all of those that are unique to the north. I mention this because I am sometimes envious of representatives of urban constituencies in which one can travel from one end to the other in 15 minutes and sometimes less. Then I remember that none of them can drive for 30 minutes and get to their favourite fishing hole.
I've had the good fortune to start my term by serving on this Legislature's constitution committee. We have, during the past months, wrestled with the national issues that cause divisions among Canadians, and each time a participant was asked what made this country unique and why it was worth preserving, the answer seemed to be a reflection of Skeena and its constituents. The north has always been looked upon as a source of raw energy resources to fuel the economic engine of the south. It has been a kind of geographic application of the trickle-down theory that was expressed in this House some days ago. The theory is that if we feed the corporations enough and allow them enough profit, then the average British Columbian will derive the benefits that trickle down. The geographic version is that if we pump more resources into the economy of B.C.'s southern, heavily populated areas, then the benefits will trickle down to the northern half of the province. The farmer's version of that theory is that if you feed a horse enough oats, the sparrow will derive some benefit at the other end. We in the north are no longer content to be treated like sparrows. I am encouraged by the statement in the Speech from the Throne that: "This government will work to ensure the widest possible participation in the growth of British Columbia by people in all economic sectors and regions of this province." Hon. Speaker, I am committed to working with this government to ensure that this takes
[ Page 138 ]
place and that we provide a future for our children. We are tired of seeing them go south because that's where the only jobs are.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
I recently had a meeting with the representative of PRM Resources, a group that's planning to build a state-of-the-art copper smelter in Kitimat. I was pleased to hear that this proposal was discussed during the Premier's visit to the Pacific Rim, and that the interest he expressed in the project was an encouragement to the investment community.
Another issue of great interest and concern to the people of Skeena is access to education. The throne speech makes it clear that this government believes in "action to reduce financial barriers to post-secondary education," and that it is committed to the University of Northern B.C. For my constituents, it is critical that this truly be a university for northern B.C., not just -- as we heard in this House some days ago -- a full, free standing university for Prince George. It's incorrect to say Prince George was promised a full, free standing university. What we in the north were promised was a university for northern British Columbia that was to provide regional services and better access for northern students than is presently provided by the traditional southern institutions. Hon. Speaker, I found the throne speech and the recent announcement by the interim governing council of UNBC encouraging in that both reconfirm the commitment to the regional focus of the institution. My constituents view the announced one-year delay by the interim governing council as an opportunity to renew that commitment.
Another issue dear to the hearts of my constituents is identified in the throne speech under a proposed environmental assessment act. A thorough, open, clear review process that puts proponents and opponents on a level playing-field is long overdue. We need to reduce the conflicts that result from a flawed process such as the present MPRP. If a process is flawed, then a decision is likely flawed. Bad decisions are costly to future generations. As a young woman said at one of our constitution committee meetings: "We did not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children."
Hon. Speaker, presently in Skeena there is a proposal by Orenda to build a pulp mill. It is caught up in the flawed major project review process. My constituents want to see a resolution as soon as possible because we need the jobs, but not at any cost. The people of Skeena are very sensitive to environmental issues, but we are faced with some tough choices because of the provincial neglect in diversifying our northern economy. We in Skeena are looking at more than being a continual supply of cheap resources.
[3:30]
The throne speech sent a clear message reflected in the mandate this government received to ensure that we support economically and ecologically sustainable development proposals. Those are the proposals that will provide stability in our economies.
Hon. Speaker, I'm proud to be a part of a government that has a conviction to introduce balanced labour laws -- one that views business and labour as partners in the economy. I am pleased that the throne speech clearly stated that we will implement a fair wage policy. No longer will working men and women have their quality of life sacrificed on the altar of competition. Competition in the workplace, yes, but not competition which results in oppression of working women and men.
In a recent case in my constituency, a $300,000-plus construction project went to a non-union, out-of-town contractor who paid his workers $8 to $12 per hour. They lived in vans in the local park. The bid was only $10,000 less than the union bid. Who really benefited from such an arrangement? How much was lost to the local economy by not paying a fair wage so workers had a decent income? I'm proud to be part of a government that recognizes the value of the spinoff benefits to the community when workers receive a decent living wage.
Many times during sessions at the constitution committee meetings we heard comments which suggested that people are cynical and suspicious about governments and politicians. There exists a real need to restore some faith in government. When I decided to seek this office, it was out of a desire not only to be more accessible to my constituents, but also out of a desire for change for the better. The action taken by this government thus far and the direction offered in the throne speech are long overdue. It has had to make tough decisions based on the surprising and most disheartening financial discoveries. The theme in the throne speech and the commitment to open government are a real positive step to building a better British Columbia and the trust of British Columbians. As for my personal commitment, it is to conduct myself and to perform my duties so as not to bring any dishonour on this House.
Hon. Speaker, I am pleased that the throne speech made extensive references to the government's commitment to provide support for the disadvantaged in our society. Within the financial constraints it found itself in, I'm pleased that this government focused on the most vulnerable in our society. I'm extremely pleased that there has already been the introduction of assistance for school lunch programs, and that there will continue to be increased resources in response to its duty and priority to maintain the social safety net, especially where it involves children and families.
Hon. Speaker, my constituents will be looking forward to the actions arising out of the statement in the throne speech that "we take positive steps towards achieving women's equality, while dealing forthrightly with the consequences of gender inequality." I applaud this government for taking some bold steps forward to deal with this and other issues of the nineties.
The people in my riding want access to good quality health care. We have excellent professionals and non-professionals involved in the delivery of health care services. It's been an uphill struggle, and many of the health care services have been made more possible through local fund-raising. But my constituents must still travel to Vancouver or Prince George for a CAT
[ Page 139 ]
scan, at considerable cost to themselves, for a service that is available in lower mainland communities within a half-hour drive from home.
The Dr. R.E.M. Lee Hospital Foundation in Terrace has raised some $500,000 for a CT scanner and is looking for a commitment from the Health ministry for the operating funds. I look forward to the opportunity to work with this government and the ministry to provide health care services in the north, taking into account the true cost of accessing these services by people in the north.
One of the real tragedies in the forest industry is taking place in my constituency in the village of Kitwanga. The sawmill was shut down some two years ago, putting 100 people out of work in a community where alternate employment does not exist. Except for a period of six weeks, during which one planer shift was operating, the mill has been closed. A shortage of wood is given as the reason, yet the residents each day watch truckloads of logs being hauled through the village in both directions. I can't get into this in too much detail here, but suffice it to say that dreams have been shattered and frustrations are running high. The problems in the forest industry around this province are magnified in Kitwanga. It is a crisis brought on by years of provincial government neglect, and it cries out for a solution.
The throne speech also made it clear that this government has the courage to address that crisis in the forest industry. After years of mismanagement of our forests and the constant increase in annual allowable cut, this government is taking courageous steps to ensure that our forests are sustainable over the long run. The "liquidate the forest" mentality is no longer acceptable. Forestry is a critical issue in Skeena and, like many other parts of this province, we have a shortage of timber supply -- while some of our last stands of old growth timber need to be protected.
I suspect this House will hear much in the future about the Kitlope Valley. The Kitlope is our own version of the Walbran or Carmanah. There will have to be some tough decisions made -- tougher because of the years of avoiding the problem. The throne speech laid out the future direction in terms of a new forest act and receiving the fullest possible value from the use of this resource.
I would like to close my remarks with some comments on issues of concern to our aboriginal people. I have five native communities in my constituency: Gitanyow to the north; then, if you drive south, Gitwangak; closer to Terrace is Kitselas and Kitsumkalum; and the furthest south are the Haisla of Kitamaat Village. In the last year, culminating in the election last fall, I've had many discussions with members of these communities -- hereditary chiefs, chief band councillors, band council members and ordinary average men and women.
I've come to understand their frustration and sometimes total rejection of our system of government. They have more than 100 years of reason to be cynical and suspicious of any government. But I've also had some very enriching experiences, thanks to their patience and understanding. I do not consider myself qualified to speak on their behalf, but in the absence of an MLA in this House who is of native origin, it is incumbent upon me and others here to do our best.
Let me simply say that I am pleased that my government has already sent some very clear positive signals to the aboriginal peoples in this province. I am pleased that we are committed to cooperation with first nations on resource management prior to treaty negotiation. I am pleased to be a part of a government that recognizes aboriginal title and the inherent rights of aboriginal people to self-government. I am pleased to be part of correcting a blight on Canadian and B.C. history.
Native people have shown a patience beyond understanding. They have asked for nothing more than to be allowed the opportunity and the means to be economic equals as well as human equals. After more than 100 years of oppressing our aboriginal peoples, it's time we truly made them partners. The throne speech clearly indicates that that's what we are committed to doing. What is clearly a major focus in this throne speech is putting people first.
E. Conroy: It's truly an honour and a privilege to have this opportunity to give my first speech in this assembly as the MLA for the constituency of Rossland-Trail, where I've spent my entire life -- other than my university years, which I spent in Victoria.
First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker and say how stately you look in that chair and how well it suits you. I would like to congratulate the Speaker as well. The election was well deserved and a good one.
Secondly, I would like to thank my constituency president, Janet Saare, and all who helped to get me to Victoria to represent them in this House. Especially I'd like to thank my wife, Katrine, for her wisdom and support. As a matter of fact, we spent a number of sleepless nights trying to decide who was going to be the candidate -- she or I. Three and a half years later you might wish it had been her, but here I am. I don't want to hear any desk thumping over there either.
I recall being a student at the University of Victoria and sitting in the gallery watching the proceedings below. I had an apartment just in behind the parliament buildings, and being a political science student, I used to come and watch what was going on down here for entertainment. It never occurred to me for a second that I would be sitting down here at all. If anybody would even have accused me of it at the time.... You have to realize the timing. It was the late sixties, early seventies. Who would compromise their principles to come into a situation like this, right? Now I look up in amazement at where my life has led me. Here I am.
I'd like to acknowledge the fine legislative work in this assembly of Mr. Chris D'Arcy, my predecessor in Rossland-Trail. He served for 19 years under the New Democrat banner, from 1972 to 1991. Mr. Don Brothers, who preceded him, faithfully served in the W.A.C. Bennett government from 1958 to 1972 as Minister of Mines and Minister of Education.
I represent the constituency of Rossland-Trail. Rossland-Trail encompasses the southwestern portion of the
[ Page 140 ]
Kootenay region along the beautiful Arrow Lakes and the last free-flowing stretch of the Columbia River, the seventh-largest freshwater system in the world. Three hydroelectric dams and one storage dam holding back 200 kilometres of the Columbia River lie within Rossland-Trail. Also included are parts of two regional districts: the Regional District of Central Kootenay, represented by Mr. George Cady, and the Regional District of Kootenay-Boundary, represented by Mr. Doug Swanson. In the north portion of Rossland-Trail lies the Hugh Keenleyside Dam and the reservoir, with all its potential to generate hydroelectricity and local tax revenue, which we hope is going to be forthcoming.
Also in the same region lies one of our three major cities, Castlegar, at the crossroads of the Kootenays and the home of the first community college in British Columbia, Selkirk College.
Castlegar's present pulp mill construction project, when completed, will more than meet our Environment minister's standards and put tens of millions of dollars of revenue into provincial coffers in the next two years. Castlegar has become the transportation hub of the entire West Kootenay region and looks forward to working with the minister toward increasing traffic efficiency and safety.
Also in this area, hon. Speaker, are many smaller communities -- Robson, Thrums, Ootischenia -- where most of the 35 percent of our Doukhobor community reside. It is this community -- our Portuguese community and the Doukhobor community -- that has brought so much local stability during these difficult times.
[3:45]
South down the Columbia River is the city of Trail, the home of champions and the home of the world's largest non-ferrous metal smelter. It is from this smelter that the last hockey team to be world champions for Canada derives its name: the Trail Smokeaters. The thriving Italian community of Trail, I'm sure, would be pleased to have all of you come to Silver City Days. Also, as I'm sure you know, it's a strange year indeed when a little league team from Trail isn't representing Canada at the Little League World Series. All of these athletic achievements -- when at the same time our academics and professionals of every type have become successful not only in British Columbia and in Canada, but throughout the world.
Hon. Speaker, Rossland, our golden city, boasts of one of the purest environments coupled with the best skiing anywhere. Olympic and World Cup team members and winners have learned their trade at Red Mountain: Rhonda DeLong in cross-country; Olympic gold medal and silver medal winner, Nancy Greene Raine; Diana Haig; World Cup champion Felix Belczyk; and our newest Olympic gold medal winner Kerrin Lee-Gartner. All learned their trade at Red Mountain. So it's an invitation to any of the members or anybody in British Columbia who want to have Olympic or World Cup champions: if they feel they have the potential, send them to Red Mountain. We'll train them.
The pioneering spirit of Rossland remains strong as shown in the recent awards presented by the Premier to Jack MacDonald and Roger Terhune during the B.C. Mining Week for their work on the Rossland gold-mine and museum complex.
Hon. Speaker, we have the human and natural resources to contribute to this great province. What we require is the political will from Victoria to make it happen. As all of our communities have been hit hard, we need to know we are not just another constituency beyond Hope. The throne speech, I believe, has begun this process.
Salmo, with Cominco layoffs in the province in the forest sector, has been stripped of its economic base. The bedroom communities of the Beaver Valley and Warfield also are hurting from the situation at Cominco. Not one area in the constituency I represent is unaffected by the Cominco situation. Castlegar has 450 people laid off due to the Westar closure -- indeed, almost 1,000 layoffs, hon. Speaker. Yet we are optimistic. Our constituency, having been ignored for the past 20 years, expects nothing but to finally receive fair and honest treatment in rebuilding and restructuring our infrastructure and our local economy. We have the will, and we have the talent.
Hon. Speaker, I approach the hon. Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade with respect to our constituency to begin developing important connections between our own Doukhobor community, which has a lot of networking in Russia, to enable us to get in on the ground floor in terms of dealing with the situation in Russia. We need them. I think one of the things that we forget is that Russia is also a Pacific Rim country. They need us and we need them. They have a similar climate. The things that we do best are the things that they need the most. With the networking that we have with our Doukhobor community in the constituency that I represent, we can get in there, and we have the potential to do a lot of things within Russia. I think it's very important. We shouldn't forget that it's a Pacific Rim country as well.
It's also interesting to note that in School District 9 there's a unique locally-initiated Russian bilingual program that is popular not only with the local Russian community but also with the community as a whole.
Hon. Speaker, the throne speech last Tuesday was about putting people first. It was about setting high standards of accountability and integrity for MLAs, and it was about running a government that understands that it needs to be as sensible as it is sensitive. This is what British Columbians have demanded from government, and this is what we are beginning to deliver.
I'm sure that every member of this House wants to rebuild the trust the citizens of British Columbia once had in government. With our new, open approach in dealing with the affairs of the province, I feel certain that all my colleagues on both sides of the House will be only too eager to work together in rebuilding that trust.
The throne speech laid out an agenda for economic renewal based on the concept that all British Columbians should share in the benefits of recovery. The Premier has already made it a priority to promote trade wherever he has been.
The throne speech has also talked about options to encourage British Columbians to invest in British Columbia. That is an approach I strongly support. I
[ Page 141 ]
only wish this government had been in place when West Kootenay Power was sold to U.S. interests rather than to B.C. buyers who were present.
The throne speech also talked about the steps already taken to make Crown corporations greater generators of wealth and economic development. I applaud this initiative, as generators in the Hugh Keenleyside Dam would do much for the economy of Rossland-Trail. As I mentioned before, it holds back 200 kilometres of the Columbia River, the seventh-largest freshwater system in the world. All it does is hold back water. I think the very least we should do is take the electricity out of the water before we give it to the Americans. This is a matter that I've already mentioned to the ministers, and I'll continue to pursue it.
I'm very pleased to note that we will have public consultation towards the complete reform and renewal of B.C.'s environmental legislation, leading to the future introduction of new wildlife, fisheries, water management and environmental protection legislation. This coupled with a new environmental assessment act to ensure a thorough review of resource developments will begin a journey B.C. should have been undertaken many years ago.
Our forests -- a long-neglected yet most important part of our future and economy -- will finally be receiving the attention they deserve. I say "they" because I stress the diversity of our forests. We can't just talk about "a forest"; we have to talk about "them." I come from the interior wetbelt. The forests that I have to deal with are entirely different from the forests in the Okanagan. We have to deal with a number of diversified forests. Amendments to the Forest Act will strengthen the enforcement of reforestation and ensure a fair determination of harvesting levels on major forest tenures.
It is no accident that the portfolios of Health, Education and Social Services -- 71 percent of our budget -- are controlled by women. As a New Democrat, I'm proud of the process that we have made and will be making toward gender parity -- and I stress "will be making." At last a Ministry of Women's Equality.
Hon. Speaker, the lack of a federal response to our province's needs has been alarming: increasing the variety of tax breaks for individuals of means while chopping transfer payments for programs that help those who need it the most.
I'm greatly concerned by the free trade agreement and the possibility that it might be extended to include Mexico. Their commodity, cheap labour, is fine to utilize to entice industry south, but one of our main commodities, natural resources, cannot be utilized to attract industry. In other words, I represent a constituency that has a number of hydroelectric dams. If we utilize the hydroelectricty to try and promote local industry and try and give industry a break on power rates, we're breaking the free trade agreement. We can't do that. But they can sell their labour for $6 an hour, that's fine and dandy -- and that's unfair. That should not be allowed. We have to give our head a shake. They don't have to send the tanks across the border here to take Canada; they've taken it with the stroke of a pen.
One should not take my comments to be anti-business, hon. Speaker. Treating one's citizens like paupers in their own country should be on the decrease, not on the increase. I'm proud to say that the Southern Interior contractors' association is the only association in the province which voted against putting money into the anti-fair-wage campaign. I think that that shows the level of social consciousness of the area I represent. It's not simply the area I represent; it's the the entire Kootenays. I think all of the MLAs from the Kootenays have to take some credit for that. We come from an area that realizes how important that is, and I'm very proud to say that. I look forward to working with them on this important initiative.
Hon. Speaker, we're laying the foundation in British Columbia for a fair and balanced government. With our world changing at such a rapid rate, without a measure of stability and planning, we will be left behind, and so, too, will our children. The throne speech laid out a fresh approach to government. This is a throne speech that shows fairness, not favouritism; open, not secret, government. It is, I believe, a fair and futuristic document, which charts the path to a new British Columbia, and I look forward to the work ahead of us.
W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to thank the members of the assembly and the gallery who have hung in for this length of time to hear the address in reply to the throne speech. I would also like to acknowledge the many years of service to this province and this assembly of the hon. Speaker in the chair. And without risking opening some old wounds, were we to adopt a reform in this chamber in which the Speaker was elected by a majority vote of the members of this House, perhaps you would occupy the chair on a full-time basis.
Hon. Speaker, I consider the opportunity to address this assembly today as a member of the thirty-fifth Legislature, having been elected in the constituency of Surrey-White Rock to represent the interests of some 55,000 fellow British Columbians, to be one of the greatest honours and privileges that can be bestowed on a citizen of this country. To engage in debate with the hon. members of this House, as venerable and honoured a parliamentary institution as it is, and to tell you something of the region of the province from which I have come, are events that I am sure I will have occasion to reflect upon for the remainder of my days.
Numerous mentions have been made by other hon. members, and in the throne speech, about a new beginning in politics for British Columbia and about the need for more honesty, openness and trust. But I believe, hon. Speaker, that for us to fully appreciate the threshold of change upon which we stand, we must first objectively view the message which the voters delivered to us when they went to the polls last October. Support for both old-line parties dwindled. The government actually formed a majority with only 40 percent of the popular vote. The sitting government fared worse, seeing its support plunge by more than 20 percent. Hon. Speaker, the people of this province turned to a new alternative. They were seeking change, which they
[ Page 142 ]
perceived was not available from the options presented to them.
I must smile when I think back on the suggestion from the leader of the third party that the entire face of B.C. politics was changed by one eight-minute debate. This perception of the mood of the people perhaps explains why they sit with us today as only the third party on this side of the House. Even if that statement were true, which it is not, what does this belief by the remnants of the previous government say about the yearning by the people of British Columbia for real change? What does it say about their view of the manner in which politics was conducted in this province in the past?
[4:00]
Like many members of the official opposition on this side of the House, I look back upon the campaign with many fond memories. But perhaps the most humorous incident occurred when I arrived at the CBC studio to participate in a bear-pit session on forestry with the hon. member for Prince Rupert, who is now the Minister of Forests, and Mr. Claude Richmond, who was then the minister but not a candidate in the election. I can recall that this event occurred shortly after the Liberal party had surged to 33 percent in the polls. I was struck by the fact that here were these two adversaries who had squared off in this House like cold warriors over the past five years, joined by an unknown political candidate, whose party had surged out of nowhere in the public opinion polls. It was then that I finally realized that the political winds of the province had indeed shifted. The people had said "enough" to these two old parties; it was time for a real change.
In the Speech from the Throne the government talked about change and the need for a new direction. They talked about commitment to openness, honesty and fairness. It is my sincere hope that the government can deliver on these promises. I also hope that this government can exorcise the ghost that I believe haunts it still from its days in opposition. I hope this government can shift its orientation from an opposition which at times inflicted itself like an open wound on the political process in this province, to a government with the statesmanship to welcome dissenting voices. It will require an adjustment on that side of the House. It is perhaps a greater adjustment than will be required of the opposition side of the House, because it will require personal introspection. I suggest to this House that just as the past government lost the confidence and trust of the people of this province, so too was it the kind of opposition that people felt they had that represents the real reason why 17 members of a new party stand in the House before you today.
We are not here because we enjoyed huge campaign budgets. There was no lineup of union executives with their chequebooks out. We did not benefit from an outpouring of corporate support. Our party survived to wage its modest campaign on the basis of contributions from individual British Columbians. They gave what they could, because they never stopped believing, like our leader, that there had to be a better way for the affairs of this House to be conducted. There had to be a renewed political forum where important issues affecting the public good were not sacrificed at the altar of political rancour and bitterness.
Let me tell the hon. members of this House that there is a better way. As the official opposition, we will find that way. We will hold the government accountable. We will demand that this government develop an agenda for all the people of the province, not simply for the special interest groups that were instrumental in its election.
I am certainly not betraying any secrets when I tell this House that we on the opposition side of this House were not elected to this chamber because we were household names. In fact, I can recall somewhat humorously now that the voters of some of our ridings had to phone our party's headquarters just to find out who the candidate was in their individual riding. However, there was one man they did know, and that man was the Leader of the Opposition, who delivered his address in reply to the throne speech in this chamber last week.
I speak as an elected manner of this assembly, but also as a friend of the opposition leader, and I can tell you that I was determined to do all I could to ensure that this man led his party into this House. This is a leader who is indefatigable, who does not know what it is to shrink from adversity, who has stumped this province for four long years to lead this party into the position it is in today. I can tell you it is a story unprecedented in the history of B.C. politics. It is a story in which the final chapter will not be written until this leader is sitting on the other side of the House. I firmly believe that over the next four years this will be the overwhelming mandate of the people in this province. Only then will some in this province be convinced of the reasons behind this dramatic shift in B.C. politics.
We have emerged from a cold-war era in B.C. politics. We have moved to an era where issues and substance will hold sway, for the public will demand accountability from their politicians. They will hold the government accountable not just for the measures they propose in this House but for the promises and commitments they made while they were in opposition and out campaigning during the last election.
For the time being I would first offer my congratulations and best wishes for the new government. By virtue of its hard work while it was in opposition it has earned a mandate from the people of this province to advance its agenda for the next four years. From the government's previous years on this side of the House, however, I am sure they are only too familiar with the vital role of the opposition. The government has my pledge that as the official opposition critic for forests, lands and parks, my opposing viewpoints will be responsible and positive. The people of British Columbia are expecting constructive alternatives from the official opposition, and that's what we will give them.
The issues and concerns in my critic area are complex, and they will require much consultation and a willingness to be pragmatic and flexible. We must look at our problems of forestry and land use with a new insight. We must be willing to break new ground in forging alliances with the competing interest groups,
[ Page 143 ]
and the old ways of confrontation and stubborn refusal to see the merits of new ideas, no matter what side of the House they emerged from or no matter what public body advanced them, will not help us resolve the important issues as we move through the 1990s. It is precisely because I have spent the last 15 years of my professional life travelling to B.C.'s smaller communities that I can tell you with all sincerity, I appreciate the immense challenge that lies before our new government.
Never in the history of this province have the debates over land use, the environment and wilderness preservation been more divisive, yet never has the very foundation of our economic prosperity been more dependent on arriving at sustainable solutions. As I travel throughout small-town British Columbia, I see community after community grappling with the trauma of social and economic change. Some of these changes are being thrust upon us by the global economy. Others are a legacy of past mismanagements of governments in this very House. As forest harvests are reduced and jobs disappear, as mines are played out without new ones taking their place, and as small sleepy towns in the lower mainland are assimilated by rapid urban growth, we find our people are restless. Some are concerned about preserving a lifetime of work. Others worry about opportunities for their children and fret that their communities and regions cannot offer the economic and educational opportunities they need. Others see a loss of space and lifestyle and worry that our political and planning bodies cannot cope with the pressures being thrust upon them.
Hon. Speaker and hon. members, we are seeing a provincial economy in transition: a divergence of economies between the lower mainland and the rest of this province. I am worried, as I am sure members of the government side of the House are worried, that as areas like the lower mainland and the Okanagan Valley continue to experience staggering population growth, our seats of power may shift. As hon. members of this B.C. Legislature who represent our ridings, yes, but who are also members of political parties which may benefit from this democratic trend -- we should nevertheless guard against a tendency to let our concentration on rural and small-town British Columbia lapse in any way.
Recently I joined four members of the Liberal caucus on a fact-finding journey to the magnificent area of Castlegar, Rossland and Trail in the southeastern portion of our province. There we found a proud and forthright group of some 23,000 fellow British Columbians who make their home in this valley, as many pioneers did before them. They are miners, smelter workers, teachers, businessmen and ranchers, the kind of British Columbians who have built this province, often with their own bare hands.
As we know, they are facing difficult economic times, and we also know that where they are located in the province they don't have many voices to muster to turn the heads of the legislators in Victoria. They are feeling vulnerable and without voice, particularly when they consider the riding strength of the lower mainland. I raise the concerns of these people because in the months and years ahead this House will have to lay aside political differences. We will have to raise our spirit of generosity and our willingness to do the right thing rather than what is politically expedient.
As members of this thirty-fifth Legislature, and those that will follow it, we will have to be acutely sensitive to regional economic disparity. We will have to be willing to govern for the welfare of the entire province. We will have to pay less heed to the number of voices and more attention to the issues that they raise. This is a positive and constructive role that the people of the opposition can bring to the province of British Columbia.
Let me assure you that we will listen to the concerns of British Columbia from the Pacific Coast to the Selkirk Mountains and from the Yukon border to the 49th parallel, and we will raise those concerns in this House. It will be our role to give voice to those who need it, as the official opposition.
As a critic for forestry, parks and lands, I will argue for their dignity, for their economy and for their way of life as passionately as I would argue for my own. As southwestern B.C. opens its doors to hundreds of thousands of new residents and immigrants and assumes its position of pre-eminence in the Pacific Rim, we will all have to work doubly hard to remind ourselves in this House that there is another British Columbia beyond Hope, and I believe there will be many times in the future when we will have to put aside our political differences for their benefit.
As to my own riding of Surrey-White Rock, let me first describe to this House the geography and demographics that make it unique. This is a new riding, carved out of the boundaries of the old Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale riding. The new riding stretches south and west of the 99 freeway to the international boundary, southeast to the shores of Semiahmoo Bay and Mud Bay, which forms part of Boundary Bay. It was ably and at times controversially represented by Mr. Bill Reid, and I know he will be missed by the hon. Minister of Labour and his many friends in the press gallery. Let me emphasize that as one of Mr. Reid's constituents I believe he did work hard on behalf of the people in the riding, and many worthwhile charitable ventures and public projects were completed with the assistance of provincial funding -- although I must acknowledge that some of the GO B.C. grants were more controversial than others.
There are now 55,000 people living within the ten-square-mile radius of what has come to be known as the Semiahmoo peninsula. It comprises the pioneer communities of White Rock and Crescent Beach, which hug the shoreline and have provided a summer beach haven for generations of British Columbians who were raised on the lower mainland. In those early days many of the homes were summer cottages which clung to the hillside overlooking Semiahmoo Bay. It is in one of those summer houses -- which, I might add, underwent yearly renovations for more than 20 years -- that I was raised. With some 5,000 to 10,000 people in the 1950s, the town was one of idyllic enjoyment, which I have described to you already. There were green spaces and empty places, ponds and marshes, tree clumps and
[ Page 144 ]
large rocks, including the greatest rock of them all, the white rock on the beach. The Great Northern dayliner stopped at the White Rock station, and passengers travelled beyond to New Westminster and Vancouver in the north, and south to Seattle and Portland. And always there were ocean vistas, the sun, the moon, the storms and the sky playing out endless canvases, which caused even the most long-suffering residents to pause on one of the steep slopes, even in a driving rain, to ponder Semiahmoo Bay.
Today there are some 55,000 of us, many of them senior citizens who have retired to this far corner of the lower mainland for the same reasons that those of us who grew up on the shores continue to revere it. Despite this quintupling of the population, residents of south Surrey and White Rock are rather proud of the way they have managed to accommodate so many people without sacrificing the essential nature of the place.
Not too many years back, a dedicated group of Semiahmoo Peninsula residents lobbied hard to have 150-acre site in the heart of the peninsula dedicated as an urban forest, and there it will rest in perpetuity -- a verdant forest of mature evergreens, which will be an exclamation point for environmental preservation in my riding. Without the benefit of any bylaws or statute to protect them, the individual property owners have nevertheless taken it upon themselves to preserve these magnificent evergreens as if they were their own properties. While condominiums have sprung up in the town centre to accommodate the seniors who have come to live there, they are framed by these treed areas, which we all hope will remain forever.
There is a strong sense of the environment in my riding and a feeling of urgency that we need to protect what we have, and that sound land use planning is the only method of dealing with the kind of urban constraints and urban pressures that we find in the Semiahmoo peninsula. The city of White Rock, with its small tax base, is struggling to deal with problems of infrastructure that are exacerbated by its hillside location. In recent summers, coliform counts from the storm sewage outfalls have climbed to alarming levels, and the city will need help from this provincial government to address this crucial issue. I should add, however, that the city of White Rock is not alone in grappling with these infrastructure problems. I note in past government reports that fully 25 percent of the variances under the Waste Management Act in this province are by municipalities and regional districts. If we are to raise the level of environmental protection in B.C., we must give our local government the financial tools they need to get on with the job. I would hope that this will be a priority of this government during the session.
[4:15]
There is also a strong sense of beach preservation in my riding. The beaches of White Rock share the same fate as the quality of water in the Strait of Georgia. Beyond the boundaries of my riding, we need a commitment from government to deal with all the pollution sources in the strait.
The quality of our air, water, wilderness and parks is the only lasting legacy we can leave our children. Long after the business of this House has been consigned to the unleafed pages of Hansard, our children and our children's children will have to deal with the environmental problems we have bequeathed them. There is a sense of urgency about this in my riding. People are not looking to an individual minister or even the government to deal with these issues; they are looking to every member of this House.
As I stated earlier, almost half the people in my riding are at retirement age. They are concerned about the quality of their health care system, and they are at an age when affordable, efficient health care is one of the biggest concerns in their lives. Many believe, as I do, that the key to helping solve our health care funding crisis will have to come in delivering health care service to seniors in a more cost-effective manner. We face the urgent need to develop extended-and medium-term care facilities, home-care networks, and improved physiotherapy and rehabilitation. It is urgent that we develop alternatives to placing seniors with long-term illnesses in expensive acute-care beds. I hope this government and the hon. Minister of Health will declare this a top priority.
I could also go on at length about my beliefs about the need for reform in the way this House operates. I hope this government, in the spirit of improving the legitimacy in this House, will carefully consider what it can do. How can it enhance the historically important role of legislative committees? How will it restore the integrity and honour of the B.C. Legislature? Is there a need to take private members' bills more seriously, to debate their merits and incorporate the points we can all agree upon, rather than having them die on the order paper without a fair and spirited debate? Is there not a need for a free-vote election for the role of Speaker in the House, a model now being followed by other progressive parliaments in this country?
Regarding our economy, we are a trading nation facing the threat of protectionist action by the United States. We need an industrial strategy that encompasses worker training, the pursuit of excellence in corporate management and the need for an explosion in research and development, particularly in new products. Our government needs to understand that the imposition of new taxes on business and industry stifles this investment and robs business of the capital it needs to expand and, in the case of industry, to meet new environmental standards. Our prosperity cannot be guaranteed by governments. We are not masters of our own destiny or prosperity. Our ability to trade, compete, innovate and raise our standards of education and technical competence are the only things that will ensure that we prosper. Do we have a government that truly understands this? The answer, I suggest, will unfold only over the next four years.
We also have a role to play in constitutional reform. The opposition members on this side of the House truly believe that Senate reform is the only means of balancing regional equality in Canada. There must be supremacy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms over any other provincial or federal statute. We need the rights of self-government for aboriginal people, a
[ Page 145 ]
commitment to a constitutional referendum and a free vote in this House on the constitutional package.
In summary, now more than at any time in the history of our province we are dealing with unprecedented change. The world economy, our environment and the standard of living that our traditional resources can sustain are all being questioned and analyzed. Expectations are changing. Our institutions are being questioned. People understand the critical need to look at old problems in new ways.
I suggest to you, hon. Speaker, that the people of this province are looking at the members of this thirty-fifth Legislative Assembly to subject government to the same kind of critical analysis. We have come through a destructive decade in the history of politics in this province. Perhaps our troubles in B.C. only mirrored those in other democratic jurisdictions in the world. We cannot deny, however, that there was a loss of faith by our people. Our debates tended to be nasty, brutish and short, and our commitment to the environment, to a sustainable plan on resource extraction and to the dignity of the individual -- not to mention their station in life -- were all allowed to erode. A malaise enveloped this chamber. It was reflected in what passed for political debate in this province. There seemed to be too few ideals, fewer strategies for governing and virtually no debates from this period that today give us insight into what we need in the 1990s.
The people reacted swiftly to this malaise in the last election. They went to the polls, and they virtually cleaned the slate. The one premise that guides our actions as members of this House is that when it comes to politics, the people are always right. We accept what the voters have returned to this province, and we accept the fact that they have returned this province to a plurality of parties.
I suggest to the members of this House that the people of the province have given us the tools with which to forge a new beginning and a new method of governing British Columbia. I hope hon. members from the government side of the House understand that this yearning for change is there on the part of all British Columbians. I hope their ideals, attitudes and methods of governing have not been too deeply rooted in the past. Those are the issues which give us pause to reflect and consider the bounty we have been blessed with, the wealth the land has bestowed upon us, our commitment to social justice and the dignity of the individual, our sense of history and love of this province, our freedoms and the prosperity we enjoy. Is it not time, hon. Speaker, that the affairs of this House reflect the quality of life in our province and the generosity of our people?
J. Doyle: Hon. Speaker, it is with a lot of pleasure that I rise in this chamber to make my first speech as the MLA for Columbia River-Revelstoke. I would like to congratulate the Speaker on her election, and I'd also like to congratulate you on your election as Deputy Speaker and on being the dean of this Legislature. I was 28 when you were elected, unlike some children on the other side of the House. I am sorry that my wife, Judy, who keeps me on a straight line most of the time, could not be here today, along with her two boys, Adam and William, or my dear mother Mary Rose Doyle, who lives in Ireland.
I immigrated to Canada in 1967 from Northern Ireland, which is an area of 8,000 square miles. I never thought that I would one day represent an area twice that in this Legislature or any other one. The Canada I arrived in in 1967 was celebrating its centennial. I have loved this country since the day I arrived in it. In 1967 I was elected alderman in Golden, a position I held until I was elected mayor in 1981. I served in that position until December 1990. In October 1991 I was honoured by being elected MLA for Columbia River-Revelstoke.
I mention the last few elected positions just to remind all hon. members in this House that Canada is truly a great country. It will even elect someone like myself, who really speaks neither one of the official languages. I had a big lump in my throat last Tuesday -- that being St. Patrick's Day -- on taking my seat in this chamber.
I have been privileged since mid-January to serve on the all-party constitutional committee. I have travelled to many areas of this beautiful province, receiving input from citizens as to British Columbia's position on our constitution. What have I heard? I have heard that Canada is the best country in the world. I am personally worried that our country has been sold down the river. Free trade with the United States was a great sellout of our rights and resources. The United States is our good neighbour, but what is ours is ours. I blame the Prime Minister Mr. Mulroney and his government for this great sellout. Now they are sitting down in some back room to further sell out what is left of our country by negotiating free trade with Mexico.
I say enough is enough. John A. Macdonald and John Diefenbaker, I am sure, are turning in their graves at this giveaway of our country by the federal government. Like most Canadians, I don't want my children, Adam and William, to grow up as citizens of the United States north of the 49th parallel. We as Canadians must shake our heads before it is too late. I say: what about a referendum on this giveaway of our resources, way of life, culture and medicare benefits and on this threat to our sovereignty? What has happened to our country in the past 25 years?
I would like at this time to make mention of previous MLAs who served parts of my riding. Leo Nimsick served the Kimberley area from 1949 until 1975. Jim Chabot, who served the old riding of Columbia River from 1962 until 1986, was an excellent MLA and member of cabinet. He stayed with his party through thick and thin. I'm only sorry that Jim did not live long enough to enjoy his retirement. His wife, Grace, who worked at his side, is a person whom I have the greatest respect for.
Bill King served the Revelstoke area of my riding for 12 years. Bill was British Columbia's best labour minister. The present minister will be judged at a later date. Bill and his good wife Audrey are enjoying their retirement in Revelstoke. Duane Crandall served Columbia River from 1986 until 1991. Duane worked hard for his constituency, and, most of the time, also for his party.
[ Page 146 ]
I am privileged to be the first member elected to represent the new constituency of Columbia River-Revelstoke. This is one of the largest ridings in British Columbia. Its 32,000 people are spread out over 365 miles of highway. I have three part-time offices to try to serve the people. As a matter of interest, it takes me up to eight hours to fly and drive from Victoria to my home in Golden.
Kimberley, the Bavarian City, is home of the Sullivan ore mine. This mine is Kimberley's largest employer. It is coming to an end in the next ten years, and I as MLA will be working as their advocate to make sure that the Kimberley area continues to grow. I will be in our cabinet ministers' offices for assistance on a regular basis. I am also working through our Minister of Advanced Education to see that the East Kootenay Community College facilities are located in Kimberley.
Canal Flats, the source of the great Columbia River, is a community of over 1,000 people. They are mostly employed in the forestry sector. I intend to make sure that Canal Flats gets its fair shake on taxes returned to it in the way of services. They don't want much from government, just a fair shake.
The Windermere valley has a great future in tourism. This area brings millions of dollars into our province, to a great extent from Alberta visitors. Windermere Lake is a great resort for local residents and visitors alike. One thing I want to see is a law in our province to protect public access to our lakes. They belong to all of us, not just the few who can afford to buy lakefront property. Let us make sure that public access to these lakes is protected before all the lakeshore is sold off to the developers.
[4:30]
Spillimacheen is the home of Glynnis Snow and the Columbia Society of Interdependent Living. Their desire is to have a place for the physically challenged people of our province and visitors to enjoy. We, as a caring government, must do what we can to assist them in their desire to make this dream come true. This area has the ability to be a great place for the physically challenged to rest their weary bones and to have a chance to see some of the beauty and the nature of the Columbia Valley.
Field, on the B.C.-Alberta border, in Yoho National Park, is a place of natural beauty, and I intend to see the tourist information centre expanded to properly welcome visitors to our province at this major entrance point to British Columbia. Golden, the town of opportunity -- the area is, as I stated earlier, my home -- has a diversified economy, and mostly is dependent on forestry. Revelstoke is a city of 8,000 people, and I am sure has the best example of any city in B.C. of a downtown revitalization project.
The Revelstoke and Golden areas have lost a lot to the building of the Revelstoke and Mica Dams. Valleys were flooded. Large forestry areas which kept those communities viable were lost forever, all to keep the lights lit in the lower mainland. We don't mind that, but I say, hon. Speaker, that in return for our great sacrifice in jobs and wildlife habitat lost, we expect -- and I as MLA will work for -- natural gas for the Columbia River Valley, Golden and Revelstoke areas. Without natural gas we cannot compete with other areas for industry. Let us, as government, make sure that we have affordable, environmentally friendly natural gas available. Let us look after B.C. first.
Looking at other areas in Columbia River-Revelstoke, I will be spending a lot of time in the office of the Minister of Highways. The Trans-Canada Highway through my riding is in dire need of major upgrading, and the very worst area of this highway is at Kicking Horse Canyon, just east of Golden. Mr. Minister, I look forward also to discussing the condition of the Toby Creek Road to Panorama and Highway 95 from Kimberley to Wasa. They are not able in their present state to safely manage the traffic flow.
My riding borders on the Alberta border. Many people go to Calgary for medical attention and also to attend college and university. We must do what we can to make it easier for those people to access services across the border.
Over the past two months I had the privilege of serving on a committee with regard to the transfer of a tree-farm licence. This is a commitment we made to consult B.C. people about the forests that grow in those areas. We, as government, and the people of B.C. are concerned that in the past our forests have been politically managed. This is an important resource for all of us, and we intend to keep it sustainable. It is the backbone of many communities in Canada and especially in my riding of Columbia River-Revelstoke. I, like all British Columbians, am disgusted by the softwood tariff imposed by the United States government. Is someone down there afraid of competition? We must and will win this unfair tariff case.
Hon. Speaker, our commitment as a government to our first-nations people is long overdue. The natives have had too many broken promises for over a century.
Our commitment and action, as a government, on the environment are something I am very proud of. I only wish that my good friend Chris Schiesser were alive today to see this positive action. Chris and many other people in the environmental movement are what is needed to jog the government of the day into action.
The throne speech of March 17 is something I am proud of, as the MLA for Columbia River-Revelstoke. This throne speech is a follow-through of commitments that we were elected on. There are some things that we cannot carry out at this time due to the terrible financial shape we found B.C. in on taking over government. The people of B.C. were told by their previous government that we had a deficit of $400 million, or roughly $135 per person in B.C. Now, as we know, it was closer to $1,000 per person. We have had enough of BS funds in B.C. Hon. Speaker, our government is committed, as our leader and now Premier said during the election campaign, to being fiscally responsible with the people's money.
One group I would like to mention is the senior citizens of Columbia River-Revelstoke and throughout B.C. You are the people who built our province. I salute all of you.
In closing, I would like to see something that I have tried as a municipally elected official and now I am allowed to do; that is, to listen to the people. I have
[ Page 147 ]
always tried to remember something my late father Patrick Doyle told me: "When your mouth is open, your ears are closed."
Hon. T. Perry: I gather members of the government side are prepared to heckle me, and I welcome the opportunity to hear from my colleagues, as always.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's a great pleasure for me to welcome you to your chair. This is the first time today that I've been in the House when you've occupied that lofty position. Like the member for Skeena, I remember when you were first elected to the Legislature.
Unfortunately it wasn't the first time, as I recall, because I remember the disappointment of working on your campaign in 1969 and not quite making it that year. I still remember the experience, and I have felt a special bond with you since then. I learned something about the side of life which led so many people to join the New Democratic Party over the years. I gained a greater understanding of the lives of some less advantaged people in our society by campaigning door to door in the old parts of your district where people were living in a state of nearly total despair. The rooming-houses no longer exist. They have been replaced by the modern courthouse and office and apartment buildings. I remember that from when I was 18, working on your first campaign.
I know that you've always remembered that side of the people you represent. You are probably still the only member of the Legislature who has ever subsisted on GAIN and on the welfare allowance and who has gained some practical wisdom from that, which very few of us have ever experienced. But many of us learned vicariously through your experience.
I feel that it's a wonderful pleasure to see you sitting up there on that throne and looking down so benignly on us and even occasionally blessing us with the odd bit of humour.
Deputy Speaker: I'm going to have to call the hon. member to order.
Hon. T. Perry: I'd like to take the chance as well to acknowledge.... I'm also a rookie MLA, in a sense, for the historically new riding of Vancouver-Little Mountain. But as you, members opposite and particularly members on this side of the House know.... Looking around, I don't see too many veterans here other than Mr. Deputy Speaker. But all members will be aware of how ably my riding, in its former incarnation, was represented by Mrs. Grace McCarthy and Mr. Doug Mowat. I can assure those of you who have not had the experience of going door to door in that riding that there isn't anybody in that riding who doesn't know about those two and who doesn't feel that they represented the riding extremely well over the years. So I have -- I'm not sure how to put it with Mrs. McCarthy -- some fairly big shoes to fill. That might not be quite the way to put it. I have an honourable and distinguished tradition to try to live up to, and I intend to do that.
I might add that I remember how graciously Mrs. McCarthy welcomed me here when I was first elected to this House. In those days she was sitting a little further along the row from her accustomed position, but she was still ineffably gracious, as always. It was particularly appreciated by a new member like me to be welcomed by a veteran like that.
In the same spirit, I'd like to welcome not only all new members of the Legislature -- including my colleagues and the members opposite -- but also the opposition critic who I know, having filled the role of Health critic, has a big and demanding job. I see him sitting beside our former critic, the member for Burnaby North, who worked very hard in that role and with whom I was seatmate, so I know what the role involves. I'm very pleased that we have such a capable member from West Vancouver-Garibaldi filling that role, and I look forward to working cooperatively with him and accomplishing a great deal for B.C. through some constructive dialogue and incorporating his suggestions as well as those of other opposition and government members. I will say through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the member that although I couldn't be here yesterday to listen to his speech -- I was in Ottawa along with other provincial ministers pressing the federal Secretary of State to improve student loan and student aid programs -- I have read it through and am impressed by the spirit of it, so I look forward to working together.
I would also like to take the chance -- I don't suppose any of them are listening now; they've got too much work to do for that -- to thank the ministry staff I've been working with for the last five months. They don't get mentioned very often in public. There is a widespread public perception -- which if new members don't already know, they will probably come to be familiar with -- that the civil service doesn't work very hard. But I can tell you from my experience that the ministry staff in the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology are working very hard, often at nights and frequently on weekends. They are completely and totally dedicated to the well-being of the people of B.C. So it has been a great privilege to work with them, and I look forward to doing so for a very long time yet.
I would also like, while I've got the chance in my maiden speech in the thirty-fifth parliament, at least once to take the opportunity to formally thank my family -- not only my parents, but my wife Beth and my children, Dustin and Alison, who, like other members' young children, give up a lot when their parents participate in this life. But they have been, generally speaking, incredibly good-natured about it. It's not always that way, but they've had a very good sense of humour. It has been always a joy, no matter how interesting the debates here, to go home once in a while and see them. So I'd like to acknowledge their support for me.
You know, it's really a great feeling and a privilege to rise to speak in defence of a document like this Speech from the Throne. I don't know if anyone out there in the public is watching, and I suppose I'm not supposed to do this, according to the rules. But just in case anyone out there is watching, this is the document we are referring to in these debates. Members have read it, and
[ Page 148 ]
it is available to the public. It's a document with a long and rather abstruse historical tradition, but it does spell out a very clear program of action. And for those who are new in the chamber, I think it's impressive to note the difference in the philosophy in this document from what we have seen in earlier documents.
During my short time in the Legislature on the opposition benches, there were some rather exciting Speeches from the Throne; there were some that had elements of humour in them; there were some that were dramatic; and there were some that had some very good ideas, like the establishment of the science and technology development fund, I believe, in the 1989 Speech from the Throne under the former government. But there were also some striking omissions in some of those speeches.
[4:45]
It was seldom that the Speech from the Throne, for example, referred to the rights of the aboriginal people. And when it did so, it was often in an offhand, almost spurious way. It was seldom that it referred very fully or at any length to the issue of equality for women, for non-white racial minorities or, for that matter, people with disabilities. I think one Speech from the Throne before my time referred to the establishment of the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities, yet the council met with the Premier only once in three years, on the night they were inaugurated, and never presented a direct report of their discussions.
What is most exciting for me about this speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker -- and I suppose you must share some of these feelings -- is a great pride in seeing the recognition of groups who have not often been mentioned. There are references in this document to people with AIDS and to eliminating discrimination based on sexual orientation -- something which might have been unusual for people to even talk about in this Legislature as recently as a few years ago. I find that very exciting.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I couldn't help thinking, as I listened to the inaugural speech by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the member for Saanich South, what a stark contrast his views and depth of understanding presented to the discussion only three years earlier we debated in this chamber the establishment of Pacific Spirit Park in Vancouver and the Musqueam Indian land claim over those lands. That was shortly after I entered the chamber for the first time. I recall having recourse to the library to examine the evidence of aboriginal residents in the area of the mouth of the Fraser River and finding readily available the journals of Simon Fraser on his descent of the Fraser River in 1808 and the diaries of Captain Vancouver in 1793, which described how the Musqueam people in some thousands lived at the mouth of the river. They had large dwelling places. Other journals by the provincial ethnologist in the late nineteenth century described estimates of the population of natives in the Fraser Valley at the time of contact as high as 50,000 people between Vancouver and Hope. I recall how striking it was that so many members of this Legislature failed to grasp that the original inhabitants of this province for thousands of years -- perhaps 10,000 or 20,000 years -- were the native people. Who knows? Perhaps it was longer. That's why they were called native people: they were here before the rest of us recent immigrants. I remember how difficult it seemed to get that concept across, in the days when I sat on the other side of this House. That's why I find it so refreshing to hear these issues debated with perhaps a bit more dignity and realism.
In response to comments made by the leader of the third party in his reply to the Speech from the Throne, recognition by the government of aboriginal title.... I'll refresh myself. In the words of the Speech from the Throne: "We recognize aboriginal title and the inherent rights of aboriginal people to self-government." The leader of the third party, the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, was asking last week what the Premier and the government meant by those remarks. I submit, as did the Minister of Native Affairs in his reply to the Speech from the Throne, that the answer is initially fairly simple, quite fundamental and represents a radical change in public understanding of this issue over the last few years -- one in which our Premier displayed an exemplary and quite extraordinary leadership unique in the history of the province. The leader of the official opposition has shared in that leadership and has also been willing to speak about these issues quite openly. What it really boils down to, hon. Speaker and members, is the recognition that native people were here first, the land was usurped from them by colonizing Europeans, and the traditional rights, not only of use but of land holding, which we would all accord to ourselves as property owners.... Some parties even go so far as to suggest that they ought to be entrenched in the Charter of Rights, and have never been granted to those several hundreds of thousands of people who lived in this province before the rest of us came here.
I see I'm beginning to run low on time, so I'd best turn to something less philosophical and more immediate: concerns that relate to advanced education. I could go on about many other issues with great enthusiasm, but let me speak of a few exciting areas in the Speech from the Throne that relate to my responsibilities as minister. We not only recognize but enthusiastically endorse the development of the University of Northern British Columbia. I speak as a southerner. I'm not embarrassed to be a southerner; I'm quite proud to be so. But as someone who's worked briefly in parts of the north -- in Houston, Hudson's Hope, Queen Charlotte City, Tasu, Whitehorse -- I've come to understand how northern people feel rather differently about their place in the province and in our society. As a southerner, I speak with great enthusiasm about this venture. It's a very bold and daring gamble. In a sense it's a gamble, but only when viewed in the short term. In the long term, the gamble is very modest. That investment in the social, educational and economic infrastructure in northern B.C. can pay off over the long term in a way that will develop that part of the province, which represents at least a third or more of the surface area of the province -- a culture, society and economy that are sustainable, perhaps more sustainable in the long run
[ Page 149 ]
than that in southern British Columbia. Viewed in that light, the challenge is not, as some southerners, including rival universities, have described it, a boondoggle. It's not a boondoggle by any means. It's a very wise, long-term investment in our province.
The Speaker: I regret, member, your time has expired.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to speak on such short notice with so many notes that I have had a chance to prepare. I am delighted to speak today on the throne speech debate. I'm delighted to speak in favour of the throne speech. I might say, it's one of the finest throne speeches we've heard, certainly the finest I've heard.
Let me first take the opportunity to thank my constituents for the privilege to serve in this chamber. I know all members -- and all members who have first been elected here -- know that it is an awesome place in many respects. It carries with it such traditions and such memories, and it just gives one pause. I remember coming here five years ago and thinking about the people who had gone before. In my constituency, if I might pay tribute to those people who have gone before, it is an illustrious list, from Harold Winch to Arthur Turner to Dave Barrett, Alec Macdonald and Bob Williams, and it goes on and on. It reads like a history -- a litany -- of leaders of the socialist movement in British Columbia. It reads as a history of leaders who have fought for the betterment of the lives of working people. I'm very proud of that heritage, and I feel privileged to be here today in the tradition of the great people who have led our party and the people who have led the movement on behalf of working people, and they have been representatives of my constituency.
I'm also privileged, I might say, to have a new constituency, renamed as Vancouver-Kingsway, which is entirely encompassed by my previous riding of Vancouver East. It too has an interesting history, at least at the federal level. The name is attached to Arnold Webster, a former leader of the New Democratic Party.
Grace MacInnis, who at the time was the only woman member of the House of Commons and who has recently passed away, as was acknowledged in the throne speech, was someone who, in some respects at least, got me involved in politics. The first campaign I worked on was the 1974 federal election campaign, and Grace MacInnis had retired. We were attempting to fill those shoes. We were unsuccessful in that respect, but I did work on that campaign, and I was privileged to meet Grace MacInnis personally for the first time. I was struck by her deep commitment to both the movement which I belong to and to the people of British Columbia and to fighting on behalf of working people.
That's the tradition that I like to uphold in this chamber. It is a tradition which I am very proud of. It's a tradition which I take very seriously, because what we have done in our movement is to fight on behalf of those who cannot fight for themselves and also on behalf of working people and their organizations. It is with great pride that I stand here today as a member of the second New Democratic Party administration in the history of this province, because it is a fruition of the efforts of people like Harold Winch, Ernie Winch, Grace MacInnis, Dave Barrett, Alec Macdonald, Bob Williams and Arnold Webster. It is in honour of them and it is on their shoulders that we stand here today.
So it is humbling, I might say, to be standing here today after those giants in our movement. I know that I may not live up to their expectations. I certainly don't in many cases, but it's certainly a noble ideal of which I try to remind myself every day -- and to think that I am carrying on a tradition in my party, in my movement and in my constituency. I take that very seriously.
If I can, hon. Speaker, I'd like to make a comment about the two opposition leaders' remarks, because I was struck by them. What did the Leader of the Opposition say? First of all, back up a bit. What's the first thing that the Leader of the Opposition said? What was the first public comment after gaining that mantle in this historic election campaign? He called a press conference to complain about the size of his office.
Hon. Speaker, it wasn't to complain about working people in Powell River who have been abused by the previous administration. It wasn't to complain about the rights of the citizens or problems in his constituency. It was to complain about the size of his office. I know all those unemployed people in British Columbia said: "Right on, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. I'm going to write a letter to you. Your office isn't big enough; I know that."
But he didn't stop there. What else did he say? What was the next big hammer that he attacked the government with? He was so appalled because the size of his office budget was cut. I know there's a tear in the corner of the eyes of all those homeless people in British Columbia because the Leader of the Opposition's budget was cut. I know that they're marching in the streets because they are so appalled at the treatment of the Leader of the Opposition, in spite of the fact that the budget for the opposition has been increased on a per capita basis -- because there are less of them, I hasten to add. There are less of them, so the budget is actually larger for the opposition. But the Leader of the Opposition is offended. He is so offended that he was going to vote against the Speaker, because his office budget in Vancouver was cut.
I know, hon. members, that every day when you go back to your constituency, you get attacked, especially on the government side. They say: "How dare you cut the Leader of the Opposition's budget? It's a travesty." I'm positive that if I go back to my office, there are thousands of letters on my desk right now, as we speak, complaining about this travesty of justice that the opposition leader's budget was cut.
But what does that tell you, hon. Speaker, about the priorities of this new official opposition? Are they concerned about working people? Are they concerned about fair taxes? Are they concerned that some people aren't paying their share? Are they concerned about the health care budget? We never heard anything for months. All we heard about was the size of his office and the size of his office budget. The next thing will be the colour of his phone. He'll be complaining that he hasn't got enough fax machines or enough paper.
[5:00]
[ Page 150 ]
Hon. members, I say to you that it's terrible. What could be worse in a democracy than not giving more money to politicians? I know that people are reasonable and they want their politicians to be well served. I know that they really are concerned about the size of politicians' budgets. Let's see him go out on the campaign trail now and make that a rallying cry.
But what else did he say in his official response to the Speech from the Throne? He said we need a 60-year plan. Not a five-year plan -- that was somebody else. They've been kind of discredited. We've got a ten-year plan. He said we need to look way ahead -- a 60-year plan.." Again I know that this is a rallying cry for all British Columbians.
It reminds me of that famous debate, which some people say is the reason there are all these opposition members here and not more from the government side. What did the Leader of the Opposition say? He very clearly demanded a chancellor of the exchequer. Do you remember that? People don't remember what he said. They think he looked good saying it, and he did. He looks very good, actually. But he said: "We need a chancellor of the exchequer. We need to put the Treasury Board, Finance and revenue all in one big ministry." Of course, he didn't realize that's what we have today in British Columbia. But that's a little aside I won't get into. He called for a chancellor of the exchequer.
I know that if I go through all those letters -- I don't get a chance to do that -- that there are thousands of British Columbians who rally to the Liberal cause because they want and demand a chancellor of the exchequer. Just think about it. What does the Leader of the Opposition want? What is his number one demand? A 60-year plan, a chancellor of the exchequer, a bigger office budget, bigger office, more phones and fax machines. That's his priority.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: I forgot the other thing he demanded, and I'm reminded by one of my colleagues -- free sailings for the Queen of Prince.... No, sorry -- what is it?
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: The Powell River pageant. I'm sorry I got it mixed up there. He's demanding free ferry passes for the floats for the Powell River pageant. The Queen of Powell River, I guess it is. That's a ferry. Sorry, it's not a ferry. He's demanding free passes for that auspicious occasion where women will attempt to compete in the Powell River pageant.
So where are the priorities for the Leader of the Opposition? We know their priorities. We heard it loud and clear. Every time you turn on the TV you hear another comment from the Leader of the Opposition, complaining about how he's been treated and making his demands. He makes them very aggressively -- very humorously, but maybe he'll get over that -- these demands for more money for his budget, and more and bigger space. He wants that kind of treatment.
I know that Liberals are concerned about process, and I know that they're not really concerned about substance and all these questions which real people.... Excuse me, that's an unkind remark. I withdraw that remark, because I think there are real people in the Liberal Party and real people over here, and I didn't mean to cast aspersions on members opposite.
But what is the average British Columbian concerned about? They're concerned about having a job. They're concerned about feeding their family. They're concerned about having a decent place to live. They're concerned about fulfilling their opportunities. They're concerned that by accident of birth they are not held back from achieving their full potential. That's what people think about when they think about politics. They think about the cause.
We in the New Democratic Party believe in government. We believe that government can play a positive role -- a positive role in our social life, a positive role in our economic life -- that government can be a positive force to collectively enhance the well-being of British Columbians. Other parties don't really believe in government, especially that third party. I should call it the Social Credit Party, because that's not exactly a flattering comment. For the opposition parties, government's the enemy, government's the problem. And that's why we inherited this mess: they don't really care about government. Bureaucrats don't know what they're doing. Bureaucrats are the problem. Politicians have to cut through that to help the private sector -- give away money to your friends; cut through the red tape. Who cares whether it's efficient? They'll never be efficient because they're the enemy. They're the problem.
We believe in government. We believe that Crown corporations can play a positive role. So we have an obligation to make sure that government runs better, more efficiently, that we manage public money better than any other government, because to do otherwise is to discredit what we believe.
Let me talk a little bit about the interim leader of the Social Credit Party over here, who made a nice speech in response to the Speech from the Throne.
D. Mitchell: Point of order, hon. Speaker. The government House Leader appears to be filibustering debate here. I would draw his attention and the Chair's attention to a section of George MacMinn's second edition, page 55, on relevance in debate, if I could just read one sentence from that text: "Speaking beside the question or irrelevance is discussed in May, 20th edition.... The basic point is that Parliament's dignity is impaired by time wasted in idle debate; therefore it is the duty of every member to confine his remarks to the subject matter under debate." In other words, hon. Speaker, to speak to the motion. I'm not sure if the member is being strictly relevant to the motion, which is the motion on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I would just ask for some guidance on that.
The Speaker: Hon. member, with all due respect, there is also a standing order that suggests that it's the
[ Page 151 ]
practice of this House to make any comments on misrepresentation or any other concern about the content of a member's speech after the speech is completed.
Hon. G. Clark: I want to thank the opposition House Leader for giving me a chance to catch my breath. I was in full flight.
I want to remind hon. members of what I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, and that is that the official opposition leader spoke in this House -- and he has spoken since he assumed that office -- for a 60-year plan, for a chancellor of the exchequer, and in favour of a flat tax whereby poor people will pay the same as the rich regardless of their income, a regressive tax if there ever was one. He has spoken in this House about the size of his office budget -- he hasn't done that yet; he will -- and he has spoken about the size of his office.
But I want to get to the leader of the Social Credit Party, because I must say it was a bit much to hear the leader of Social Credit talking about conflict of interest, and friends and insiders. Let me tell you, my friends, about friends and insiders, because I've heard it from the Liberals as well. There is a difference. In the previous administration we saw the Premier of the province intervening in the Expo land sale on behalf of a friend, Mr. Toigo; we saw the Premier's office intervene on the Knight Street Pub on behalf of a friend, Mr. Toigo; we saw people like Bill Reid intervening to give public money to campaign managers. What we saw was a consistent pattern of using public office to enhance the friends and insiders of the government for private, personal gain. It was a clear conflict of interest. It was clearly an abuse of everything that this House stands for. To equate that with the government of British Columbia hiring people to carry out the agenda upon which we were elected.... That's not friends and insiders. Friends and insiders, as used in the previous administration, is very clear: public office for private gain; abuse of public office; abuse of public trust to line the pockets of their friends. That is not what has happened here.
I want to deal with the question of fair wages, which was in the throne speech, and which both opposition parties commented on with outrage. They are outraged at the notion that the government of British Columbia would say that workers on public construction should not be exploited by their employer. Since 1912 in Canada and in this province, governments, regardless of political stripe, have said that the government will make sure that workers paid by taxpayers are treated fairly, that their wages are fair and that they are not exploited. That's what fair wages are. That means that we are prepared, as government, to say that those who work on public construction, regardless of whether they are in unions or otherwise, will not be exploited. Workers' wages will not be driven down as a result of the previous government's administration. We believe that competition should be the rule of the day, but not at the expense of workers' wages and living conditions. I'm proud of that. There are thousands of workers in this province who will benefit by that policy, and I'm not ashamed of that. We're proud of that on this side of the House. Go ahead and attack it.
Those members in the Social Credit Party should hang their heads in shame. Those six dwarves and one other here in this chamber have the temerity and the gall to stand up and question the motives of this administration -- when they were party to it and when that interim leader of the Social Credit Party sat in cabinet day in and day out, watched the kind of corruption we saw with the last administration, and sat silent. Day in and day out, no voice was heard. No voice was raised by that member or any other member in this chamber in opposition to the antics of the Vander Zalm administration, and they should be ashamed of that.
Social Credit will be relegated to the dustbin of history. That once proud party, which brought to British Columbia -- I know the opposition House Leader understands this -- some great British Columbians like W.A.C. Bennett, is withering. It has faded. In fact, it's dying. It should be put out of its misery. That party is gone. That name will live forever in the lexicon of politics in British Columbia. At the end of that 60-year plan that the Leader of the Opposition wants, people will say in reference to some scandal: "Oh, the government pulled a Socred today." That name will go down in history as synonymous with a corrupt administration. And our kids' kids will say: "What do they mean, Daddy? What do they mean, Mummy?" And people will go to the history books, and they will say that Social Credit is a bad name in British Columbia.
But don't be fooled. The forces of reaction will always be here. They will always be opposite, and they will always rise up. There will be a party there. I don't know whether the Liberal Party will be able to absorb those dinosaurs from Social Credit. Some of them might be. I've heard some speeches from Liberal members, which I think have been very thoughtful and fruitful. We welcome them over to this side of the House. They're welcome any time in this open party, the New Democratic Party. But there are other members over there -- I won't name names; that wouldn't be fair -- who could easily fit in with this little party over here to their left, which is interesting -- to my right.
It may well be that there will be another party -- maybe the Reform Party. That's where they belong. I won't say why in this House, because that wouldn't dignify the chamber. A right-wing party may form. There may be one big right-wing party to try and challenge the progressive movement, of which we are a part. Or there may well be two opposition parties. I leave that for the forces of reaction to sort out, and I know they'll try.
[5:15]
Clearly, the Social Credit members should at least have the decency not to rise in this chamber with feigned indignation and complain about friends and insiders -- it's just too much, having sat through the last five years when they said nothing.
When I look at the Liberal opposition -- it's early yet, and I know this is an intimidating place -- I know there are some very good people there who will make a contribution to British Columbia. There is no question about that. I have great respect for people like the
[ Page 152 ]
opposition Finance critic, who has run for the Liberal Party in the past when they had very little chance of success. It demonstrates to me a commitment to an ideal and a commitment which I would not dismiss lightly, because I know that running for public office is not something people do for fun, despite what some people think. Running for public office is a commitment to serve British Columbia, regardless of which party you run for. I will say that I have great respect for that member and for other members who have had that history.
I will say that we hope the Liberal Party opposition in this House will be constructive and that they will join with us when we work together on behalf of British Columbians. We hope that the little speeches about the size of their office budget, their offices or other little things which are insignificant to average British Columbians do not temper their commitment to public service. Over the coming months and years we will try to forge a different kind of pattern in this House. As I've said to the hon. Speaker and the opposition House Leader, we are committed to....
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: I want to because I'm getting heckled, hon. Speaker. I feel compelled to respond.
People watching on television or watching in this House should not misconstrue good, tough, partisan debate which we should enjoy in this chamber. We should all know that that does not mean that anybody's commitment to serve British Columbia is any less. That is what our parliamentary system is all about, and it is the best system in the world. We engage in that; that's what I'm engaging in today.
At the end of my speech, I'm saying that we will try to change this place. We will make committees work more, and that will challenge the opposition in more ways than I think they know. They will be on committees on bipartisan or tripartisan issues, trying to come to grips with very difficult issues in British Columbia. They will not have the luxury of simply standing and criticizing. We will put them to the test. We will try to change the way this place operates. We will have real committees working and hearing real problems. Hopefully we will get constructive solutions that all parties can agree to.
By doing that we will do more to resurrect and enhance the quality of public service in this province. We will also enhance the image of all politicians, which I think is in all of our interests as we move forward in the 1990s. Clearly the previous administration, combined with the Mulroney administration, has done more to discredit politicians, political life and those who serve in this very difficult environment than anybody else that's gone before. We have a challenge, as members of the government and the opposition, to resuscitate, at least a little bit, the image of politicians in this province, so that people know, when we have these kinds of tough debates, that they are debates and are not meant in any way to say that we are not here to serve the public interest.
I am very pleased to stand and support the throne speech we have put forward. I want to reiterate some of the commitments in that throne speech: a commitment to women's equality, pay equity and the environment, and a commitment to British Columbians. These are commitments we hold that we campaigned on; there is no backing away from them. Over the coming months and years we will be putting forward concrete proposals -- starting this Thursday, I hope -- to advance the cause we have identified in the throne speech and to advance the issues we campaigned on. I'm very proud to be standing here for Vancouver-Kingsway -- in the history of Vancouver-Kingsway -- and as a member of the second New Democratic administration with an outstanding group of MLAs to work on behalf of working people and on behalf of those who cannot stand for themselves. It is a proud tradition that we have inherited. It's a tradition the throne speech carries forward. Over the coming weeks and months British Columbians will see our commitment to working people, to women's equality, to the environment, to workers' rights, and yes, to fair wages.
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's a pleasure to take my place. I was asked to say a few words, as we wrap up the day, in terms of presenting and talking about one of the best throne speeches in the history of this province. We have heard many complaints from the opposition, and my good colleague tried to document some of them, but there's no question we have touched the heart and soul of the issues the people of British Columbia want us to deal with: open government, fair government and just government representing all the interests of the province. That's what we're standing for.
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: You're right, Mr. Member: it will be a pleasant change after the last administration. You're absolutely correct.
Hon. Speaker, first let me congratulate you on your appointment and your election to take the chair -- a well-deserved position. I want to congratulate all my colleagues who have arrived in Victoria for the first time to represent their constituents. I have to say that I've heard many speeches in the last few days, and all the new members on all sides of the House did an excellent job. I can recall vividly the day I stood on that side of the House. I can say his name now -- Mark Rose and I were the only newly elected people on our side of the House, and I can remember the day; it was with great apprehension I gave that speech. It's nearly nine years ago, but it seems much longer.
I do want to indicate that the throne speech, as I said, touches the nerves. You take a look at page 5, where we talk about ensuring open government. We have promised a freedom of information act, and we will deliver on freedom of information in the province of British Columbia. People want that kind of act.
We talk about putting people first, and I think you can see that in the first few days and months of our administration, if you take a look at our activities. We have Mr. Stephen Owen already working on a land use
[ Page 153 ]
strategy in this great province. I think that is a mark of good government in these early few months. We have moved ahead on the log-around strategy to deal with the confrontation of British Columbian against British Columbian in this great province. That confrontation must end, and this government is determined to end that confrontation in our forests. That's what the people in the province of British Columbia want us to do.
We moved quickly to deal with the issue of hungry children in this great province. Today we have a program that is being watched by others. We are now feeding hungry children in our schools. That was a good move by a government in its early days.
We moved ahead in my constituency to deal with the superferry. My colleague the Minister of Finance announced that early, so we can ensure that British Columbians achieve the best transportation and continue the best ferry system that is watched all over the world.
Hon. Speaker, we delivered on the issue of women and women's centres. My colleague the Minister of Women's Equality delivered. Many of my colleagues went to indicate to the women's centres that they would be funded under this administration. We believe that women's issues are critical in the province of British Columbia -- something we talked about in the election and are delivering on. On Friday the Minister of Health made a statement that this administration believes in a woman's right to choose. That's what we decided.
There are others that we are moving on. We are a government that is prepared to deal with the issues of the day, because the people of this province said in the election they want fair and balanced government. They want open government, and they want us to tackle the tough issues -- not run away from the issues of the day. I think we are doing that, and we will continue to do that.
In my area of responsibility we are taking a look, and I have to comment today about the impact of the federal cuts on housing -- a dramatic move during the midst of constitutional discussions about what was going to happen with housing in this great land. The federal government in its wisdom made a decision arbitrarily to dramatically cut back social housing programs and to cut back the co-op program in this country -- a co-op program that has brought people from all over the world to study the Canadian model. No discussion with the provinces. We will continue to indicate to the federal government that we will not accept these kinds of arbitrary moves. It's not just a budget cut; it was a abdication of a national responsibility. It's a tradition that the federal government has a responsibility for housing programs and for delivering shelter to needy Canadians, which we have accepted in this country for 50 years.
Hon. Speaker, I hope all members of this House -- to the members across the way, from the official opposition -- draw this issue to the attention of your federal colleagues, because it is a critical issue. As I say, it's not just a budget item. There are certain items in this country that are essential and that maintain the social fabric and the well-being of Canadians. National housing programs are an important ingredient in the fabric of this country. I can assure you that we are working now to bring all the provincial ministers together to indicate to the federal government that we will not take this cut in our housing programs. We will not take it; we will continue to indicate they must reinstate the programs that are so essential to this province.
Hon. Speaker, in the area of Municipal Affairs, we are studying the issue of regional planning. We are looking at the whole question of how to ensure that our urban areas particularly are governed better and are planned better. We know that the past administration, back in 1983, in its wisdom decided to cut the ability to plan regionally -- and that has had dire consequences in many areas of this province.
It makes sense, particularly in contiguous areas, particularly in urban areas, where the problems of urbanization know no boundaries, that we plan together. There must be a regional component. There is consensus on that issue, but there isn't consensus on the form. We continue to work with the UBCM and all interested parties in finding ways to deal at the regional level with the important issues facing our communities, and particularly our urban areas.
The whole question of regional governments is critical. There is no question that there is great interest in how provincial governments and municipal governments relate to each other. What are the new terms of reference to be, if there ought to be any, in terms of the framework that we work under? We have a Municipal Act that is ancient; it is antiquated. It's time it was completely reviewed, but that has to be done in consultation. It's our belief on this side of the House that local government is in the trenches; they are the ones dealing with the issues on a daily basis. We must give them the ability to deal with the issues they face today -- and they are making those requests. We are prepared to meet those requests and to go ahead, to ensure that local government has the ability to tackle the issues it faces.
[5:30]
In terms of the whole area of housing, I talked about the federal cuts. We will continue to deal with that, and I hope all members will join us in that venture. But there's no question that we're going to have to take a look at how we deliver our housing. We're going to have to take a look at what partnerships we develop with the municipalities, with the private sector, with the co-op groups. We cannot always just expect that the traditional methods of governments and new programs are going to necessarily be the way. For instance, we have to ask local governments to take a look -- and there's reference to this in the throne speech -- at their official community plans. How can they join with us in the provincial government to ensure that their official community plans deal with housing policies and issues of affordability, and lay the groundwork for new housing ventures at the local level? We are prepared to work in partnership with local governments on those issues. We are prepared to discuss what they require to plan ahead to make sure that people in their municipalities know what their local government is planning in the housing area.
[ Page 154 ]
We will be consulting extensively on the whole housing question. One of the difficulties in this great province is that, for various reasons, there has never been a clear, articulated housing program or policy. We have tended to go from crisis to crisis, firefighting where we can, throwing some money at it as quickly as possible and hoping the problem will go away.
This side of the House -- our government -- believes that planning in as many areas as possible is essential, that you predict as much as you can the future, the demands, the supply and the land requirements, and that you build that into your housing policy. We have clearly articulated that this government will consult with the key stakeholders so we can develop a proper housing program and policy for the people of British Columbia.
We clearly say today that the housing issue, and all the items related to it -- that's planning, real estate, zoning, official community plans, partnerships and all these things -- will be taken into account in the months ahead. But, please, may I say that some of these things will take time. We are walking into a bit of a vacuum. We want to make sure we get things right.
In the past we've had too many policies written between the curb and the car door, and the result has been that you've had to go back and rewrite your policy. We believe that you look at the question clearly and intelligently, you consult and plan ahead, and you know what policies you're going to come out with. It is in this area that we will be doing a lot of work.
There is, I have to say, a lot of interest in all the housing sectors as we move ahead, and a number of ideas. There's great talent in this province. There are a lot of private sector contractors, a lot of public sector, the UDI, the real estate associations -- all people who have a handle on the issues and have ideas. And quite frankly, it's up to our government and all of us in this Legislature to listen to the ideas. Because we don't have a monopoly on good ideas; nobody in this place does. And I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that the concepts are there. It's just a matter of articulating them in policy.
Madam Speaker, let me talk a bit about some of the issues of urbanization that we want to try and deal with, that we are moving ahead on and that I hope all my colleagues can join in on. One of the major concerns expressed to us is air-quality management in the lower mainland. We have started to move ahead to look at ways we can encourage all the regional districts in that key urban environment -- how they can work together, plan together -- to deal with the issue of air-quality management. We believe that that test case, the management of air quality in the lower mainland and integration of the various municipalities, could be a model, a test, of how we integrate our efforts in terms of regional planning.
We have talked, as you know, Madam Speaker, about the requirement of time for a greater strategy on the Georgia basin, and these early days and early tests, in terms of managing key critical urban issues, such as air-quality management, will allow us to build the blocks, so that we can start to have greater integration of our services at the regional level.
I can assure you that there is great interest in these concepts. Every day I meet with municipal representatives who are very interested in talking about different relationships and different models, so that we can start to deal with the issues that local governments face.
As I have said in the past, we will continue to relate to important organizations like the UBCM. We are already having various discussions on areas they feel are important. I can assure you the UBCM and municipal governments have no shortage of issues they wish to put before us, and I hope to enter into -- as all my colleagues do, I'm sure -- more informed dialogue in terms of working on the issues that local government puts before us. There are no shortages of issues that local government wishes to address.
Another area we are working on in our ministry is the very important area of sport and recreation -- one that everybody wants to talk about, one that everybody wants to get some additional support for. I'm very pleased to say that this section of the ministry is dedicated to ensuring not only that we achieve excellence in sport, not only that we support those who go on to achieve the Olympic support and the medals, but also that our programs are delivered at the community level.
For example, it's important that our coaching program for young people is second to none, and that we ensure that our young people, whatever sport or whatever recreation endeavour they wish to take up, have the best coaches and programs so they can participate. Quite frankly, the philosophy behind sport and recreation is that it is not only just excellence, but there is a social component to what we do in sport and recreation.
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Member, the lottery funds are extremely useful for this division. You're absolutely correct. They will continue to be useful under this administration.
Hon. G. Clark: On a point of order. The hon. member from Saanich -- I'm not sure of the title -- is not speaking from his chair, which is against the rules of the House. If he wishes to participate in the debate, he can rise at his chair and speak. If he wishes to heckle, I like that, but he has to do it from his chair.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I thank my colleague for pointing out one of the basic rules of this chamber.
What I was indicating, Madam Speaker, is that in the sport and recreation division we believe that that endeavour has a very important social component to it. One of the major concerns that comes back to us in government is that we don't have the opportunities and the programs for young people to participate in -- children in trouble with the law, or children on the street, or children who want to excel but don't have the essential programs to do that. We are committed in this division to ensuring that we do our utmost to see that young people can participate in their sport of choice.
[ Page 155 ]
I can assure you that one of the things I have already detected in my short stint in this ministry is that there is no shortage of organizations dedicated to serving young people. There are thousands of volunteers in this province who spend hours on behalf of younger British Columbians, and I want to say that I respect their work. If we had to respond with budgets in terms of what they give to the people of British Columbia, we certainly could not do it.
I want you and all my colleagues to know that we have an incredible array of talent in the sport fields in this province, and they are determined to do great things. We will be embarking on 1,000 days of sport in this great province. The Canada Games are coming up in Kamloops. Then we move to the Commonwealth Games, where our province will be attracting all the great Commonwealth countries to Victoria and to British Columbia. We'll be seeing one of the finest events in the history of this province.
Then we move on to the Western Canada Games in Matsqui-Abbotsford in 1995. Again, the young people and others participating in sports in western Canada will be able to participate. Needless to say, we are giving our youth and people who are involved in sport and recreation the opportunity to excel and show the best talent in the province. We're certainly proud of that, and we in this government will continue to add to that.
Hon. Speaker, we should come to the end of the day. I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: Just before I move adjournment, I'd like to remind members that the House will be sitting from 10 until 2 tomorrow, with question period at 10 o'clock. With that, I move this House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:44 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada