Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1992

Volume 1, Number 9

[ Page 157 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

N. Lortie: I'd like to introduce a group of students from North Delta Senior Secondary School, led by their teacher Ms. Barcket. Would the House please help me welcome them.

The Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

Hon. T. Perry: Little Mountain.

The Speaker: Vancouver-Little Mountain.

Hon. T. Perry: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm still flattered to be referred to as a member for Vancouver-Point Grey, but I do represent Little Mountain.

I have the pleasure to introduce to members of the Legislature my constituency assistant Mary Lynn Baum and her son Steven Savitt, who are here with us today. I'd like members to make them welcome, please.

J. Dalton: We are pleased to have in the gallery today 23 students and two of their teachers from Holy Trinity School, located in my riding. Would the House please welcome the students and their teachers, Mrs. Primo and Mr. Battisti.

J. Pement: I'd like to introduce and bid welcome to people from the village of Telkwa: Marcel Lavigne, Bev Dow, their children Nellie Dow and Theo, the baby. Also joining them are friends from Victoria: Joyce Lee, Wayne Erickson and Arlo Erickson.

S. O'Neill: Would the House please welcome the chairman of the Regional District of North Okanagan, Mr. Earl Shipmaker, who is with us today.

Hon. A. Petter: I spy in the gallery today two political scientists of some note. Political science, as you well know, hon. Speaker, is itself an oxymoron, but I don't think we should hold that against them. They are Prof. Paul Tennant of the University of British Columbia and Prof. Norman Ruff of the University of Victoria. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. A. Hagen: I see in the gallery today Helene Minishka from the riding of Vancouver-Fraserview, I believe. She is a very strong advocate of the community school movement in British Columbia, and I'd like the House to join me in welcoming her.

B. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming Bridget Minishka. I see that the hon. member pre-empted me, but I also would like the House to join me in again welcoming Helene Minishka, who is a long-time worker in Vancouver-Fraserview and helped plot the battle of Vancouver-Fraserview, which I am most grateful for.

Oral Questions

PEAT MARWICK REPORT

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance and special warrants, and it relates to the concern I have for the role this Peat Marwick report has played in the preparation for tomorrow's budget. Yesterday I was concerned about the fact that this Peat Marwick report is seriously flawed with respect to the assumptions it makes for room to move on taxation. The minister chose to duck that question and said that I should be happy they exposed that the Vancouver Island pipeline was overbudget. I bring to the House's attention the Vancouver Province of July 15, 1990 when I, as an unelected member, brought to the people's attention that the pipeline was overbudget.

My question to the minister is this: why did the former opposition, that cost the taxpayers of British Columbia $6.2 million over the last four years, not know that fact and the other salient and pertinent facts in the Peat Marwick report? And if they did know what those facts were, why then did we pay a million dollars, untendered, to Peat Marwick for something that we already knew?

Hon. G. Clark: I think it might be appropriate to make a deal with the Leader of the Opposition, and that is that I will defer to his wisdom on questions and his research when it comes to the natural gas pipeline if he will agree with me that his bankrupting of the Liberal Party means he has nothing to teach the government about balancing budgets.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I would be most happy to share with the minister of special warrants the cost of the last election to the NDP and the cost of the election to the Liberal Party in order to see who gained the most votes for dollars spent of any party in this province.

Hon. Speaker, I come back to the question of facts here. In the quick fact sheet that's put out by this government's new department of publications -- formerly the government's ministry of communications; I'll just simply refer to them as the NDP -- it says on January 6 that the deficit is $395 million. This is available for the public to see. The Peat Marwick report says that the deficit is $2.5 billion. Is this another one of these flawed facts that we have, or can the people have some confidence in this report? Can the minister please tell us whether or not the Peat Marwick report is in fact flawed, and this booklet that he has put out is correct?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know the publication the member is referring to, so I will take the question on notice.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I have a new question to the minister. My question to the Minister of Finance on this, the eve of what is reported in his own comments to be, "a dark day in the province of British Columbia," is: will the minister now tell the people of British Columbia that the Peat Marwick report really is nothing more than a million-dollar exercise in public relations, outlin-

[ Page 158 ]

ing what most British Columbians already knew? And will the minister admit that the assumptions contained in that report with respect to the room to move on taxation is indeed flawed? And will the minister finally commit to this House to table to the public accounts committee all the documents pertaining to that report, so that we can shine a little more light on the subject? Will the minister commit to doing this before tomorrow's budget, before he raises the taxes on the people of British Columbia and effectively turns the light out at the end of the tunnel?

[10:15]

Hon. G. Clark: Again I'm at a loss to understand why the Leader of the Opposition is trying to attack a very worthwhile effort. I think Peat Marwick did a great service for British Columbia. I'm puzzled that the Leader of the Opposition would choose to defend the discredited record of the Social Credit Party in government. Peat Marwick has given, for the first time in years, an accurate snapshot, a picture, of the financial health or ill health of the province of British Columbia, and it is devastating news for British Columbians. This government, as part of open government, is committed to giving the unvarnished facts to British Columbians so we can all work together to solve this problem and to clean up the mess left behind by Social Credit.

Interjection.

The Speaker: This is a supplementary to the new question if the member can make it brief.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I have a question for the tax-and-spend Minister of Finance. Mr. Minister, we have asked that all documents related to the Peat Marwick Thorne review be tabled in this House and referred to the public accounts committee. So far, nothing. We have asked that the resumes of the project accountants, including the project coordinator, be tabled in this House, in the true spirit of honest and open government. Nothing. What is this minister afraid the House will find out?

Hon. G. Clark: I have given that commitment to table in the House the reports from Peat Marwick. I will do that. I thought they were available to the public. I have asked Peat Marwick -- the House should know this -- for the curriculum vitae of all of the accountants who worked on the project. As soon as I receive them, I'd be delighted to table them in the House.

Again, I don't understand why the Liberal Party would choose to defend the discredited record of Social Credit, and choose to undermine a valuable exercise in open government which has given British Columbia the financial facts that I think give us all a common base with which to work.

GYPSY MOTH SPRAY PROGRAM

C. Serwa: Recently a number of Russian ships were prevented from entering the port of Vancouver because they contained unhatched eggs of the Asian gypsy moth. This situation raised awareness of the potential danger of damage by this pest to crops in the Vancouver area. I believe a proposed biological spray program is being contemplated by the Ministry of Agriculture. My question, however, is to the Minister of Health. Can the Minister of Health confirm that research has, in fact, been done on this proposed spray program, and can the minister assure the people in the Vancouver area of public health safety?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes, there has been work done on the public health impact of this. I have been advised by my medical health staff that the risks are minimal and that there are in fact perhaps greater public health risks attached to gypsy moths. They do have an impact on breathing patterns and some allergies to which people are susceptible, and it's very much a trade-off from the public health point of view. Low risk -- risk in either way -- but very low risk.

C. Serwa: Supplementary to the Minister of Health. Would the minister table the research documents on this particular biological control spray in the House, so I may have access to those documents?

Hon. E. Cull: I'll be happy to ask my staff to put together a package.

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIR SERVICES

K. Jones: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Will the minister confirm to this House that the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services was the lone passenger on a government jet between Vancouver and Comox on Friday of last week?

Hon. L. Boone: I welcome the question from my critic. I was beginning to think you were ignoring me. I really was. I was getting a little worried. Yes, I can confirm the Minister of Labour was the lone passenger on that flight, and he was travelling from Vancouver to Comox on government business.

K. Jones: Is the Minister aware that the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services could have taken his choice of eight commercial flights between Vancouver and Comox on either Time Air or Air B.C. at a cost of $159 each way, rather than spending $1,600 per hour of the taxpayers' money?

Hon. L. Boone: Again, I am pleased to answer this question, because I have spoken to my colleague on this matter. Obviously the use of government jets is of grave concern to us, and we do not want to see the return to the misuse of those jets that occurred in the previous administration. My colleague has assured me he had appointments that were required at times not compatible with the commercial flights, and therefore, he had no choice but to use the government service.

[ Page 159 ]

ROBSON FERRY

D. Symons: My question is to the Minister of Highways. Prior to the last election, your leader -- now the Premier -- when asked his view on the cancellation of the Robson-Castlegar ferry said: "It is part of the highway system. If they don't reopen it, we will." With this in mind, will the minister now reassure the people of Castlegar and Robson that this is one campaign promise that the Premier will keep?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I should point out to the hon. member that it is the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

When the Hon. Mike Harcourt made the statement in Castlegar in 1988 that the ferry would be reinstated -- which was a proper statement in light of the very poor way in which the previous administration cancelled that ferry, treating the people of Robson very shabbily -- he was not aware that the expansion of the Celgar mill would be occurring, necessitating the construction of a bridge. In view of the fact that a bridge will be provided when the fiscal situation permits, there will not be a reinstatement of the ferry for the brief intervening period.

D. Symons: This NDP government campaigned on a promise of open government. The throne speech reiterated this promise. Will the minister table in this House a copy of the report of the action group on inland ferries which I have been requesting on behalf of the people of Robson-Castlegar since February?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm pleased to say that in keeping with the spirit of open and honest government, I attended a town meeting at Robson where some two to three hundred people came out. I had bad news to deliver. I didn't leave it to an official or a district official to do it. I went and faced the people myself. I may have overlooked him, but I didn't notice the critic in attendance at that meeting.

With respect to the aforementioned report, in the past few days I have discussed with my ministerial assistant about acquiring the report and making it available.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that information. It's been a long time that we've been asking. The people in Castlegar have been asking, and I was somewhat concerned that the government had something to hide there.

ASSISTANCE TO GRAIN FARMERS

J. Weisgerber: A question for the Minister of Agriculture. B.C. grain farmers are facing a crisis this spring. In 1981 farm gate sales for the grain industry were $60 million, in 1989 they fell to $41 million, and this year they're projected to be only $20 million in 1992 dollars -- probably about $15 million in 1991 dollars. Farmers need cash to plant their crops this year. They've spent most of the last four or five months lobbying, either here in Victoria or by inviting the minister up to the Peace country to discuss this problem. They need help now. Will the minister assure Peace River and other grain farmers around British Columbia today that there will be assistance from this government?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think the member knows I'm very aware that the Peace River farmers are in difficulty. There has been a free fall in prices. There have been ad hoc payments extended to Peace River farmers by the federal government, which you didn't mention, of somewhere between $12 million and $13 million. We were participants. We also extended some immediate services to them as far as research and development funds were concerned -- $60,000 and another $125,000 in an extended NISA enhancement. We are also working on a red fescue problem, which has been carried over from your government, by the way. Very germane to the whole statement is that we probably could have extended them some ad hoc payments if we had not inherited a $2.5 billion deficit from the government you were in.

FUNDING FOR HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. E. Cull: I would like to answer a question that was taken on notice by the Deputy Premier yesterday from the member for Richmond East. I would like to inform the member that we expect chemotherapy services in Richmond to be commencing April 1. We have been in negotiations with the hospital for some time now, through the B.C. Cancer Agency.

With respect to the diagnostic and treatment centre on the Sunshine Coast, I assume the member is talking about the Health Centre at Pender Harbour. If that's the case, this isn't a D and T centre; it's a health centre. A salaried physician at that centre has returned to fee-for-service within the community. What the centre wants to do is keep the dollars and overhead for that salaried physician even though the physician is not still there. We are now working with the Health Centre to determine the community needs and what appropriate funding might be provided.

The third part of her question related to the Esquimalt Wellness Center, which, as the member knows, is part of the Victoria Health Project -- or was part of that, because we celebrated the end of that successful pilot project just the other day and launched the new Capital Health Council, which will be directing such programs in the Victoria area in the future. The Victoria Health Project was a partnership. It involved the Ministry of Health, the greater Victoria hospital and the Capital Regional District. The three partners, on the advice of the Capital Regional District -- the local, democratically-elected folks -- recommended changing the wellness program from a centre-based program to a outreach program so we would be spending our dollars on programs for seniors, not on overhead. I think it's going to be a very successful program, extended to the entire capital region.

[ Page 160 ]

PEAT MARWICK REPORT

Hon. G. Clark: I took a question on notice during question period, and I'm delighted to respond promptly to that. The information contained in this booklet that the Leader of the Opposition had is, I gather, produced yearly, largely for trade and economic development purposes. All of the information is based on the 1991-92 budget as published, and therefore it reflects that. When a new budget is published with real information in it.... I won't make a large speech, except to say that obviously the information in the budget has now been proven by Peat Marwick to be totally erroneous. Unfortunately this was published based on information presented in the House by the previous administration. Obviously when there is a new budget, there will be a new booklet, Quick Facts About British Columbia, for trade purposes, and it will reflect more accurately the state of the finances of the province.

[10:30] 

Presenting Reports

Hon. G. Clark: I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee of Selection. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

The Speaker: All those in favour, say aye. All those....

Hon. member, were you rising to debate on the motion that the report be taken as read and received? I think the debate can take place more properly on the next motion to follow.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: By leave, I move that the rules be suspended to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: I move that the report be adopted.

D. Mitchell: This report of the Special Committee of Selection is actually a very important and historic one, and I have a couple of very brief comments as to why.

Some consultation has taken place here among the House Leaders with respect to the composition of the select standing committees of this Legislature, and there's been some compromise on both sides. I'm pleased to say that there's been some give and take on both sides, and the process has worked well.

Hon. G. Clark: On a point of order, hon. Speaker, I want to draw the House's attention to the terms of reference of the Committee of Selection, as stated in the Votes and Proceedings. The committee is "appointed to prepare and report with all convenient speed lists of members to compose the above select standing committees...." What the opposition House Leader is trying to do is discuss the list of committees. That decision was taken by this House, with agreement from all parties, on opening day. He had ample opportunity to debate the composition on that day. He can ask a question of the House, put a motion on the order paper or make a private member's statement -- but this is not the time. It is completely out of order to debate the number of committees. All that we in the selection committee are doing is listing the names of members, and that is the report that I have tabled.

The Speaker: The member has raised an interesting point of order. I would like the debate to continue while I consider that point of order.

D. Mitchell: I thank the government House Leader for anticipating my remarks. I was not speaking to anything other than the report of this committee. My comments will be very germane to the report of this committee. I was actually rising to congratulate the government House Leader for something that I think is very important to this House. It is something that we may not appreciate, because we're heading off in a new direction here.

The list of members of the select standing committees of this House, for the first time in the history of this parliament, does not contain the names of any members of the executive council. I want to tell you that that's an important move, because in parliaments past, select standing committees of this House were always dominated, supervised and overseen by members of cabinet. They, for whatever reason, didn't seem to trust that the private members of the House could conduct the business of this House on their own without supervision.

Now for the first time in the history of this parliament, we have select standing committees of the House composed only of private members of this assembly. I think that's an important move and innovation. It's an important reform, and I congratulate the government for taking this initiative. I think it's a good move in the right direction.

I have one other brief comment on the significance of this report of the committee of selection. We have had some good discussion about the composition of committees as well -- the government House Leader is right. There is one small matter that I would encourage the government to consider bringing a motion on at an early opportunity, and that is to change the actual list of committees to incorporate an important suggestion: bring in a separate committee on Crown corporations.

I'll tell you why. I draw this specifically back to the report of the committee of selection, in which we have a committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services. That committee is not empowered to do the important work of this House in terms of holding Crown corporations accountable. I'm not the first member in the House to ever raise this point. I will not be the first member of this House to ever raise this question. I'd like to read a brief quote....

The Speaker: Order. Hon. member, I would ask you to continue with your remarks in the strict context of the motion before us, which is this list of committees. 

[ Page 161 ]

I would like you to choose your words as carefully as you can to reflect this motion.

D. Mitchell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. A previous member of this House said -- and I'm not the first to say this; I want that to go on record -- that "there is no accountability with respect to our Crown corporations in this province." There is no full process. We have no Crown corporations committee of the Legislature. Every other legislature has one. Those Crown corporations go for years without reporting to the House....

The Speaker: Order! I regret I must ask the member to take his seat. It is my feeling that the comments were straying beyond the bounds of the motion on the floor.

J. Weisgerber: I welcome the opposition House Leader's enthusiasm for change. I would, however, point out to him that at least in the last year cabinet ministers who sat on committees did not sit on ones which affected their own ministries. They sat there simply as MLAs. They happened to be cabinet ministers, but they were not ministers sitting on committees. For example, the Minister of Agriculture did not sit on the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to extend my congratulations to you on your election to this position in the House and also to the Deputy Speaker, a member of this House who is held in high reverence.

I would suggest that the Minister of Finance not leave before this speech commences today, since a good deal of it pertains to his remarks yesterday. Yesterday this House was treated to a disgusting spectacle. The Minister of Finance embarrassed his own caucus and party with his response to the Speech from the Throne.

I had prepared an "I love Langley" speech today -- one that talked about the beauty, vitality and importance of the Fort Langley and Aldergrove area, but after the skit performed by the hon. government House Leader, I received numerous calls from my constituents demanding that I respond. So I stand before you today, forced to respond to the irresponsible comments of this minister on the throne speech.

This rookie Finance minister must learn that government is not a 30-second clip on TV, a front page headline, a stand-up comic act of yuk-yuks or playing to the press gallery as the minister did yesterday. Government is a very serious business of planning and guiding the future which we will leave to our children.

Perhaps the minister, who thinks in the terms that we saw yesterday, is not the best candidate for the very serious business of planning our future. Perhaps he should follow the path of his former seatmate, give up his seat and secure a government contract at twice the salary. It would be a good job for him. But what would he do? What could this minister do? He certainly couldn't be put in charge of writing anything as important as a throne speech. Maybe, just maybe, he could get a job writing jokes for the Premier and helping him with his delivery.

This province is crying out for leadership. The people of this province want a leader who won't play silly games in the House. They want a throne speech with vision that charts out a new direction, something they can trust in and believe in. They have received neither.

The Minister of Finance scoffed at the idea of a 60-year plan for this province. He ridiculed the Leader of the Opposition for his vision. Perhaps he and whoever wrote this throne speech should ask the Minister of Forests or the current Minister of Advanced Education how long it takes to grow a prime Douglas fir tree. Perhaps he should also ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who spoke so eloquently yesterday, how long the aboriginal people of this province have been waiting for justice. Could it be more than 60 years? One hundred years? If we had had a government with a vision, a 60-year plan, some time ago we wouldn't be in the current land use crisis we are in today, and the aboriginal people wouldn't be in the situation they are in today.

This throne speech has no vision because this government has no vision. Their whole reason for breathing in the last five years was merely to try and discredit the Social Credit government. The two stars of that campaign are now the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour.

Well, let's see what new vision the Minister of Labour brought to this throne speech. He brought the concept of government-fixed wage rates. What a vision! If there are allegations of worker exploitation in this province, deal with that under the labour standards act. Don't apply a band-aid solution that will cost the taxpayers of this province $200 million. During the election this minister and this Premier promised to fix the wages of construction workers in this province, and now they have to deliver. They're beginning to realize that there is absolutely no independent economic study in existence today that can justify this payout of $200 million of the taxpayers' money to the election friends of this NDP government. Although I believe that for an additional $100,000, Peat Marwick could probably whip something together.

The people of this province know where the Premier's and this Minister of Finance's throne speech payoff came from. Every single member of this NDP cabinet, every single member of this NDP caucus receives, either indirectly or directly, substantial donations from the construction labour unions of this province. Well, now it's time to pay the piper, and his fee is $200 million of cold hard cash from the pockets of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Where is that money going to come from -- that money that was talked about in the throne speech specifically the other day for fair wages? Where is that 

[ Page 162 ]

money going to come from to pay for it? Well, it's going to come from the unemployment insurance cheques of the workers who are paying taxes on that sum. They are people who mistakenly voted for the NDP. I hope they see the lack of vision in their ways. It's also going to come from the single parents of this province who are working hard at minimum wage. They'll be paying income tax. They'll be paying tax to this province that's going to go to the $200 million to pay off an election debt of this government.

The hon. Premier should remember those honest and hard-working people who pay for government. Remember that TV commercial with the piggy bank and the Premier? We all thought it was so cute. Well, even that vision didn't come from the Premier; it was recycled from an American election campaign. This Premier has no vision, just as the throne speech has no vision.

[10:45]

Let me turn to the other member of the Socred-bashing dynamic duo -- the hon. minister of pomp and verbosity who now occupies the normally reserved space of the Minister of Finance. What new vision does he offer in the throne speech for the future of British Columbia? This Premier, this minister, promised: no new taxes. "Read my lips." Another borrowed recycled American campaign promise.

Since October 17 the honest and hard-working people of this province, whom the Premier talked about so much during the campaign, have been paying for government as never before: $3.6 million in increased private passenger vehicle fees; hydro surtax has been raised; higher gas tax; higher commercial property tax; $4.1 million in commercial vehicle fees; ICBC rates jumped 19 percent, another form of indirect taxation; ferry rates have jumped by an astonishing $17 million. One million dollars has been charged to the consumers who use trust companies. Believe it or not, they even sucked another $1 million out of the pockets of people who use campgrounds and canoes, if you can believe it. They're retired people. The last people who can afford it.

We haven't even seen the budget yet, and look at the direction we're headed in. Look at where we're going. In the throne speech, this minister and this Premier talked about how tough times are. Well, we all know how tough times are, but we knew it before the election. We even knew it before Peat Marwick got $1 million to tell us that things were bad. We knew it. There was a headline in the Province newspaper when the Peat Marwick report was released. It said: "The Big Lie." Well, I can tell you that once we adjourn the debate on this throne speech, there should be a headline in the Province tomorrow that says: "The Lie, Part 2."

This government, this opposition and the people of this province knew that Social Credit accounting principles were more than suspect. This government spent five years telling us how inept the Social Credit government was, yet at the same time they spent millions of dollars on election advertising -- glitzy advertising made in America -- telling us all the great and wonderful things they were going to be able to do for us once they got into government. I wonder how they justified that.

This Premier flew around the province promising a cancer clinic to every town he landed in. And if you happened to live on the coast, you were promised your very own ferry too. This is a government caucus with no vision for British Columbia -- only a compulsive fixation on getting power.

Hon. Speaker, that headline, "The Lie, Part 2," is this throne speech. This government is trying to hoodwink the people of this province into believing that this NDP government had absolutely no idea whatsoever that the last government was having trouble with its accounting practices. If this government had no idea that things were bad, then they were as blind then as they are visionless now. If we're to believe this throne speech, and if we are to believe that the NDP was unaware of the hocus-pocus of the last government, then they must have been the most incompetent watchdogs in the history of parliamentary democracy.

I wonder where they were for five years. And if that's not the case, then they are attempting to put the biggest con job over on those honest and hard-working people of this province that this country -- nay, this world -- has ever seen.

Hon. Speaker, I turn now to this NDP government's throne speech promise of open government. The people of Aldergrove have been waiting for five months -- almost half a year -- for access to the BCBC report on the site search for the proposed youth custody centre in their community. Why is the government keeping it from them? The people of Rossland-Trail have been waiting for years for their report on the Robson-Castlegar ferry. Where is it? Why are they keeping it from them?

We as opposition have been asking daily in this House for the working papers -- not the stuff that came out in the fancy documents, but the working papers -- of Peat Marwick so we can see how they went from their assumptions on A to their recommendations on C, bypassing B. We want to know the workings of that document. Why are they keeping it from the people? When do we get to see it?

Hon. Speaker, the honest and hard-working people the Premier talked about in his election commercials are beginning to lose faith in this government. They're beginning to realize that they were deceived. If this is an open government, why do they have so much to hide?

As the opposition, we've tabled numerous written questions regarding the number of consultants this government has hired and their rates of pay. The government has still not answered. Why? Are they afraid that people will realize that they are as guilty of patronage as the past Social Credit government? This is not an open government; this is as closed and secretive as the last one.

Yesterday the Minister of Finance stood in this House in outrage and ridiculed the Leader of the Opposition on the costs of a wall divider and a can of paint that went to renovate his office. Well, there was no need to renovate anything. This government could have easily given the Leader of the Opposition any one of the 

[ Page 163 ]

many offices that remain vacant in this House right now, and that would have been at no cost to the taxpayers. However, they chose instead to play silly games in this House and waste the people's money.

The most amazing thing about the minister's tirade and feigned indignation yesterday was how vociferously and self-righteously the members of his own NDP caucus cheered him on. I would like to refer to something that I had to think about last night. When I was sitting at home writing this, I thought it reminded me of the movie, The Life of Brian, where this crowd is standing out there, and they're all going: "Yes, we're all individuals." And that was exactly what we saw here yesterday.

Hon. Speaker, this is maybe something that we want to look at. It's interesting to think how much of what this government does is driven by a small group of public affairs pseudo-bureaucrats. I'm sure that when the members opposite won their nominations, they never thought that they would have been so effectively neutralized by communication technocrats in the Premier's office. I'm referring to a news report last week that said that the members of the back bench opposite sent out virtually identical press releases to their community newspapers on their reactions to the throne speech. Who do they think they're fooling? I know their constituents must feel really special and that they are really looking out for their individual best interests in representing their constituencies when the members signed their names to some comments put together in a back room, spewed out by some computer in the basement of this House. How original!

This is the same caucus, by the way, that is spending $600,000 to gut and refurbish a room they can all meet in. Who is going to pay for that one? The government House Leader said that there is no room for his caucus to meet. The Social Credit government, which this NDP government has called fiscally devoid of reality, had 47 members, and they managed just fine. Why is it that for the sake of four members this government is spending $600,000? That's $150,000 per member. That's more than Bob Williams's new salary.

An Hon. Member: Only just.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's true.

Hon. Speaker, how can the individual members of this NDP caucus who are in this House today justify this expense to the working people, homeless, single parents and underpaid women of this province? How can they go home at night, talk to their constituents and answer them with a straight face that they are doing the government's business and are working for the working people of British Columbia? I say: shame! The throne speech tells us how bad things are, yet this government has the audacity to waste over half a million dollars on a meeting room, if you can believe it.

As an aside, the throne speech also stated: "This government will introduce proposed new heritage conservation legislation designed to protect and enhance British Columbia's unique culture and heritage." I don't know if any of those NDP caucus or cabinet members have taken the time to go and look at the corner of this building that they've gutted. They've taken out everything of any heritage significance and thrown it into a dumpster. How can they justify that on one hand and on the other hand say in the throne speech that they're going to protect heritage buildings? Again I say: shame!

Let me move to another section of the throne speech. Let me talk about this government's comments on forestry. This province has been attacked by rising protectionism in Washington, D.C. The forestry sector is being pummelled by the recent tariff on softwood lumber imports. How is it that this government didn't see it coming? I ask this House why on earth the Premier was meeting with Li Ka-shing in Hong Kong and President de Klerk in Switzerland when he should have been meeting with Congress in Washington, D.C.? This Premier was skiing in Europe and boogieing in Hong Kong when he should have been fighting in Washington, D.C. Hon. Speaker, I wonder if this Premier is so intent on being a big shot on the world stage that he has forgotten the loggers in the interior of this province.

On October 17 the people of this province elected a government that has no vision. It has no economic strategy other than taxes, taxes and more taxes, and we'll see that tomorrow. When the Premier said that if we don't have it, we won't spend it, what we didn't hear him say, as he drifted off the camera angle, was: "If we don't have it, we'll go back to the taxpayers for more." This government has no vision. It has no plan for this province. It hasn't set out any clear direction for the people of this province to rally around.

All it has done is stitch together a list of demands from special interest groups in order to pay off campaign debts. Hon. Speaker, a payoff is a payoff. This throne speech only proves that when the people of British Columbia cleaned this House on October 17, they only did half a job. Next time they'll clean the other half. This government has different faces than the last one, but it's exactly the same process. The payoffs to friends and insiders still go on; it's just different friends and different insiders. This isn't a better way; it's the same way. This government is no different from the last one.

The people of this province are crying out for a vision for this province. They're crying out for leadership. The hon. Finance minister ridiculed the Leader of the Opposition for the vision that was apparent in his speech. I say that the people of this province identify with that vision, and the government would be well advised to listen to that vision. This party, this leader of the official opposition has given the people of British Columbia a vision in the absence of one from the government. It's a pragmatic vision. It's a Liberal vision. It's a vision that the people of this province will rally around. That's vision, and that's leadership.

F. Garden: It is with a great deal of pride and humility that I rise in my place in this Legislature to make my initial speech in this House and address the throne speech as it was presented to us last week. With very great interest I've noticed the emotion of all the individual speakers as they stood up here and made 

[ Page 164 ]

their very first speech. And they, like me, last week took their seats here and savoured the moment, and regardless of whether we are on the government side or on the opposition side, the pride and emotion of that event is something that will stick with all of us the rest of our lives. I appreciate the confidence the people of British Columbia have placed in all the members of this House by electing them to this august body. I felt the emotion when the British Columbia-born or Canada-born members stood up, and with pride, stated how they felt about being here.

I feel even more emotion, because I am not Canadian-born. Since I came to Canada in 1957, the people of Canada and the people of this great province have adopted me and my family, and now I feel a part of this great province, and I love Canada from the bottom of my heart. I arrived a young man with two kids, no money and no job -- a little nervous. But very quickly the opportunities that Canada and B.C. presented to a young immigrant like me became very apparent, and I quickly established myself and my family in the town of Powell River on the Sunshine Coast.

[11:00]

Through the years working in that community in community services with the handicapped and with the union, I watched my family grow and take their place in Canadian society. We came here with two kids; we now have five. My lovely wife Margaret, who I believe is in the audience somewhere today.... If you talked to her she would have said that she was trying to populate Canada with Scotsmen. I have five wonderful children. They're all grown up. They're all over this lovely land of ours. Now I have four grandchildren, and I'm very proud of them. I'm well on my way to populating Canada with Canadian Scotsmen.

I appreciate the pride, as I stated earlier, in the hearts of every one of us here. I also, hon. Speaker, understand the pride that you must feel in being selected as Speaker of this House, and I want to add my congratulations to the many congratulations you've received over the last week or so -- and to your deputy. I'm not going to make any comments about his age -- as many did -- because he and I are much the same age. I can recall watching him when he was a member of the headhunters with the B.C. Lions and recall the tenacity he showed in that role. That tenacity was revealed by being re-elected and re-elected to this House. That tenacity was revealed in the way he stood up for the underprivileged in B.C.

As a very young man, I was a member of a union. Around 1968 or '69 I recall going to a meeting at the IWA hall in Vancouver on race relations and women's equality, sponsored by the labour movement by the way -- way back then. The guest speaker was none other than the Deputy Speaker. He walked into that room with an afro costume on and proceeded to tell all these black-suited, collared-shirt-and-tie unionists that we were all a bunch of hypocrites. Those were his first words. Then he went on to tell us about the poor job we were doing in the emancipation of women within the labour movement. He made us sit up and take notice, because in those days you could have counted the number of women in the B.C. Federation of Labour on one hand. That's not the case today. They've listened to people like Emery Barnes and to the voice of women, and that is reflected in our government in the number of women cabinet ministers that we have in this House today.

Hon. Speaker, there was an opportunity during the throne speech to mention significant Canadians who have passed away since the last sitting of this House. I didn't take advantage of that, because I'm sure that each of us would have liked to have put in the throne speech the names of many significant people from our communities who have passed on. But that would have taken another six or seven pages.

I would like to mention two honourable Canadians from Quesnel: Ald. Albert Johnston and Ald. Wilma Hanson. They served their communities for many years and were typical of the people of Cariboo North. They passed away while holding office. When they were in that office, they did it in the most exemplary fashion, regardless of their political affiliation, for their constituents in Quesnel. We miss them very much, and the city of Quesnel misses them very much.

My riding of Cariboo North is a new riding, and I'm gratified to be here as the first member for that riding. Prior to that it was the vast riding of Cariboo, which was serviced by two members: the Hon. Neil Vant and the Hon. Alex Fraser. They did a good job for their constituents.

I want to pay particular tribute to Alex Fraser. Alex was known as the "king of the Cariboo." He did such a good job for his constituents in the Cariboo that they used to suggest that if Alex was to throw his hat in the ring, voters would vote for the hat. That's how popular the man was. His riding has now been split in two. Before I came here, somebody said to me: "If you only do half as good a job as Alex Fraser did, you'll do well." I only have half the area to look after, so I believe I'm well on my way to filling his footsteps.

Cariboo North encompasses enough territory that it takes me three and a half hours to get from one end of my riding to the other. It goes from Strathnaver, which is just a short distance from Prince George, to 140 Mile House in the south, just south of Williams Lake, to Likely and Horsefly in the east. It's bounded by the mighty Fraser River on the west. It goes from the Bowron Lake chain in the north to the magnificent Quesnel Lake in Wells Gray Park in the south of the riding. It includes the great historical tourist attraction of Quesnel Forks and Barkerville.

Barkerville is one of the major reasons that British Columbia exists as it does today. The pioneer spirit of the people who flocked to Barkerville in the 1860s looking for gold and settling in that area is still present. They're a fiercely independent people in Cariboo North, and as I said last night at a function, I believe Cariboo North is the jewel in the crown of British Columbia.

At one time Barkerville was fast becoming the largest town west of Chicago and north of San Francisco. The city of Quesnel, at the junction of the Fraser and Quesnel Rivers, is also steeped in British Columbia history. Quesnel is named after Simon Fraser's companion, Jules Maurice Quesnelle.

[ Page 165 ]

Overlanders coming into the Cariboo with Alexander Mackenzie met with the natives in that area during his journey across Canada. Natives in that area, as they still do today, showed friendship and warmth to these people as they came into our province. As a matter of fact, Alexander Mackenzie couldn't find his way to the west, and he was heading down the Fraser River -- for Vancouver, I presume -- when the natives met him and said: "Hey, don't go that way. We'll show you our trail that we've used for centuries." They took Alexander Mackenzie and showed him the way to the coast.

This is typical of the native bands in our area. There are four natives bands: the Red Bluff band, the Nazko band, the Alexandria band and the Williams Lake band. All of the band chiefs are showing progressive leadership in working together towards joint ventures with the private sector for the benefit of their people in the Cariboo.

Hon. Speaker, I would like to invite you and all the colleagues to come up to the Cariboo. I'd like to you visit the restored city of Barkerville, take your families canoeing around the Bowron Lake chain, come fishing in the Quesnel and Horsefly Lakes and enjoy the wilderness experience of the Caribou Mountains. Come to Quesnel and walk around the new riverfront walkway built by the city, and view the confluence of these two great rivers. You may want to come skiing at Troll Resorts on the way to the old mining town of Wells. Downhill and cross-country skiing in that area are among the best in the province. There's plenty to do in the Cariboo, whether you want to come to hunt or just bring your camera. Moose, deer, grizzly bear -- all have their habitat in that fine riding.

However, hon. Speaker, as I said, the most important asset in the Cariboo are the people, whether they are loggers, trappers, resort owners, pulp mill workers, health care workers, miners or truckers. They're a fiercely independent people. They're not looking for handouts from this government, but they are looking for their fair share of the enormous wealth in this province that they helped create.

To show you the kind of independence that I'm talking about, people in Soda Creek lost a bridge because of a landslide. It meant another three-quarters of an hour each way for the schoolchildren to be on a bus, back and forth to Williams Lake. These people pestered the previous government, and they pestered their new MLA, and they kept at us to do something about giving them an alternative route around Soda Creek. They finally got so fed up that they all put their money together in that area -- and I reckon there were about 30 of them -- to bulldoze their own road around the bridge that was taken out. I'm very pleased that because of their efforts the Highways minister has now stepped into the picture, and he's prepared to look at that road and upgrade it so that they can get the school buses down there. That shows you the kind of people we have in Cariboo North. They're not looking for handouts; they're looking for justice.

The small resource communities of this province, like Soda Creek, Quesnel, 150 Mile House, Likely and Horsefly, are the engines that drive the economy of this province, and they're getting tired of seeing these resources being sucked into the black hole of the lower mainland with very little return to the areas from which they are removed. They're tired of seeing SkyTrains being built in the lower mainland, while their children have to leave their hometowns because there are not enough jobs being generated in the communities where they are raised. They are tired of spending great sums of money to travel for health care, when their labours are generating the wealth that is paying for the large health facilities in the lower mainland. The ranchers and farmers of Cariboo North are totally frustrated with the bureaucratic nightmares they are subjected to before a decision is made on a water licence, an ag lease or a woodlot permit. Farmers can't afford long delays. Every season is a make-or-break situation for them. They can't afford to wait six months for a decision. They've got to get it quickly, because that could be the season that makes or breaks them.

That is why I'm encouraged to see that our government is committed to making the forestry small business program more efficient. It is also gratifying to see that they will be encouraging residents to buy British Columbia farm products. Our farmers are looking for help from our government against the dumping practices of our neighbours to the south. They are looking for leadership to protect them from the future havoc they will face if we ever get into a free trade deal with Mexico. The present free trade deal that we're in with the United States is a total disaster, and this government should do all it can to prevent getting into another mess like this.

In a nutshell, the entrepreneurs and farmers in the Cariboo want the bureaucracy off their backs so that they can go on with their jobs.

Hon. Speaker, as MLA for Cariboo North, I will be pushing for a road from Barkerville to McBride and a circle route from Likely to Quesnel. We're not talking major highways here; we're just talking access routes so that the tourists in this province can come up to the Cariboo North, get on to a circle route, take advantage of Barkerville and Wells and look at the Likely-Horsefly area -- the finest scenery in the province. If we don't take that kind of initiative, towns like Wells and Barkerville are doomed to die. So I'll be pushing hard for that.

You will hear me talking about the need to fill the empty Quesnel hospital space with other health care facilities in Quesnel that need to be rehoused. And they need to upgrade the hospital in Williams Lake. I will also be looking for some formula that will ease the hardship of the cost of my constituents travelling to Vancouver for health care.

There is a real need for a truck route around Quesnel to steer dangerous goods away from the bottleneck in the downtown area. This route presently goes by two old peoples' homes and a hospital. Every dangerous good in the province going north goes right in front of two old peoples' homes and a hospital. This has got to change. I honestly believe the present route through Quesnel is retarding the economic benefits that can flow from tourism development at the confluence of these great rivers.

[ Page 166 ]

More importantly, you will hear me calling for more jobs from our resources in the areas where they are extracted. Tenure for forest companies must be tied to secure jobs in those areas. For too long we've been the hewers of wood and drawers of water. We've seen our jobs hauled out of these communities. If these companies are going to have tenure, then they'd better provide secure jobs in the areas where they're getting the resources.

[11:15]

I applaud the establishment of UNBC, and I'm looking forward to the needed professionals who will flock north because of this facility. It will be a change to see our kids being able to get their education close to home, instead of coming down to Vancouver and the lower mainland. I'm proud to say, first of all, that Social Credit took the initiative in providing this facility. But I would also like to say that it was a group of volunteers, including my CA -- the friends of the university of the north -- who started the process. Once the government saw there were about 5,000 people who wanted that university, they got on board and brought it into being. I'm also proud to say that the New Democratic Party supported that university initiative all the way. I'm proud and pleased with that.

Like many others, I wondered what kind of throne speech the government would bring to this House, given the financial constraints it faced. Under the circumstances, they did a tremendous job. I'm pleased that their emphasis is on open and honest government, and the freedom-of-information act will be welcomed by all British Columbians.

I've heard the opposition talk about promises and broken promises, but I would remind them that they also made promises during the election campaign -- notwithstanding that the Leader of the Opposition had to reverse his field halfway through when he saw he was getting a little popular and might have to honour these commitments. I would remind him, as he's wiping his brow and taking the sweat from it, how close he came to being in front of the people of this province, trying to keep the commitments he made. If he'd had to do what he promised, we would probably need about a $3 billion surplus. Unfortunately we don't have that surplus. We have a tremendous deficit, and I applaud our government for bringing in the sensible policies they have.

Talking about promises, I'd like to just mention a few that we made during the election campaign and have kept.

We promised open and balanced government. We provided the opposition and the media with briefings on the state of this province's finances. It had never been done before. We released the public accounts early, so they could have a look at that. We commissioned a financial review. Notwithstanding how they feel about it, it's the first time it's been done for the people of this province.

We promised that small businesses would grow. We've already provided the Working Opportunity Fund.

We said there would be fair labour and management policies. Bill 82 was changed, the Labour Relations Review Panel has been established, the IRC commissioner was replaced and a boycott on the IRC has been lifted because of it, and the Korbin commission was announced.

Equality and opportunity for women was also a promise of ours. We have the highest representation of women ever in a new cabinet, and we have the first stand-alone Ministry of Women's Equality in Canada.

We promised help for women's centres. We provided that help prior to coming to this House.

We promised we would support families and children, and we have done that. Benefits to the handicapped have been increased and a committee has been established to review municipal bylaws to encourage the development of child care facilities. All are promises we made and have kept up to this point in time.

We said we'd restore and protect our working forests. The annual allowable cut has been reduced to protect these forests for sustainable development. There's no more logging in Strathcona Park. The Owen commission has been established. All are promises we made during the election campaign, and we've kept them.

We said there would be a fair settlement of the Indian land question, and we've accepted all 19 recommendations of the B.C. Claims Task Force.

We said we'd get tough with polluters. It came right from our handbook. The list of polluters and environmental charges was released on January 24 by John Cashore. We've brought in tough new pulp mill regulations.

Hon. Speaker, I could go on and on with this, because I've got a list a mile long of promises we've kept since we became government. I'd like to say this: never before in the history of B.C. politics have so many promises been kept benefiting so many people in such a few months.

We hear criticism about the fair wages act. I've been involved in labour relations for 33 years on both sides of the table and never once have I seen an organized person in the construction trades not spend his well-earned money in this province. I keep hearing the opposition say it's going to cost a lot of money. These people take that money, and they spend it in this province on housing, food, cars. If you want to see how quickly the economy will drop, get down with these non-union firms and try and run an economy on $5 and $6 an hour.

We should be trying to elevate these people, not bring their wages down. Through the Employment Standards Act revision, we will elevate the standards of those who have not chosen to organize. But I know that over the years organized labour -- while I was a part of it -- has led the fight for pensions, health care, women's equality and safe working conditions. They were out in the forefront fighting against pollution in this province. They have nothing to be ashamed of, and this government has nothing to be ashamed of in providing decent wages for organized people in this province. It should be a standard for all.

I would like to remind this House of organized labour's motto: what we wish for ourselves, we wish for all. That should be our criteria in this House. I'm 

[ Page 167 ]

looking forward to organized labour's participation with industry and the government to bring in a fair and balanced labour code.

I'm pleased the ombudsman's role is going to be enhanced in this province, so that anybody who has a grievance against a regional district or a municipality can appeal to the ombudsman. It might have prevented the thing that happened to one of my constituents in Wells. He got his house bulldozed, and he was running to the courts trying to prevent it. I'm not saying whether they were right or wrong, but that individual should have had a route to go to take his grievances. I applaud the opening up of the ombudsman's role in that respect.

I happen to believe -- finally, this is the last piece of my speech -- that the people of B.C., in their wisdom, have chosen the most talented group of MLAs ever assembled in this House, from all parties. There's a lot of cynicism out there about politicians, and it hurts me when I hear people say: "You politicians are all the same. You're just looking out for yourselves." Now it behooves all of us in here -- and I don't care what riding you come from -- to turn that around.

I do believe the sincere speeches that I've heard from the members of the opposition -- sincere that they want to work together to restore people's faith in this parliament. I'm looking forward to working with these people on the select committees. If we do nothing else in the next four years, if we can just restore the people's confidence in their MLAs and their government institutions so they can trust us to get away from the bickering and the stuff that's been going on in this House in the past, we will have done well. I'm looking forward to that direction. That's one of the promises the opposition made. They're prepared to participate in open government, they're prepared to participate in making a difference in politics, and I appreciate that. Let's all work together now in the next four years. I know the role that we have to play: government governs; the opposition takes them on. Let's keep the rhetoric fair, let's keep the rhetoric honourable, and let's work together to make B.C. a better place to live for all our citizens.

L. Stephens: Much like the other members who have risen before me in reply to the Speech from the Throne, it is with pride and honour that I stand to give my first speech in this House. My pride and, of course, my nervousness are not only because it is my first speech, but also because it is my first opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of my constituency in Langley.

Before I get into the substance of my address, let me first offer my congratulations to you, hon. Speaker. I am sure that you will meet the challenges of your office with integrity and balanced judgment. I look forward to working with you through the days, nights and years to come. Congratulations are also extended to the Deputy Speaker. I would also offer congratulations to all members of this House for their success in the recent election, and especially to those members who, like myself, are new to this House. I look forward to working with you all.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

As the member for the great constituency of Langley and as a member of the Liberal official opposition, it gives me great pleasure to rise and respond to the Speech from the Throne. I am indeed excited to have the opportunity to participate in what I hope will be the start of a fresh, new and constructive era in British Columbia. I want to thank all the constituents of Langley for their support and for giving me the opportunity to stand here today. I pledge to serve them to the best of my abilities.

I would like to thank my fellow caucus members for their support and assistance. I would also like to thank my sons Colin, Mark and Shawn for their love and support, and in particular my partner Gordon. I thank the people of Langley for putting their trust in me and in the Liberal Party to work for real change and real reform in British Columbia.

When I listened to the throne speech, and later when I had to look through it, I looked in particular for initiatives relating to two areas of special concern to me. One is women and women's issues. Pay equity, access to day care and violence against women and children are problems for which society as a whole must bear responsibility. My second major interest was in initiatives relating to economic development, because as this government itself recognizes, the existence of our social programs, our health and child and family services, depends on the maintenance of a strong and prosperous economy. The throne speech had some worthy things to say about these issues, but overall there was a lack of commitment by this government to women and to economic development in British Columbia.

Let me first discuss some items in the throne speech as they relate to women. In Langley, 10 percent of the households are headed by single mothers. While I know that this figure is not as high as in some constituencies, single mothers in Langley face the same difficulties as are faced by women and especially by single mothers throughout British Columbia. Women need access to quality day care. They have to know that their children are safe and well cared for while they are at work trying to overcome the large earning differential that exists between men and women. I am heartened to see that this government will work to improve child care programs, but, as for the details, this government has not been forthcoming.

I am less heartened to see this government's lukewarm commitment to pay equity in the public sector. However, I am sure that the women members of the NDP who worked in this last election, and women who voted for this government on the basis of its commitment to pay equity, must have greeted the announcement of a five-or perhaps ten-year time line on the implementation of pay equity in the public service with some dismay. But I will leave it to them to remember in the next election.

However, I do not want to just criticize. I welcomed the appointment of the community panel which is reviewing family and child services in British Columbia. I look forward to seeing its report and to debating any legislation that may flow from the review and 

[ Page 168 ]

report when it is introduced in this House. I also welcome the announcement of the provision of $1 million to 28 women's centres in the province. I look forward to a future society where women's centres are not necessary, where women and children do not have to flee their homes in fear of abusive husbands, fathers or boyfriends. But we have to accept the reality that individual dignity is not always respected in our society and that many women do live in fear. I think we can recognize this but at the same time work for change.

[11:30]

It is somewhat more prosaic to speak about economic development. It is only when statistics on unemployment, on job loss and plant and mill shutdowns are brought down to a personal level that the importance of economic development strikes home. Job losses, especially in resource-dependent communities, are personal and family tragedies. In communities like Port Alberni, Cassiar and Lake Cowichan, men and women, many with large mortgages and children, find themselves out of jobs they have worked at for most of their lives -- thirty years of experience counting for little, their skills not marketable.

It is extremely important that opportunities for advanced education and training be available to those thrown out of work by shifts in the world economy or by government's inability to come to a decision. We must be aware that by the year 2000 over 40 percent of new jobs created will require at least 17 years of education and training. I am pleased that the government is continuing the work of the human resource development project, which is assessing the present and future state of the post-secondary system in British Columbia. It is somewhat unfortunate that the group will not be reporting until the spring of 1993, but I am sure that the report will be thorough and provide a focus for debate for years to come.

I am also pleased there is some recognition by this government of the change in the world and provincial economies. I welcome the attempt to address these changes through the calling of a Premiers' summit on trade and economic opportunity in late June. However, I am concerned that this summit will be simply a high-profile public relations exercise.

I am sure members on both sides of the House will recognize the vulnerability of many communities outside the lower mainland and Victoria. I welcome, therefore, the indications in the throne speech that the role of the job protection commissioner is going to be expanded. The commissioner has assisted in maintaining over 2,300 jobs in British Columbia over the last year.

I am concerned that not enough emphasis is being placed by this government on economic expansion. We should not only be interested in keeping existing jobs, but this government should also help create new ones. And jobs, of course, are also the concern of many of my constituents. In Langley we are fortunate to have many people who have seized opportunities presented by proximity to markets in the United States and opportunities in the agricultural and manufacturing sectors.

The opportunities have been seized, but let me say this: if this government believes that my constituents in Langley are going to stand idly by while taxes are raised, while government makes it more and more difficult for business people to get on with doing business and promoting economic development in this province, then it is sadly mistaken.

We have seen over time the continuous growth of cross-border shopping. I do not need to illustrate the costs to the province as a result of cross-border shopping, not only in terms of lost dollars to retailers and producers but also in lost tax revenue. I know there are no easy solutions. I know that we cannot point fingers of blame at consumers who want to stretch their family budgets just a little further. But I believe government can be more proactive in getting to the roots of the problem of cross-border shopping. If the information was readily available from this government, then instead of reading monthly news reports about the growth of cross-border shopping, about retailers closing their doors and being in receivership, maybe we would start reading the heartening news media reports about the number of shoppers who are staying home. British Columbia and Canada produce quality products. What I am saying is that Canadian consumers will stay home and that British Columbians can compete if government provides the information and the environment that encourages economic growth.

But let me return to a discussion of my constituency of Langley. Langley is situated in the heart of British Columbia's fertile Fraser Valley. Langley has grown from a primarily rural area to semi-rural, semi-urban and, finally, urban status. After the 1989 redistribution, the Langley constituency is bounded to the north by Highway 1, to the south by the United States border, by 196th Street on the west and 216th Street on the east.

Situated in the centre of the greater Fraser Valley's main arterial road system, with Highway 10 and Highway 1, and serviced by the B.C. Hydro railway, the area is easily accessible and provides interconnection between roadways and major national railways in Canada and the United States. Langley is a high-growth, vigorous, industrial community and continues to use its industrial muscle to broaden its economic base and diversify its traditional heavy reliance on agriculture.

Greenhouses and nurseries grow horticultural products, which are shipped all over the world. Dwarf and controlled root stock for the fruit industry is shipped to orchards in western Canada, the United States, Mexico and Central America. Langley greenhouses send flowers and potted plants to florists throughout Canada. Both Langley and the neighbouring constituency held by my colleague the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove are horse-breeding communities. Horse breeders view the construction of a one-mile track somewhere in the lower mainland as vital to the survival of their industry. I join them in looking for some decision on the location of this one-mile track.

On the same topic of agriculture, Langley is home to the British Columbia Artificial Insemination Centre. This facility services the beef and dairy cattle industry in western Canada. I think this is a good example of how research, science and technology can be used in 

[ Page 169 ]

economic applications. I am proud that this centre is located in Langley.

This area of the lower mainland is very rapidly growing in population. The value of residential permits soared 68 percent in 1991, to reach $122.4 million in Langley township. Retailing in Langley is expanding rapidly. Willowbrook mall, our 400,000-square-foot shopping centre, is in the process of a $25 billion expansion, which is adding on 200,000 square feet and includes a new Sears department store and 60 retail units. This mall was built in 1979, and we had two previous expansions in 1987 and 1990. Right next door to Willowbrook is another new development called Crossroads, with a mix of banking, retail lumber, drug stores and restaurants.

On education matters, the people of my constituency look forward to the opening of the Langley campus of Kwantlen College in 1993. It is my hope, and the hope of many others in the Fraser Valley, that before the end of the century we will see, in the fastest-growing part of the province, a stand-alone Fraser Valley university.

Langley is simply a great place to live. It has all the amenities and comforts of the city and still has a small-town, community feel to it. This community spirit is partly a legacy of the rural roots of my constituency, and makes one nostalgic for a time when doors were not locked and neighbours watched out for one another.

I would like to close my remarks by saying that the Liberal caucus and I will be vigilant in making sure the government keeps the best interests of the people of British Columbia in the forefront. For my own part, I will strive to make sure that I serve the citizens of Langley to the best of my abilities. I look forward to working with all members of this House toward providing good government for all British Columbians.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. L. Boone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce today in the gallery Bill Christie, who is the government agent for that wonderful city of Prince George. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Christie here today.

K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, today I'm very pleased to rise in this House to speak as the first elected member for the newly created riding of Surrey-Cloverdale and to represent the people of this riding. I am very humbled with their trust.

May I take this opportunity to wish this parliament every success, and may we all take the task of providing good government for the people of this province as our most cherished and sacred trust, no matter which party we represent.

My riding, which is the east half of Surrey in the lower Fraser Valley, is bounded by the Fraser River to the north, 152nd Street to the west, Highway 99 to the southwest and the U.S. Washington State border to the south, with Langley to the east. The Douglas border crossing on Highway 99, where you will find the famous Peace Arch that was built with money raised by the children of a common mother -- that is, the people of Canada and the United States -- is the busiest point of entry in British Columbia. To the east, the Pacific border crossing at 176th Street has 300,000 trucks passing through each year and is one of our busiest truck crossings.

My fellow Liberal colleagues, Wilf Hurd, Lynn Stephens and Gary Farrell-Collins, have ridings adjoining me in Surrey-Cloverdale. Collectively we are working together to gain the support of the remainder of Surrey in the near future.

I would like to give you a glimpse of the history of this area. Our aboriginal people, the Semiahmoo living in the south and the Katzie along the Fraser, were our first settlers. Homesteaders began settling in the area of Surrey in the early 1870s, and the name Surrey was likely the choice of a prominent settler wishing to remember his birthplace in England.

Until the war, this area was strawberry and dairy farm country, but today, in the still-rural setting, condominiums and businesses are springing up quickly. The area now boasts nearly 17,000 homes and 1,000 businesses. Despite being subject to annual flooding, the lowland soils in the area, such as Mud Bay and the Serpentine and Nicomekl tributaries, which come into the riding, tended to be favoured by early residents. These areas were not heavily timbered and were easier to develop.

The lack of trails and roads made settlement more difficult in the areas not situated near these lowlands or rivers. Early communities congregated close to water routes and used them as highways to transport goods to and from market. Rowboats were essential items in early households, if residents wanted transportation within their areas. The Nicomekl and Serpentine Rivers were used as main highways. Drawbacks did exist for those who relied on river transportation. The rivers were narrow and shallow, except at high tide, and navigable for only part of the way. Boats travelling up these rivers were dependent on the tides, and often as many as a dozen boats loaded with cargo could wait at the Nicomekl entrance at high tide. Settlements closer to the Fraser, such as Port Kells, use this larger river as their main transportation artery.

Until 1884 the only way to cross the Fraser to New Westminster was by canoe or rowboat. When Surrey incorporated as a municipality in 1879, one of the first issues addressed by council was the need for better links with New Westminster, the main market. In 1883, council contracted with Captain Angus Grant to provide ferry service. Rev. Dunn, an early Methodist minister, travelled extensively throughout Surrey and left the following description of travelling by horse: "The horse, instead of cantering along easily, had to wade and tug and pull...when the streams were swollen by the heavy rains...it was necessary to draw one's legs onto the saddle, so as to prevent even long boots from getting filled."

[11:45]

Commercial logging operations, beginning in the 1870s, cleared land and made it available to a steady flow of prospective farmers. With the advent of railway 

[ Page 170 ]

service, the small town of Cloverdale emerged, which is now a growing metropolis. These improvements in transportation and communications meant that Surrey was gradually becoming a community instead of a scattering of settlements.

I have served the communities of this province with B.C. Telephone Co. for the past 28 years. I was an alderman in Port Hardy and White Rock. I have served on the Surrey Credit Union and the Douglas College and Kwantlen College boards, the Peace Arch District Hospital Board, the Sunnyside Acres urban forest heritage society, the B.C. Tinnitus Association, and the Northern Vancouver Island Recreation Commission and board of health. I also served on the committee for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta transit and with South Surrey Friends of the Environment. All of these have helped to prepare me for this opportunity to serve the people of Surrey-Cloverdale and the people of British Columbia.

I made a conscious decision to look even further ahead into a new challenge, one that would not only simulate my desire to serve, but provide me with the opportunity to be a part of a new era in British Columbia. I'm proud to say that the people of Surrey-Cloverdale, many of whom did not know me personally prior to the election but who saw my record, were willing to catch the spirit of change that was put forward by the Liberal Party. The job is big and the path is narrow, but the challenge is what lives within us.

This challenge from Surrey-Cloverdale includes lobbying for increased education funding. Our community is growing so quickly that there are nearly 2,000 new students entering the school system each year. In Surrey it is a fact that after lobbying Social Credit and now NDP governments, the Surrey School Board is actually further behind in school funding than they were last year. Because Surrey is a rapidly-growing district, there is no threat of layoffs. The only manpower question is whether enough new teachers and support staff can be hired to handle the increased student population each year.

It is time the government addressed the fact that many young people graduating from high school need technical training that is state of the art if we are to remain a viable industrial nation. Young people can be trained with adequate equipment in our universities, so that research does not die because of the lack of resources.

We have already had discussions with the Minister of Advanced Education in regard to the establishment of a Fraser Valley university, one dearly needed in the lower Fraser Valley and one that was originally promised prior to Simon Fraser being established. Today we need that promise completed. Let's start with the resources today to get the planning done. We cannot allow the next generation to slide down a chute into the unemployment or welfare lines. It takes money invested to produce a future, or that future will be forced to leave our province, as is happening in other provinces at this time. We must set an example and be a leader in education.

When we see young adults as potential students, no matter what their marital status is, then we will be embarking on new territory and have an impact in this country. A student is a student, and that some must lie to obtain student loans is a shame within our processes. It is an issue which has been on the books far too long. The indexing of student loans and making student loans freely available is something that has to be addressed federally and provincially.

In addition to the education of our young people, our farming community is very important to us. We cannot allow this rich heritage to disappear, nor allow the industries related to farms to fail, especially when farmers throughout this province are hurting and very few are listening to their plight. I know we have a sensitive Agriculture minister, and I hope action will come soon to address these people's needs. We cannot afford to become dependent on goods and services from south of the border when the resources are here in our back yard. The quality of our farm goods is known all over southern British Columbia, through into Alberta and the Prairies. We must involve people in the decision-making process for implementing a long-term strategy for land use that emphasizes sustainability and recognizes the limits to growth within our environment.

The beginning and the end for our communities are youth and our seniors. These groups demand our care and attention. We cannot afford to close our eyes to the needs of our youth, nor our seniors. Our young feel alone as families break down, and our seniors feel alone as the family loses its sense of commitment to their aging needs. Facilities where these groups can be made to feel a part are not the whole answer, but if we are to face the future as this century winds down, we must be alive to the need to work hard to keep these cracks from widening and prevent the loss of these precious parts of our human fabric.

We must encourage the development of housing that meets the changing needs of seniors, for those couples who wish to remain together despite the long-term disability of one spouse. For the young family, we must increase the supply of affordable housing and the opportunities for home-ownership by adopting a rent-to-own program -- one espoused by our leader in the last election. We must be ready in this province to provide a hand up for those in need, not just a handout.

To speak of crime in our communities is to open a sore, but I would like it on the record that I will work for stiffer sentences and for the enhancement of Neighbourhood Watch programs. We all know instinctively that we must support our local authorities, but just to pay lip-service to the increasing statistics is not enough. We must stand up for what is right and just, and not allow the system to reward those who scoff at the law.

Safety in our neighbourhoods is a priority, but so is safety in the air -- the air we breath and the water we drink. It is time to really stand up and be counted. For unless we all to work together to reduce our landfills by educating ourselves and our children on recycling until the 17 percent that we now recycle becomes 37 percent and then 77 percent.... The place to start is in our homes, where our children can be taught to take pride and not to waste in a society that has become wasteful. We have to recognize that our natural resources are our 

[ Page 171 ]

lifeblood, and without the intent to be a full participant we shall all lose. Let us make this a term of government in the next four years in which we can all agree to work towards this end.

British Columbia is part of a strong country which has earned the respect of people everywhere. How many new citizens do we welcome into our constituencies every year? While we take so much for granted, immigrants choose this province for its opportunity and beauty. This makes it our responsibility to ensure that the lifestyle we all enjoy is not eroded by excessive taxes and a weak dollar.

In order to attract commercial and industrial investment which will create jobs, we must open our provincial borders and our international borders to abolish tariffs and unfair import taxes. This will create a more competitive spirit, providing consumers with greater choices and eventually eliminating cross-border shopping, as every year millions of dollars are leaving this country. We cannot allow shortsightedness to destroy a free marketplace where the economy can thrive on competition, not on subsidies.

I would like to say a few words on the abortion issue. My leader, the leader of the official opposition, has released the members of this caucus to act in accordance with their own conscience on this matter. These remarks are my own and may not reflect the opinions of all my colleagues.

In particular, I would like to speak to the Health minister's statement last Friday to this House. She announced that her government, the NDP, was going to spend $1 million on two existing freestanding clinics. She also reported that just over a quarter of a million dollars would be spent on education and information. Surely the hon. minister has her priorities mixed up. Surely education and alternatives to abortion are more important, if women are to have the real freedom to choose.

I urge the hon. minister to confer with her hon. colleagues to reconsider their support for abortion and focus their attention on the reasons for abortions. Let us look at preventing unwanted pregnancies. Let us look at providing financial support, if that is a factor.

On Canadian unity, I would like to let you know that this party acknowledges that every Canadian is equal, regardless of race, colour, creed, language or culture. This is part of our policy platform -- in which we also say that every province should hold the same legislative powers as any other and that although we are not at this time equally represented in a reformed Upper House, this must change. Each province must have an equal voice.

Many of us have travelled this great country and have marvelled at its sameness and its differences. The sameness is in the good people, the quality of life and the love we share for our nation. Even today, as we face constitutional crises, there are those in every province who want to point out our differences. In a personal letter to a friend, the Rt. Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau wrote in July 1991 about the troubles we face and the fears we may entertain about the future of our Canada. One the statements he made was: "The worst is not always certain."

Hon. Speaker, I would like to change to a topic few know of. I would like speak about tinnitus. Tinnitus is a very important subject to me because not only have I served on the board for the Tinnitus Association of British Columbia, but I am also a sufferer of this little-known affliction. Tinnitus is a subjective experience where one hears a sound when no external physical sound is present. Some call it head noise or ear ringing, or use similar terms to describe it. The word is Latin in origin, and it means to tinkle or to ring like a bell. There are many causes for this condition, from a buildup of wax impinging on the ear-drum to acoustic tumours. One of the most common causes of tinnitus is exposure to excessively loud sounds such as shooting, chainsaws, rock concerts or other loud noises. Sometimes problems not associated with the ear can cause tinnitus. Examples of non-auditory causes are disorders of the cervical vertebrae, the area in the neck -- which is where my tinnitus appears to have come from -- and the TMJ, the area at the joint in the jaw. To some, their tinnitus is no more than a nuisance. In its severe form, however, tinnitus can be a chronic condition causing loss of concentration, sleep problems and psychological distress.

Approximately 17 percent of the population in North America and Europe experiences debilitating tinnitus. It is a very major factor, but very little is known and very little research is going on. Tinnitus can also cause a deteriorating hearing condition or balance disorder for some. The actual mechanism responsible for tinnitus is not known. Something is wrong in the auditory system, but it is not known where the sound is being generated. It is not the patient's imagination; it is a physiological or neurological problem.

In most cases, tinnitus is associated with some hearing loss. It can be perceived as being in the ears or in or around the head, and can have one or a variety of different sounds. Treatment for this condition takes several forms. It has been known that the use of hearing-aids can reduce or even eliminate some forms of tinnitus, although the number of people for whom that occurs is very limited. Masking is another form of treatment, but that is only a matter of accommodating it; it does not remove it. Various other forms, such as biofeedback and relaxation techniques, can ease the problem of tinnitus.

I would like to go now to the philosophy of the B.C. Liberal caucus -- the preamble -- because I think it's important that we have on the order paper where we stand on this issue.

The Liberals support the dignity, rights, freedoms and responsibilities of individual British Columbians. Together we share a common commitment to achieving prosperity through a sustainable and competitive free enterprise system.

We believe in individual initiative. We believe that government must undergo continuous reform. It must be responsive to the people of the province and challenge itself, as the private sector must do. Government must always seek new and cost-effective ways of delivering services to taxpayers. We believe that government must also be accountable and responsive to those who seek social equality.

[ Page 172 ]

On the specific items of freedom, as our founding principle, the Liberal Party of British Columbia is committed to the protection of the rights of the individual in our society. The principles of individual freedom and equality are paramount and must be protected with the full and open commitment of government. Liberals believe that neither the interests of the state nor those of corporations must ever be permitted to infringe upon the freedom of the individual or the well-being of the people.

[12:00]

As Liberals we believe that there must be a balance achieved between social and fiscal responsibilities. Governments will always face challenging choices, and tough decisions must be made about the allocation of precious tax dollars. However, the very economic and spiritual well-being of the province is dependent upon making choices that do not disadvantage the less privileged members of our society. We are a free enterprise party which recognizes that government has social responsibilities which must be balanced with our economic responsibilities to the people.

On the issue of reform, Liberals have always been a party of reform. We have continued to be. Throughout its history the Liberal Party has been the catalyst for change in Canadian government and society. In British Columbia, the Liberal Party recognizes this historical reality. We will continue to provide the impetus for change within our own political system. We will not be bound by dogma or conservatism. We will initiate positive and meaningful change.

Liberals will always believe in people first. Our party is comprised of individuals from a broad spectrum of interests and backgrounds. This broad support base affords us a better opportunity than any other party to make rational, competent and consensus-building solutions to the problems of society and government. We accept that these are the only types of decisions, forged as they are by consensus, which will stand the test of time. As Liberals, our high level of individual involvement and commitment ensures that we will remain focused on efforts to promote and enhance livable and humanistic communities as we approach the twenty-first century.

J. MacPhail: I'm absolutely delighted for this to be my first speech in the House -- and my first election, as of October 17. Noting the time, I was going to make the proposition that I buy everybody lunch after my speech, but there are enough of you present that I'm not going to make that offer.

I'd like to begin by talking about my riding of Vancouver-Hastings. It's the most beautiful corner -- the northeast corner of the city of Vancouver -- and I say that with a bit of trepidation, with the hon. member sitting in the chair today. The city itself is absolutely unique. I have made it my home by choice. It's not my home by birth, but I expect it to be the home that I reside in for the rest of my life.

Vancouver-Hastings itself is a waterfront community, a waterfront part of the city, which overlooks the mountains of the North Shore and borders on our sister city, which is lesser but still wonderful, the city of Burnaby. We have recently had the honour throughout the world of being the highest-rated city to which people wish to travel. In several surveys, Vancouver has been noted as the most beautiful and the most comfortable city for tourists to visit.

I'm also pleased to be joined by seven other government MLAs, four of whom are in the cabinet. It makes the city of Vancouver now very strongly represented in our government.

My constituents are diverse and culturally very rich. Almost 30 percent of my constituents are new Canadians from the Pacific Rim and Asia. They are joined by the rich cultures of second-, third-and fourth-generation Canadians of Italian origin, Japanese, German, Anglo-Saxon and many, many others. It makes our community one of the most interesting ones to enter into. And we are a community within the community of Vancouver.

I also am pleased to have the largest population of urban-based aboriginals in my riding. They are a significant contribution to East Vancouver and have very special needs that I know our government, through the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, will be paying close attention to.

All of us in East Vancouver have been waiting for this New Democrat government to be elected. We have been voting in East Vancouver for the CCF and the NDP since 1933, and now we have a caring government that puts the people first. And for that, on behalf of East Vancouver, I say thank you.

I have the particular honour of being the first woman elected in East Vancouver, but that makes me the first among a group of men of special note: Harold Winch; Arthur Turner; David Barrett, a very close personal friend and a former Premier of our province; Alec Macdonald, the former Attorney General; Bob Williams; my colleague in the House today, Glen Clark. All of these people have very special talent and a special love for East Vancouver, and I am pleased now to add my own support, my own compassion, my own love, my own vision, for and on behalf of all of my constituents.

I was particularly pleased to see that our government's Speech from the Throne highlighted so many things that are of importance to those of us who live in East Vancouver. There is one group I'd like to note that will hold great hope in the light of the vision brought forth in the throne speech. They are the women who live and work and raise our families in East Vancouver. We may now actually be able to recognize and achieve economic equality for all of the women in British Columbia, and that brings great joy to me.

When we bring about economic equality for women, it is all of us who will benefit; not only women, but the men who live in the families where the paycheques from women are required in order to survive. Our children will benefit, and our community in which we spend our hard-earned wages will definitely benefit.

Our government will be fair and balanced in our approach in bringing about equality for women, but through managing better and spending better. All women in this province will move closer to equality, and more quickly than ever before.

[ Page 173 ]

A very high percentage of my constituents are women who are single heads of households. They are professionals, they are service workers, hospitality workers, caregivers, teachers, gardeners, shore workers, labourers. They are pink-collar workers, they are public employees, they are union members, they are unorganized women, and they are small business women. Our government is about to make each and every one of their lives better. We have begun by electing a woman as Speaker, and that sends out the best role model that one could possibly hope for in this province.

But I would also like to just take a minute, hon. Speaker, and give recognition to your election. It has sent forth a very clear signal to British Columbia that each and every one of us who resides in this province, regardless of our race, creed, colour, religion or origin, is welcome and honoured in our province, and for that I commend you.

I might tell the rest of the House that I was pleased to be able to reside in the office held by the hon. Deputy Speaker, and I felt that as a kudo to me. But I felt that I was also dwarfed by the desk at which he formerly sat. I then found out that he had put it on six-inch stilts, so all I had to do was knock off the stilts and return to normal.

I was pleased to note that many of the proposals made by our government in the throne speech will be of particular importance in bringing about economic equality for women. The first is the aspect of our commitment to training and skills development and labour force adjustment. The future growth in our workforce will come about from the ranks of women. It is interesting to note that all men who are going to work are now working. There is no more participation in that area available from among the population, but among women, there is. We still have room to expand for women entering the workforce. Therefore it is with great urgency that our government must pay close attention to the training and skills development of women, if our province is to remain economically viable and competitive in a global economy.

It is also important from an economic point of view, as well as from a fairness point of view, to bring about pay equity for women. Pay equity will give the economic stimulation we need in this province. I'm always surprised at people who don't recognize the economic benefit from paying women the wage they deserve. I often wonder what they think when women get the extra 37 percent of the wages that are our due, and why they don't realize that that will be plowed back into the economy. I know that a clerk who now makes $25,000 a year is not going to take that extra money she so fairly deserves and invest it in the New York Stock Exchange. I know that she's going to buy food and clothing and have affordable housing for her family, and that means all the money stays in British Columbia for the benefit of all of British Columbia.

I was also pleased to note, very early on in our government, that we raised the minimum wage. Fully 80 percent of those who receive minimum wage are women, and that means now that women will be able to afford just a little bit easier those things that are of minimum necessity. We have also advocated a strengthening of the social safety net, and it will come as no surprise to the hon. members in the House that those who are in most need of a strong social safety net are women. Our increases in GAIN, our funding for all reproductive health choices, our community panel to review the family and child services and our promise to increase resources for family support services will do nothing but improve the well-being of women in British Columbia.

There are a couple of other points, though, that I noted in the Speech from the Throne that may not immediately be recognized as being important for bringing about economic equality for women. I would like to take this opportunity to share my views on how I'm so pleased that we are bringing in these programs, because they will be of benefit to women.

[12:15]

The issue of good public transit is very important for all of us who live in Vancouver particularly, but it is of great importance to women. Women are the ones who use public transit. It also means that once we have a good, affordable, accessible system of public transit, women can work where they choose. They can travel where they choose. If there's a good bus service out to UBC and a woman lives in east Vancouver, it means she doesn't have to worry about her public safety while getting to and from her job. I am very pleased to note that our government has a strong commitment to improving the public transit system in Vancouver.

An Hon. Member: What about Surrey?

J. MacPhail: Surrey deserves a good public transit system too.

The other issue that is of great importance to the economic equality for women is our promise to bring about a fair piece of legislation for industrial relations, and our government has already instituted a public review of the current Industrial Relations Act. It is essential that each and every British Columbian have the fair and unfettered right to join a union. The reason why that's particularly important for the economic equality for women is because the facts demonstrate very clearly that a woman who belongs to a union earns an average of $3 an hour more than those who do not belong to unions. Therefore the first step, I say, in bringing about that economic equality is to give women the right to join a union.

Let me turn now to the issue of quality of life for the residents of East Vancouver and for my constituents. I'd like to address very briefly four areas: the environment, parks development, our cultural diversity and public safety. It was with pleasure that I saw our Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks go to the Globe '92 conference held in Vancouver last week and outline a clear vision and a wonderful program that will ensure the environmental quality for the city of Vancouver. He has committed to work with the city and with the Greater Vancouver Regional District for cleaner air and less traffic pollution, and for that I commend him. But I must also commend our city -- the municipal council and the GVRD in Vancouver -- for taking strong initia-

[ Page 174 ]

tives in that area already and for being a leader in North America toward ending air pollution.

As I said earlier, my riding is a waterfront riding, and our government, through the Minister of Environment, is committed to having clean water, a viable resource, a water-based resource. Our government is also committed to having proper access to our waterfront community.

I also note, lastly, under the proposals for improving our environment that we are committed to recycling, to continuing all the efforts made by the various communities, to enhancing recycling. As a parent of a small child, I am constantly amazed at the amount of packaging and waste that enters our lives each and every single day, and I know that our government is committed to reducing that packaging and waste.

It is perhaps a bit unusual, as a member from an urban riding, for me to be so interested in parks development, but not that unusual. I have in my riding one of the largest urban parks in British Columbia, Hastings Park, the current location of the Pacific National Exhibition. It is important that Hastings Park be returned to a livable, enjoyable green space for all of the residents of East Vancouver, and I know that my government is interested in making that come about as quickly as possible. We have had intrusion in that area by several changes to our riding. One in particular is the Cassiar connector, which has made the Trans-Canada Highway very viable for all of those who work and commute through Vancouver, but it has been an intrusion into my riding. I know that my government is committed to making sure that the areas surrounding the Cassiar connector are maintained as livable spaces for the residents of East Vancouver and that our bus service is not interrupted by the development of the Cassiar connector.

I am so pleased that the Minister of Highways has joined us.

An Hon. Member: And Transportation.

J. MacPhail: That's right.

The other area that's of particular importance to us who live in East Vancouver is New Brighton Park. It is the only waterfront park on the east side of Vancouver, and it is important that we maintain and enhance that park.

East Vancouver has a very, very rich cultural community. I think we have one of the most active community neighbourhoods per capita in the area of culture. I have had the pleasure of being active in the theatrical community and the area of developing cultural activities for women through my membership in View, The Performing Arts Society. And through that membership I have spent a great deal of time liaising and working with all other aspects of the cultural community throughout British Columbia. It is with pleasure that I note our government has assigned the specific responsibility of culture to a minister, and that the minister has taken a great deal of interest and considers it a priority to enhance the cultural policy of British Columbia. I commend our government for that.

The last area about the quality of life for those of us who reside in East Vancouver that I wish to address is the issue of public safety. I feel it essential that we who enjoy all the pleasures of Vancouver must be able to enjoy them no matter what time of day or night we wish to do so. That means that we have to be able to walk our streets safely and freely, whether we be 6 foot 3 and male, 5 foot 1 and female or, for that matter, 3 foot 6 and a child. We must all be able to walk the streets freely and not be worried about the intrusion of petty crime, drunkenness or the matter of drugs being dealt with and surrounding our schools.

I know that the proponents of crime often are those who have been victims in society. It's a matter of our economy not being strong enough to take care of those who are from a class which hasn't had all of the advantages. I realize that we have to address these questions on the basis of resolving the inequalities among the classes within our society. I urge our government to make sure that we bring about that economic equality as quickly as possible, so that we can make all of Vancouver a safe and comfortable city for everyone to live in.

Before concluding, I'd like to talk a little bit about my activities as the co-Chair of the legislative committee on the constitution. It also gives me pleasure that in my first speech I will be able to give recognition to those members who sit across from me and who are from the opposition parties. We have had the pleasure of spending two weeks travelling the province with not only my fellow government members, but members from the Liberal Party and the Social Credit Party.

It actually has been a good introduction to partisan politics, because what I found is that when you travel with people for two weeks, often the partisan politics disappear and the personal idiosyncrasies take over -- and I include myself among those subject to personal idiosyncrasies. But I do say thank you very much to my colleagues, both on this side and the opposite side of the House, for your full and undivided attention, for our travel throughout the province, on the very important matter of the constitution.

We travelled to 16 cities in ten days and that was a feat, I must say. We held hearings and got public consultation each and every single day. I am here to report to you that British Columbians are very concerned about the future of Canada. They shared those concerns with us. They shared their joys, their hopes and their ideas about British Columbia's place within Canada. I believe -- and I will be discussing this with my colleagues, my fellow members on the committee -- that people want a strong Canada, but they also want a strong British Columbia that can stand equally within Confederation.

They also believe that a strong united Canada must be based on a vibrant economy which creates jobs and opportunities in all regions. Very clearly British Columbians said to us that they were concerned first and foremost about the economy. Yes, the constitution is important, but their jobs and jobs for their kids are of the highest importance. The other thing that British Columbians told us was that they were very concerned that the process for amending the constitution not be a 

[ Page 175 ]

repeat of what happened during the Meech Lake accord debates. They want a process that is open and subject to democratic approval.

I believe that I can say all British Columbians can rest assured that our government is committed to such an open process. I think it's fair to say that our committee's work, and the fact that our government established this committee as its first work, is evidence of our government's commitment to that open and honest process in amending the constitution.

I will conclude by thanking you for the opportunity to make this address and saying that I am looking forward to working with each and every one of you in this chamber in a spirit of cooperation to bring about what's best for all of British Columbia. Thank you very much.

V. Anderson: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

V. Anderson: I would like to welcome the members of Churchill High School from Vancouver-Langara. Some 60 of them are visiting, along with their teacher Mr. Picard. Let us welcome them.

Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, I want to congratulate our Speaker on her position. I am very pleased that a woman of her capability has been elected unanimously to that position.

I want to say what a pleasure it is to congratulate you, hon. Deputy Speaker. It's a honour not only that you are in the chair but that I have been in this House during your long time of service. It has been most worthwhile.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I have grown personally from the contacts I've had in the culture of this Legislature over the years. That might sound a bit strange coming from one who has been involved, from time to time, in what could be considered the normal conflict that sometimes shows up in the give and take of the House. Given that we are government and opposition, we know that this part of our democracy is founded on a model that does involve a history of conflict. The government and the opposition benches are historically two sword-lengths apart. We do know that that is part of the heritage of our democracy. The way we are structured as we seek to go about our business causes us to reflect from time to time on whether a conflict model is always the best model to achieve those things to which we aspire. Although I've heard many criticisms of what school teachers will often tell me they see when they bring a class to view the Legislature, the fact is that if we look at the rest of the world, it's the only democracy we have and it's the best democracy we have, and it depends on all of us to make it work as well as we possibly can.

Having said that, implicit in the announcement the government made on January 16 on the Commission on Resources and Environment, we nevertheless recognize that if we seek to achieve consensus, there are problems in that conflict model. We do know that not only have we seen conflict in the House; we have also seen conflict in other places in our province. We have sadly seen households divided. We've seen people in valleys and watersheds throughout the province getting at each other because of some of the very difficult resource issues they are having to deal with. There's been a recognition that if we are going to find a way to move into the next century, if we are going to ensure that our children are a viable generation, then we are going to have to combine all of our skills and effort into finding better and more workable procedures.

[12:30]

Implicit in the Commission on Resources and Environment is that kind of a procedure. The commission is just barely up and running. It will be judged and we will be judged as an entire House on how we have been able to develop the political will and the commitment to come together in the context of that process and make it work to ensure that all British Columbians have a voice; to ensure that we recognize the value of the non-government organizations and those who have been so much a part of the environment movement and have done such a significant job in getting the world's attention and the attention of decision-makers; to ensure that they are aware that our environment is fundamental to any type of economic equation we might want to put forward, and that indeed if we are to have an economy, we must have a cared-for and cared-about environment.

We might even pause to think.... I know that my colleague whom I would like to recognize from.... I'm going to need help with the designation of the riding. My fellow clergyman in the United Church, the member for Vancouver-Langara, was actually a professor at Union College, which became the Vancouver School of Theology just after I was there. One of the things that distinguishes that member is that he knows his Greek, and I don't know mine.

But one of the things we do know is that the Greek word oikos or home, refers to our common home, and that word is indeed the root of both the concept of environment and the concept of economy. So sometimes we set up a false dichotomy when we talk about the environment and the economy or when we talk about the environment as opposed to jobs. Indeed, all of those things are one and the same, and it behooves us as decision-makers who have been trusted with responsibility to be coming up with the instruments that enable our society to work together to discover the solutions to those difficult problems we all need to be addressing.

It has been said, when we contemplate the culture of our Legislative Assembly, that.... First of all, let's recognize that at the end of this term, all of us will agree on at least one thing: unless you have sat where you sit, you could not possibly have a thorough understanding of what it is to be a legislator in the province of British Columbia. In some sense I would see the role that you carry out in your constituency as a kind of ombudsperson role in a particular constituency.

But then on top of that there is the very important political role that takes place in that area, and there is the importance of relating to the media and the people 

[ Page 176 ]

so that it is known that you, the elected representative, are on the job. All of that is part of the culture that we're a part of, as we recognize that we who inhabit this place come from three different solitudes -- or perhaps four. Those solitudes are government, the official opposition and the third party. Those are solitudes because each of those entities must have a life of its own, must work on its strategy together and decide how it's going to carry its program forward.

Nevertheless, we inhabit -- just as we do the environment -- the oikos, and we inhabit this House together. I daresay that over the years we will develop some bonds that cut across party lines and that are based on friendship and on mutual respect. I think that's absolutely essential to the effective functioning of this House. This needs to be a place where there is lively debate, where we bring forward the best of what we believe and try to apply that to public policy and where we are vigorously opposed, so that kind of an approach can produce the best possible decisions.

The other solitude is the media, which also inhabits this place. I think that that's also an important aspect for us to recognize, in that the message of the work of the elected representatives in various ways is reported to the people of the province so that they know we are on the job.

With regard to the environment, I want to make reference to some of the items referred to in the throne speech. First of all, I want to say how pleased I am that the environment was very strongly represented in the throne speech, which I think reflects the values of the political movement of which we are a part. The parts of the throne speech regarding the environment are what I wish to reflect on a bit at this time.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the former Minister of Environment, who was one of, I believe, five Environment ministers during the five years of that previous tumultuous regime, which we are glad to see the end of....

An Hon. Member: Can you remember the name of that party?

Hon. J. Cashore: I can remember the name of that hon. member, and I do believe that in his role as third party Environment critic he will bring constructive criticism into this House. He's already been over to this side of the House to visit me, so that we could discuss some things that need not become contentious on the floor, and I appreciate that. I know that he will be looking eagerly to the budget and the estimates process to see what is there that he can get his teeth into.

The fact is that the throne speech reflects the commitments that we have made. It reflects the 48-point platform that we went into the election campaign with. It indicates that we are keeping faith with our commitments.

There are four major environmental priorities over the course of this mandate: legislative reform and renewal, completing a parks and protected areas system for the province, pollution prevention and reduction, and integrated resource management and land and water use planning. All of those are very significant areas that need to be addressed if we are to bring our body of law into this part of the century, so that we're prepared to go into the year 2000 and beyond with the legislative framework that enables us to ensure that our children do indeed inherit a viable world.

One of the things that we also need to recognize is that our environmental efforts should reflect the best in public values. Having attending the Eco Expo, part of Globe '92, which took place at the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre over the past weekend, there's something I'm fond of saying, and I want to say it here: the Eco Expo was focused on families. Children were very prominent there. The Minister of Environment, I'm proud to say, worked with children, educators and communities and developed a display that was absolutely outstanding. There was a huge "ecosaurus" constructed, which was capable of wrapping itself, in a friendly way, around a group of perhaps 75 to 100 people who would come and hear Charlotte Diamond sing her songs, which carry an environmental message. It was a huge success. The Ecosaurus was made out of materials that otherwise would have gone into a landfill. There were displays showing the way in which ecoeducation, which is happening in cooperation with a program of the hon. Deputy Premier and Minister of Education.... We do have a joint education program that is functioning, and that was very evident there.

There were displays there where children could actually play games that helped them identify the meaning of reduce, reuse and recycle, and get a focus on how some decisions could be made about that. That's the point I wanted to make about children. There is a unique wisdom in our children that has passed us by as adults.

I believe that if we have a true concept of the meaning of education, especially in an environmental context, we will recognize that education is not a one-way process, where perhaps a professor stands in front of a class and hopes that all their vessels will be filled with those pearls that emanate from his or her mouth. It would be something like taking an old box of Pepsi-Cola bottles -- this is when we still had glass bottles -- heaving a bucket of water at them and seeing how much water goes into each bottle. That's one model of education. An interactive model of education means that we are learning as much from the children as they are learning from anybody else in that process. That's why I say they have a wisdom that has passed us by. A lot of the adult consciousness around environmental issues is generated by the tough questions kids are asking, and they're asking those questions because they are addressing many of these issues in the classroom. I want to commend those working in our education system who are recognizing that as an important aspect of what happens in education at all levels.

Therefore that was the Ecosaurus during the weekend at Globe '92. I was very happy to go down there and take part in that. I also understand that our Premier was there with his son Justen, and that Justen had a great time there. That was very worthwhile.

[ Page 177 ]

Along with that display, there were several other displays recognizing ways in which consumers could find alternatives. Just to give you an example, there was a display of rubber mats manufactured from recycled tires, a much better use for a recycled tire than, for instance, putting it into a cement kiln, where it could be burned. So there are a number of practical things that families together can be looking at. Just like ripples in the pond, their concerns and their addressing environmental issues means that as time goes by they will be focusing on that wide array of other and more difficult issues that need to be tackled. If we are really going to reduce, reuse and recycle, if we are really going to come up with a regulatory regime that addresses air-quality issues in an effective way, we do need to recognize, for instance, that air pollution is no respecter of political boundaries. Therefore we will be taking measures to enable a process of addressing air-quality issues that helps to coordinate the various regional districts that would be affected in a given region such as the lower Fraser Valley.

[12:45]

That also brings up another issue our Premier has mentioned many times, the Georgia basin initiative -- and on this point I will conclude. The Georgia basin initiative recognizes a number of things when we're addressing the environment. One is that if we consider environmental problems as site-specific, say, to Port Alberni, where there are some problems with regard to land use resources, or if we say the environmental problems are up in the Smithers area or at Lasca Creek, we fail to recognize that it is urbanization on a worldwide scale that is the generator of most of our environmental problems. It's the demands of people living in downtown British Columbia that often visit problems upon hinterland British Columbia. We need to be addressing the issue of urbanization -- in the context, say, of the Georgia basin initiative -- in such a way that enables all of us, those in Washington State and those in British Columbia, to recognize that we have a common cause in looking at the way in which we treat the waters and the air of the Georgia basin.

With that I would like to take my place. There's a lot more I'd like to talk about on the environment, but I'm also getting hungry.

C. Evans: It's with delight and humility that I stand here representing my family and my constituency, the people of the Kootenays.

Speaking of the people of the Kootenays, let me start right off by saying that in true Kootenay style, my guests in the Legislature today just made it with three minutes to spare. I'd like to request leave for introductions.

Leave granted.

C. Evans: First, I'd like to introduce my son, Philip Evans -- his grandfather's namesake, who he never met. My son is 22 years old, and I invited him here because it pleased me to be able to stand here for the first time with a member of my family.

The chairpersons of the Regional District of Kootenay-Boundary and the Regional District of Central Kootenay, Doug Swanson and George Cady, are two gentlemen who have spent a lifetime fighting for working people and fighting for their regions. It is an honour for me, as a politician who grew up under their aura, to have studied under them.

The name of the constituency I represent is Nelson-Creston, but we're a little bit parochial. We all feel really proud of the community we live in, so depending on where I am at the time, I have been known to refer to it as Kaslo-Creston or Nakusp-Creston or Slocan-Creston. It keeps the people a little more cheerful that way.

This area has been represented by some fine people in the past. There was Wes Black, a Social Credit member, of course. He was Provincial Secretary in 1958. He did a wonderful thing in 1958: he became a founding member of the board of directors of the Kootenay School of Art. I want to allude to that later.

Next was a man who represented just half of the constituency, but it's the rural half and the half I live in: Bill King. Bill King is one of the most wonderful people I've ever met in my life; a person who took me door-to-door five years ago and then again last year to help me get this job; a person who said to me: "Corky, listen. I have at least one piece of advice: don't say anything until you know your way around." Through the Speaker, to the TV, to Bill -- if he ever sees this -- I would just say that if I didn't have to, Bill, I would have waited.

Lorne Nicolson was minister of housing during the last NDP government and our MLA in Nelson-Creston. During his term in government, Kootenay School of Art and Notre Dame University formed DTUC.

Lastly, of course, is the gentleman I lost to by 27 votes five years ago, a gentleman I met in honourable political combat across many towns and regional district boards, and a person I came to know as well as any of you: Howard Dirks. I won't describe Howard's role in the life of the university.

I want to talk a little bit about the shape of Nelson-Creston. Nelson-Creston is mountains and lakes. It is not the biggest constituency, as we heard about Bulkley Valley-Stikine, and it is not crowded with the most different kinds of settlements, as the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet explained. Nelson-Creston is an area which is described with a word that sociologists, foresters and geographers all use. It's not unusual for foresters and sociologists to use the same word. They describe old timber and old governments with the same word: decadent. They describe Nelson-Creston with the word complex, and it certainly is complex. The landforms.... The Slocan Valley, for instance, was once described in a speech by a member of the Forest Service as the steepest average land in continuous use by industry anywhere in British Columbia. That makes it tough to manage. That means the rain falls and the soil will move. It also means that a wonderful kind of people want to live in that kind of place.

If you start from Creston and you try to travel through my constituency, you have to go up one side of Kootenay Lake to the villages of Boswell, Gray Creek, Crawford Bay and Riondel. Then you have to get on the 

[ Page 178 ]

world's longest free ferry. Thank you, hon. Minister of Transportation, for maintaining the world's longest free ferry. You cross by this ferry and come to Nelson, and then you move up the other side of the lake to Balfour, Kaslo and Meadow Creek. Then you travel halfway across another set of mountains, and you get to Trout Lake. I want to mention Trout Lake here for all you folks, because you're going to hear about it. This is the village that we left out when we built the biggest hydroelectric projects in North America, which we call the Columbia River Treaty. These people living in the middle of these dams have no electricity to light their homes when they go home at night. You cross the rest of the mountains, and you get to the Arrow Lakes, Nakusp, Burton and Fauquier. Then you get on another ferry, cross another lake, and you get to Edgewood. Then you travel halfway up another set of mountains, the Monashee, and you get to the end of my constituency. Travelling south from Nakusp you come to Hills, New Denver, Silverton, Slocan, Winlaw -- Winlaw, of course, is where I live -- Vallican and South Slocan. Then you get another ferry, go across the Kootenay River to Glade, and you come to the end of my constituency. With two-and-a-half mountain ranges, four ferries and a couple of major lake systems, it is truly complex.

Into this land have come, over the ages, a fine and a brave people. First the native people -- those of the Kootenay language group, Kootenay Lake and east. They are a people so ancient that their language is different from other native peoples of British Columbia. The Arrow Lakes people, who lived in the Arrow Lakes drainage, were so decimated by smallpox and the diseases of the Anglo-Saxon people that they were declared extinct, and a plaque was put up in their memory, while truly they were only scattered and living with other peoples.

In 1891 in my constituency, a wonderful thing happened for the rest of British Columbia and for us too. Silver was discovered on Payne Mountain near Sandon. Sandon and Silverton exploded with people. We had a hard job to do. We had to dig the ore to earn the money that would allow the people of B.C. to build this building six years later in 1897. Those miners were not the kind of cowboy exploiters who come into an area to get rich quick; they were working people from eastern Canada and Europe. In Sandon, they created Canada's first workers' manifesto. In Silverton was the birth of the eight-hour-day movement that made it so that the rest of the workers in B.C. got a fair shake. I am proud of the political history of these people.

Mountains are good for other things too. They're good places for people to be hidden by their governments when their governments find them to be an embarrassment. Such was the case in the Kootenays when the government of Canada decided on March 14, 1942, to move the Japanese people into what is now my constituency, where they stayed until April 1, 1949. Some remain today out of love for the land, if not the act.

It is also good in the mountains for people who wish to hide from governments, and so came the Doukhobor people. On October 16, 1912, some 5,000 Russian people came from oppression on the other side of an ocean and ill treatment on the Prairies, looking for a home. There they remain today, to our great gladness. And also to the mountains looking for another chance came the Quaker people, who have taught me to call members of the opposition "friend." The Quaker people were escaping the McCarthy era down south and migrated to the north end of Kootenay Lake in 1952. And other people came, hon. Speaker: the war resisters of the Vietnam era and the urban refugees fleeing overcrowding and a society they found distasteful -- all through history from the time of the remittance people to today.

I want to talk a little about the economics that those people have found there. Other MLAs have stood up -- I've heard them day after day here -- and talked about the problem of growth: 4 percent growth, 5 percent growth; some people talked about 6 percent growth. And for sure, ever since the astronauts went up in the sky, looked down and took a picture, we understand that the earth is finite and growth is not the panacea that economists and politicians once thought it was. We understand now, with what we're learning about the ozone layer, that growth may in fact be killing us. But hon. Speaker, you've got to have a little bit of growth.

In the Kootenays, growth has never been our problem. Our problem in fact is plunder, and plunder is also difficult to deal with. The previous government -- the previous administration by whatever name -- served here from 1976 to 1991. B.C. was divided up by the previous Premier into eight development regions, so that he could call them by name and quantify them. They did studies of those eight development regions. Well, only one region in that 14 years of the previous administration's reign over British Columbia had six years of negative growth, and that was the Kootenays.

First they came and took out the money for ore. They built this building, they built Spokane and they built Tacoma. They built cities all over western North America and left us with ghost towns. Then they signed the Columbia River Treaty -- I'll get to that in a minute -- and then they came in in the sixties, the seventies and the eighties with dream money from the federal government and third-band timber from the previous administration. They built the great monopoly forest companies that destroyed the free enterprise that folks opposite talk about, and made us all work for the man or for no one at all. Then they logged until there was hardly anywhere left to go. And lastly, when they had the ore and the water and the power and the trees, they came back in and took the university.

In 1961, hon. Speaker, B.C. signed the Columbia River Treaty. We were promised all sorts of things. The people of the Columbia River drainage were promised parks, roads, electricity and taxes; they were promised schools and hospitals and environmental action to mitigate the flooding, to replace the grazing and to replace the fisheries. What we got instead was order-in-council 1135. To the shame of the people of B.C., the people in this building passed a law that said that if it's on the Peace drainage or on the Columbia drainage, we will declare Hydro's activities tax-exempt. What we have now is the Arrow dam, the Pend d'Oreille, the Mica, the Seven Mile, the Kootenay Canal, the Revel-

[ Page 179 ]

stoke and the Duncan, and I might have forgotten some. They are all to provide flood control and power in the United States and cheap power elsewhere in British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, we don't even use the power when we turn on our lights, and we have received nothing in return. The lie that the governments told the people -- that they would at least get taxation from their major industrial user -- never turned out to be true. It's exactly the same as if we said to the people of Port Alberni that in order to get MacMillan Bloedel there we're going to make them tax-exempt." It's the same as if we said that in order to get office buildings in your constituencies in Vancouver we'll make them tax-exempt. We put our land under water to build this province, and we just want a little bit back now.

[1:00]

We have an uproar every day, and certainly where I live, this week. I will answer this weekend for the honourable and hard decisions we have to make about land use today. And why is that? Because for decades what we could do on the other side of the hill, we did it, and our government -- this government -- are the people who have to bring the logging back over the mountain where we can see it. As a person who has logged for just about 20 years I consider it honourable work. On the other hand, as maybe the only logger in this room with jaggers in his fingers from only six months ago, let me say the things that we did in that 20 years are sorrowful, and the working people know it best of all.

Let me talk a little bit about the university plunder. In 1950 Notre Dame was born. The people built it in Nelson, B.C. In 1958 the Kootenay School of the Arts was born, and again the people did it. No ministry sent it from this building to the Kootenays. The people created it because they loved their community. In 1975, under the previous NDP administration, those institutions -- Notre Dame and KSA -- were joined with Selkirk College and became DTUC, and they began to flourish and grow and became the hidden jewel of British Columbia.

And then, to our everlasting shame and anger, in 1984 -- for reasons I won't go into and have never understood -- for ideological reasons, a government of this place closed this university. When they closed that university there was a war going on in Lebanon, but they were running the university in Beirut. There was a war going on in El Salvador, but they ran the university in El Salvador. There was an ideological battle going on in British Columbia that required the government to stomp on the university in 1984 in Nelson.

We came -- the students and the people who cared; my daughter was a student at the time -- on buses, and we stood outside this building. The last time I was here It was to make a speech from these front steps on an incredibly sad day, asking the government to change its mind. David Barrett, who led my party at the time, came out on the front steps, and he took the microphone and said to those of us who were out there so full of enthusiasm: "Go home. You can't get your university back until we change the government." I was humiliated to be a New Democrat. I was sad. I wanted the man to say: "Sure, we'll tip over the walls. You can have your university back." But he said: "Go home. You have to change the government." True stuff is sometimes hard to hear when you're full of anger and you want action. But it was a true statement of reality. I just want to say, hon. Speaker, on behalf of all the people who were out there that day when Dave came to talk to us: by God, we're back, and this time we're better.

I want to talk a little about my function here. When Lorne Nicolson announced his retirement in 1985 there were four folks who phoned me up at home and asked me if I would run for the nomination to try and get this job. Those folks were Bob Cunningham in South Slocan, Mae Scott in Creston, Isabella Johnson in Nelson, and Erling Johnson in Nakusp. Now you might have thought they were firebrands from the days of solidarity or people who stood on the steps with us when they closed the university. Not so. Not one of those four folks was under 60 at the time of Lorne's retirement.

We've got passionate people in the Kootenays, people like Colleen McCrory from the environmentalists' side. Jack Munro ran for office once where I live -- from the other side. But the people who asked me to run for the nomination were from neither of those camps. They were the people of the CCF era, the pre-Columbia River Treaty era. They were the people who remembered politics when it was a rural kind of thing. It wasn't on television; it was in a community hall. You sat down and talked about it, tried to figure out what you wanted and put your arguments forward. People who wanted me to try and make the arguments of place some day in this building.... They took seven years. In terms of growing up in the meantime, some would say that it was a good thing.

Mae Scott is no longer alive. I want to be faithful to those folks, both living and not living, and to their objectives in putting my name forward. I want to continue to raise the politics of place in this building.

I've no idea how much longer I'm allowed to talk. Please wave to me when you think I'm getting near the end. I had a plan for keeping track, but as you can see, I've lost track of the plan.

Hon. Speaker, our area is doing better now. This is no longer 1984. This government is going to put forward recycle-and-reuse legislation that is going to get the brewery and bottle line going again in Creston.

We are supporting farmers. I am so pleased to be part of a government that cares about people growing things to feed this country. When we get all our food from Chile or the state of Washington, this will no longer be a country.

Nakusp, which was smashed by the ideological objectives of Westar and the people who directed Westar -- who I shall not name -- is starting to come back to life, because this Forests minister said: "I'm not going to allocate timber resources out of my pocket or out of my office anymore." He sent a commission of folks like me to ask the people who sent us here what they want. I think the people of Nakusp are going to get back to work soon and will be treated like fine people again.

The city of Nelson is growing again, and I think it's a tribute to those people who were beaten down with the 

[ Page 180 ]

closure of their sawmill and plywood plant. Then B.C. Tel left town, and 30 percent of the government workers were ripped out. Then they closed the university. The people of Nelson have risen again and sent me here, and it is to their honour.

Life is changing everywhere, not just in the Kootenays. In the time of the withering away of the last government here, there was a withering away of communism in the Soviet Union. I don't know if anybody ever says Karl Marx's name in this place, but it turned out that he was right: the state withered away. There has been a withering away in the Kootenays of that ideological big-company idea represented by BCRIC and Westar. The big companies are leaving, and those that we are left with now are the Canadian companies without footloose capital who have to stay, and I'm glad of that.

Events like the withering away of the decision-making process in this country, which created stuff like Meech Lake, I believe signal the end of the dinosaur era in politics in B.C., and maybe all over the world: the dinosaur era of centralized planning, when people thought they could be in buildings like this or in highrises in Vancouver and decide what's best for people; the dinosaur era, when ideologically driven decisions took precedence over common sense in community halls; the dinosaur era of big science and the people who thought they could power a civilization with nuclear power or by flooding a civilization in the Columbia River system; the dinosaur era that was the patriarchal system, be it at the Fraser Institute, the politburo or 11 men in a room in Ottawa.

In the 1970s, hon. Speaker, I was a proponent -- I even made Bill King's and Bob Williams's life miserable on occasion -- of local control. I thought it was a good idea if rural people got to decide a little bit about the resource use where they live. In the eighties I got buffeted by some of the land use questions, such as the Valhalla Park and watershed issues, and I wasn't so sure what I thought about local control, because big companies can push people around in resource towns. I want to tell you here, through you people in this room, that the time since I got elected has put me back a decade or two, and now I am convinced that the decisions we make here, while honourable and duly discussed and as reasonable as we can make them be, have a hard time coming close to the kinds of decisions we make where the people are and the resources are. I hope that our job here will be to use our power to elevate their power.

If I've got a few more minutes, I want to talk a bit more about mountains. Besides being gorgeous to look at and full of ore, mountains hide secrets, too, hon. Speaker. A couple of the secrets of the dinosaur era, of the patriarchy, of a time that I hope is past, we have experienced where I live. It seems to me that the secrets of my generation that I hope we don't pass on to Philip's are the secrets of sexual abuse and abuse of the land. In the little mountain towns where I live, it has been possible in the past to get away with some horrible abuses of people and of the earth. I was thrilled -- I am thrilled -- to be part of a government that says we're going to fund women's centres, not so they can fix everything, but so they can stand up and tell the truth. I'm proud to be part of a government that says we're going to change the laws surrounding sexual abuse, so that whenever the truth can be known, people can be brought to trial.

And I am proud, hon. Speaker, to be part of a government that says the line-ministry system failed, monopoly capital failed, and forest use is now going to have to come out of the closet and into the open. End the secrets. End the logging in the back drainages, and create Stephen Owen and CORE to report publicly to the people in this room and to the people of B.C. what we have hidden for so long. I think it's going to make it harder to be this government than the last government or the government before, because it's easier to be in public life when the abuses that we do are in secret. But I am proud to be part of these people who say that they will tough out reality, they will tell the truth, and the people will fix the problem.

Hon. Speaker, when I first started working in B.C. I was a longshoreman, and I wasn't stupid. I realized that the person with the best job on the boats was a first-aid attendant, so I went to school and got a first-aid ticket. I was a first-aid attendant in Cowichan Bay and Chemainus, Copper Canyon, Nanaimo and the Kootenays. What we were taught by the fine people who taught us that trade, was that there were three things you've got to do when you find a person who has been wounded, or an area of the province that has been plundered, or a province that has been beaten. First, you've got to get the patient out of danger. You have to stop the hemorrhage. Second, you've got to put the body at rest. And third, hon. Speaker, you don't hire a brain surgeon; you let the body heal itself.

I'd like to suggest that in the next four years, or maybe even the next eight -- I almost said God willing, but it's the voters willing -- we've got to stop the hemorrhage in wealth in those areas that the cities have always plundered in this province. To me, that means deal with the B.C. Hydro issue. To me, it means stop the pullout of the railroads and the turning of the highway system into an industrial corridor for industry. Stop the death of the fishery in those lakes that we've turned into deserts -- and on and on.

First, we get the patient out of danger. We deal with the disasters that are happening now. Second, we've got to put the patient at rest, and to me that means stuff like CORE, like Stephen Owen, like annual allowable cut reductions for the first time in the years that I've worked in the forests in B.C. That's going to put the patient at rest so that we can deal with the problem. Put the patient at rest -- like funding women's centres, dealing with child protection legislation and allowing the people to feel safe where they live. Put the patient at rest -- like stabilizing the orchard industry so that, try as we might, we don't end this mandate with the farmers gone, whether we liked it or not. Put the patient at rest -- like stabilizing the agriculture industry. Obviously I think putting the patient at rest means returning what was stolen. Return our art school and our university. Give back what was taken away.

[1:15]

[ Page 181 ]

Lastly, we don't want any Coquihalla. We don't want any presents in a box, any northeast coal or any steel mill. We don't want this government, or any government, or Murray Pezim, or a bank.... We do not want any bag of money, pot of power, or ideologically driven decision-making process to solve our problems. We want to let the communities decide what is good for the communities. We want to let the patient heal itself. Thank you so much.

Hon. A. Hagen: My intention in beginning my remarks as the last speaker in this very important debate is to say that we have passed our first milestone. I think that all of us have recognized that that milestone has been epitomized by the member from Nelson-Creston, who has spoken, with more passion than any of us has been able to bring to this chamber in our initial speeches of this new parliament, of his values, beliefs and commitment to his community and his constituency.

The first time I ever heard that speaker was at a policy conference in one of the communities in his riding. It's a wonderful community that I know and love well -- the community of Creston. He moved me to tears with his discussion about our home and our responsibility to our home. Although there are not tears at this time, there is a recognition of that passion and commitment. The fundamental message that the member has given to all of us at this time is that each of us makes a difference, that each of us represents community and that each of us in this place and in this province has a very important and fundamental task that is the hallmark of change, of a new beginning and a new government.

This week the public has been getting to know us, and although television is relatively new for the House, I'm pleased that people are able not only to read about us and perhaps hear us with clips, but to see each and every one of us and get a sense of who we are as a group of people, and a sense of the feeling here as 48 new people assemble for the first time in this parliament.

This is a unique body of legislators. It is unique in many ways. It is unique because we have a new government for the first time in many years. It's unique because within the government benches we have elected the largest number of women and the largest group of people representing the multicultural, ethnic and religious diversity of our land in history. I believe that there sit in this House at this time as many women as have gone before in all the history of this House. Sixteen of them sit on the government benches; three of them sit in the official opposition. As a member of that gender, I want us to celebrate our presence, our numbers and our role for each and every one of us.

Hon. Speaker, you also occupy in that galaxy a very unique and special position, which we honour for the chair that you sit in, for what you represent, for this place, and also for the fact that it is only the second time in our history that a woman Speaker is in the chair. And I would note, too, that it is significant that your Deputy Speaker is a black person, a member of the black community. And again, referring to that member for Vancouver-Burrard, we have a representative of that multicultural community.

I was moved by the prayer this morning from the hon. member for Vancouver-Fraserview, a prayer that reflects his culture and language. So whether of colour or nationality or ethnicity or creed, we are representing in this place the diversity of our nation, our land, our province. It is something for us to be proud of and to work on so that we are indeed as broadly representative as possible here -- and in how we speak for those communities. And I, as a member of the executive council of the cabinet of the new government, am very proud of the roles that I and my women colleagues fill. And I am proud that I also have associations with the men of our executive council and of our caucus.

It is traditional during one's first speech in a new parliament to speak of one's riding, and I have a great deal of pride in speaking of mine, for reasons that are special and unique. My riding is the only riding in this House of 75 members now that has elected consistently, since the time when the Social Credit Party became "the coalition" -- a new coalition out of old coalitions in 1952 -- CCF and New Democrat members. And on June 12 of this year we will celebrate the fortieth anniversary of that proud history. On June 13 we're having a party -- very well timed, I might note.

And I want to pay tribute to the people who have gone before. There have not been many members. There has been in my riding of New Westminster the kind of stability that we want to have in our House as well. In 1952 Rae Eddie defeated the Premier of the province, Byron Johnson, a Liberal and member of the Coalition. He was known as "Boss" Johnson affectionately in my riding. Rae served for 17 years. He was a quiet, self-effacing constituency man, who was loved by the people of his riding. It's interesting that Rae's daughter, Linda Baker, is now the principal secretary to our Premier. She learned the trade in her family, and she has stayed committed to the principles and values of the New Democratic Party since that time. My immediate predecessor and valued colleague, mentor and friend is Dennis Cocke, who still has a reputation in this province as the best Health minister this province ever had. That is no reflection on the current holder of that particular important cabinet position. Dennis served his constituency both as cabinet minister and as a member for my riding for 17 years with dedication and practical commitment, particularly to the fundamental value of our health care system. Dennis's role both as the Health minister and as the critic in that field has earned him a reputation of being one of the most effective spokespeople, analysts and supporters of our universal health care system.

Spanning 40 years, my riding of New Westminster has elected people who come from a value system that speaks to the way in which communities can work together. Although, hon. member for Nelson-Creston, you come from a rural riding, I come from a small town in the midst of a very large urban area -- one of the largest in Canada. It is a town that once was the capital of the province, a town that still has only 40,000 people in a sea of close to a million, and a town where we know how to work together to achieve ends that we believe 

[ Page 182 ]

are important for the workers, the citizens, the children and the seniors who live there.

I want also to note that my constituency has found a place for women over its history that I want to acknowledge. We are the only community in Canada that has a woman MLA; a woman Member of Parliament, Dawn Black, with her predecessor Dr. Pauline Jewett -- both of them colleagues of mine during my term of office -- and a woman mayor, Mayor Betty Toporowski. We have a woman superintendent of schools and a woman who is the city clerk. In fact, in that small town we have achieved many of the balances that we seek in our province, in terms of our working relationships and our representation of community. We need, in my town and in other communities, to see a more diverse face that represents the new face of our province, in terms of our multicultural community. I believe all of us have goals toward that end.

So without further ado, hon. Speaker, let me just say I celebrate my riding, and I celebrate the opportunity to work with my community.

I conclude my comments about that riding with the note that by virtue of one of the early decisions of our government, we have seen a very good public policy decision very quickly manifested, in that the Justice Institute will soon be relocating to New Westminster. I believe the decision around the Justice Institute represents the way in which good public policy is made. The Justice Institute itself planned, consulted and worked around looking for an ideal location that would serve the 25,000 people who use the Justice Institute for police training and firefighter training, and ambulance workers, paramedics and the many other people who work in justice administration. They were persistent, in spite of efforts of the previous government to turn that decision into a decision that was made in the back rooms without consultation and without due process. They were persistent in waiting to be sure that the whole process could see the light of day and be reviewed, and that we could see a decision made that would make certain that the purpose-built facility would be in a place that would serve its clients best. I'm most happy that the decision placed that particular institution in its future in my riding. We welcome it -- the community school board, city council, chamber of commerce and user groups who worked diligently to ensure that a good public policy decision was made. That represents what I want to make the theme of my final comments on the throne speech: the statement of the plan of this government as it begins its early work in its term of office.

I'm indebted to my colleague the first Women's Equality minister in the country for the theme of my comments about our government. She said the other day when asked about the work she was doing in her ministry: "Day by day we are making strides toward equality, support and opportunity for women." I believe that the work of our government can best be epitomized by that theme of "day by day." Since we were first elected, day by day, week by week, we have made decisions that are affecting the lives of people in our province, that are making changes that people told us they wanted us to make, as the government they had sought for so many years after the distress and disarray of the previous government. Day by day, week by week, we are moving toward making change in this province and through this House. I want to just talk about a few of those changes. There are many that we could refer to. Because I've used the words "day by day" of my hon. colleague the Women's Equality minister, I want to start in that domain.

[1:30]

One of the most important tasks we have with respect to women is to deal with the issue of economic fairness for women, of pay equity and pay equality. We have seen already, even before legislation has come before the House, the government taking initiatives that have brought the first steps toward pay equity -- in one agreement that is complete, the BCIT agreement, and in two other agreements in the process of completion. We know, as we look at those agreements which have been facilitated by our government, that although the task will take us some time, it is moving ahead at a speed and with an effect that are important for the women in those particular workplaces who are receiving those first manifestations of pay equity.

I want to comment, too, about the work of the Women's Equality ministry in funding 28 women's centres. Those centres are, as my colleague from Nelson-Creston noted, a heartbeat and a core for the women in the communities in which they are found, whether it's Campbell River or Nelson, Kamloops or Prince George or the downtown east side. They are places that provide information and direction for women in their communities, a haven, and they're run by volunteers who now are able to deal with the broad range of issues that are important to women in communities. There's a bit of a time warp in those communities as to what the needs are. The important thing is that each of those centres is based in a community, with the needs of the people of that community very much to the fore and the core. And by core funding, as the minister has announced, we are ensuring that they can get on with meeting training needs or other resource needs of those women.

There are many other areas where we have worked toward support, fairness and economic equality for women, and I particularly want to refer to the work of the Minister of Social Services and the Minister of Health, who are looking at access and programs that will support women in the very nature of their being as childbearers, as people who are supporters of families and who often need assistance. We are indeed, as a government, working with communities. We are using the ideas and pilot projects of communities to guide us in the work that we do.

In my own ministry, we have taken two very early initiatives. One is designed to act against the effects of poverty in communities around the province: the school meal program. I want to pay credit to groups like End Legislated Poverty and to the school districts of Nanaimo, Vancouver, Victoria and Surrey, which have piloted programs for school meals out of the initiatives of those communities. What we have done is to provide the dollars and the framework for them to develop their own programs in consultation with their own commu-

[ Page 183 ]

nities to meet the needs of those communities. It's the beginning. It's a start in a program that we know needs to be expanded.

A second initiative in my ministry that I am very pleased we were able to move on so quickly is the issue of immigrant settlement grants. I have seldom seen so many letters of satisfaction with the work that the ministry people have done in getting those grants approved so that people in many parts of the province can provide services targeted to youth, women and families. One of the good things about that program is that it provides for services in every region of the province: in Kamloops-Cariboo for English as a second language and for special family life education; in the riding of my colleague from Social Services, programs targeted to youth who are at risk; in the riding of the Minister of Government Services, the beginning of a program on counselling services for immigrant youth and families; for communities in Vancouver, where we have large and umbrella organizations, support for some of those fine groups who have done so much work in training, English language support, counselling, and help for youth and families -- organizations like MOSAIC, SUCCESS, Immigrant Services; there are too many to mention. These are grass-roots initiatives that tap into literally hundreds and thousands of volunteer hours and into the commitment of people aiming to ensure that those new to our land or those not yet fully participant in the economy or their society get the support they need.

I could speak about some of the initiatives that have happened in the environment and resource communities of our province, but I couldn't begin to do that nearly so effectively as the member before me who spoke with such passion about our need to preserve, conserve, develop and use wisely our resources -- be they fish, agriculture, forests or mines. He brought the perspective of participation, of working within local communities, of ensuring that people are fully informed of the decisions that we're taking and advise us members of government what those decisions should be. We are talking here about a word that's much overused, but a word that as coin of the realm we need to give a new credence to. That is the word "partnership." It is the variety of ways in which we as people work together in coalitions, in collaboration, in community groups and in consensus-building. Those tasks are complex. They are ones that need to address the possibility of conflict and differences of view.

I believe that within this chamber we have already seen that demonstrated in our constitutional discussions -- which the member for Vancouver-Hastings referred to this morning -- where members of the government, the opposition and the third party sides of the House have worked together in dealing with this very contentious and important topic. There is probably nothing that grabs us more than our sense as Canadians of what the future of our land is. There's nothing, I believe, in spite of the difficulties that we have had in arriving at a sense of direction and vision, that is closer to the hearts of people than this land that we as Canadians call home -- and which many people have chosen to call home -- because of what it stands for in terms of freedom, opportunity and the right of every person to be valued in his or her own way.

That particular working relationship has also been manifested by working relationships among the House Leaders, and those are auspicious working relationships that have been open and participatory. I for one, who sat as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services for three years as an opposition member -- never to have the committee meet except to elect a Chair -- am looking forward to the opportunity of tapping the expertise, vision, energy and ideas of every member of the House through that committee system. I believe it is a means by which we can demonstrate to the people of the province the ways in which this House can work and how we can work together for the betterment of our land.

The New Democratic Party was elected to bring change to this place, to the face of government and to the work that we do. It is a challenge and a task that I know every single person on this side of these benches has taken as a mantle, a challenge, an opportunity and a commitment. I know the people on this side of the House much better than I know the opposition, because the opposition is all new. The other party I know. Small though they are and somewhat chastened, they are as experienced as we are.

We on this side of the House are a group which brings an incredible array of perspectives, talent and commitment to our work. I want to say, as Deputy Premier and Minister of Education, that I have welcomed the opportunity to work with many of these members on issues in relation to their ridings. I know that now the House is in session, that opportunity will be the greater for members on the other side of the House as well, and we need to develop those kinds of links and working relationships.

This government has as its task the restoration of confidence that we can govern in the interests of the people of the province. Day by day, week by week for the past four and a half months, we have been doing that. As we look at the list of our accomplishments, at the moves that we have made incrementally in changing the lives of women and children, families and communities, in looking at our resources and how we can best deal with those, in opening up government through participation -- whether it's each of us talking to our constituent groups, whether it's a group such as Stephen Owen's Commission on Resources and Environment, whether it's studies that look at challenges and problems that we have with opportunity for input from workers around the province.... Whatever the process is, this government has opened the doors. We have laid things out as they are and have begun to develop what will be our mandate and tasks for the months and years ahead. It is a task that all of us recognize is of fundamental importance to the future of our people and our land. Our throne speech has given a sense of direction for the task ahead of us for the next several months.

I anticipate that at various times our debate will be heated and spirited. It is taking a while for that to happen, but I'm sure that it's coming in the days and 

[ Page 184 ]

weeks ahead. I look forward to those working relationships where we can share perspectives. I look forward to those where we will, in fact, have differences of view. But we will come to decisions that we believe are in the best interests of our province and the people of the province.

The task before us is challenging, made more so because we have inherited government when there has been great disillusionment coming from the former government and when our resources, our legacy of wealth, has been squandered. In spite of that, we are where we are. As a people, we all own and share that problem, and we have a task to do.

Hon. Speaker, it's time to close debate. I do so now with great pride in the direction that my government has set. I wish to inform you that with my comments I close debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. T. Perry: I made an error inadvertently this morning in introducing young David Savitt as his father, Prof. Steven Savitt; in fact, he's David. He's a very bright student who's going on to university, leading the way for British Columbians next year. I wanted to set the record straight. Thank you to members opposite for their indulgence.

[1:45]

The Speaker: The Deputy Premier has closed debate, and it now being the hour of 15 minutes before adjournment, I would now put the question to the members on the motion, which I will read as follows: "...that the following address be presented to his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: 'We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of this present session'."

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: Just before I move adjournment, by agreement, the House will not be sitting tomorrow morning. We will convene at 2 o'clock.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:47 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada