[ Page 185 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In the gallery today we have a person who is extremely well-respected in the community of people with disabilities. She is a tireless worker on behalf of that community as well as the women's community. I'd like the House to please welcome Margaret Birrell.

G. Farrell-Collins: I didn't notice Ms. Birrell in the gallery, but I too would like to welcome her. She was a formidable opponent in the last election, and I was glad to have had her as an opponent. I'd also ask the House to make her welcome on my behalf.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee of Selection for the first session of the thirty-sixth parliament. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call, for the first time, private members' statements.

J. Pullinger: I'm sure all members of this Legislature were as moved as I was yesterday when my colleague the member for Vancouver-Burrard stood in this House and asked the House to send a message of greetings and welcome to the 15,000 people who will be gathering in Vancouver this coming week to participate in the eleventh International Conference on AIDS. I was very moved, and I'm very pleased that my colleague did that.

I am equally pleased that the members opposite endorsed the request that came from this side of the House. That clearly says that members in this chamber are aware of the importance of HIV-AIDS, the importance of this conference and the importance of the work that the delegates at the conference will be doing over the next week. After 15 years of knowing about HIV-AIDS, I think most people in British Columbia and, I hope, across the country and the continent have become aware of the personal and social tragedy of this disease -- the cost to all of us.

Fighting and beating HIV-AIDS, in my view and, I think, in the view of increasing numbers of people, has become one of the biggest and most important challenges that we face, certainly in this decade and perhaps for much longer than that. One of the tragedies -- and I think more people recognize this all the time -- of HIV-AIDS in the early years particularly, has been the failure of some parts of our society, particularly some of the leaders and politicians in our society, to recognize and treat this disease with the seriousness that it merits. We have seen denial in the past and still, sadly, see some today. We see finger-pointing and we see blame, where we ought to be seeing compassion, careful attention and an intense collective effort to work together to do whatever is necessary to fight against this disease and to win.

The most inappropriate response that I have seen, and the most shameful -- I think we'd all agree -- is by those who have treated HIV-AIDS as a moral issue rather than as the serious health issue that it is. I think the response in the Legislature yesterday underscores the fact that we have made significant progress as a society in dealing with this issue.

Let me remind members in this House and people watching today that only a few short years ago, in the late 1980s, we wouldn't have been able to send such a message. It simply wouldn't have happened -- not from this Legislature. We couldn't have sent a message like that, because in the late 1980s there was a significant number of members in this Legislature -- happily, I'm proud to say, not in our caucus -- who indeed saw AIDS as a moral issue rather than a health issue. They saw those who fell victim to AIDS as people to be judged, not people who were ill and who need to be treated and supported.

Today we've come a long way, and we're recognizing that AIDS is in fact a serious health problem here, across the country and around the world. We have learned more about this disease, and as we have done so, we've begun to understand that AIDS is not someone else's problem. It's our problem, and therefore we need to deal with it as our problem.

The theme of the eleventh International Conference on AIDS in Vancouver reflects a relatively new widespread understanding of AIDS, and it reminds us of why so many people were so willing to travel such long distances to participate in the conference. I want to quote briefly what the conference organizers wrote about the theme they chose. I found this on the Internet, a wonderful 1990s tool. What the organizers of the conference wrote was this:

"We are one world, and we have one hope. All too often we dwell on the things that could divide us: the colours of our skin, our borders, our genders, our lifestyles, our sexual orientation, our areas of expertise. The simple words of the theme" -- of the conference: One World, One Hope -- "reinforce the image of the population of a planet working together to save themselves and their world, despite these differences."

The message concludes by saying:

"These simple words also articulate the singular goal or 'hope' of our global community -- to prevent and cure HIV-AIDS."

I am pleased to say that one of the participants in the fight against AIDS today, and in the conference, is the British Columbia government. That's good. Government should be a participant, should be a leader; we should be there. In fact, government must be there.

In the late 1980s, as I said, government was dragged kicking and screaming, but made some small steps. We saw about a million dollars and a very small public education program begin, but it wasn't without controversy. I think that we all ought to applaud those people in the communities who fought so bravely -- I don't think that is overstating it -- at a time when it was very, very difficult to do so, to raise the issue and to have it treated seriously, as it ought to be.

[ Page 186 ]

Because of their efforts, we did indeed make some small beginnings in British Columbia, and our government, I am pleased to say, has built on those modest beginnings in the fight against HIV and AIDS. Over the last four years, we have worked with the AIDS community -- everyone involved in the issue directly -- and consulted broadly, set priorities and come up with a comprehensive response. We are now looking at B.C.'s first-ever comprehensive AIDS strategy, which will provide British Columbians with a practical and appropriate response to AIDS as we move into the future. I will elaborate on that in my rebuttal.

[10:15]

The Speaker: In response, I recognize the member for Okanagan-Vernon.

A. Sanders: I stand to respond on behalf of the official opposition. Thank you, hon. member, for your valuable message concerning AIDS.

Twelve years ago, as a St. Paul's intern, I was first introduced to AIDS. St. Paul's Hospital is well known for its clinical expertise in medicine, and with the onset of a new and little-understood disease, the hospital quickly became a referral centre for AIDS- and HIV-related illnesses.

In 1985 the AIDS condition at St. Paul's did not hold much interest for me, as it was my intention to practise in a small town, and I thought HIV knowledge would be unnecessary there. St. Paul's and AIDS had much more in store for me than I had planned. There, at St. Paul's, I observed how medicine, culture, ethics, politics and much more became inextricably entwined in this skein called AIDS. I would spend my whole professional life trying to unravel that skein. At that time, I desperately wanted to see AIDS only as a doctor, not as a parent or a taxpayer, but the disease mocked that simplicity.

In 1985 AIDS was little known. It was, we believed, a disease of homosexuals, Haitians, hemophiliacs and heroin addicts. It was rare, fascinating, frightening and controversial. I spent one-third of my internship caring for AIDS patients. I was disappointed; I felt the knowledge I had gleaned about HIV was excessive for the small town where I would practise.

Today I thank St. Paul's, its patients and staff for my total immersion training in HIV. It was an experience that has profoundly changed my outlook. AIDS has refused to allow me to be able to see the world from one solitary point of view and to feel justified and safe. In 12 years I have seen this insignificant disease become epidemic. I've delivered newborns of HIV-positive moms and mourned their future. I've seen pensioners filled with hope after coronary-artery bypass, only to find themselves HIV-positive post-op from intra-operative blood transfusions. I've told an 18-year-old that she may need testing after an HIV-positive heterosexual contact. I've seen IV drug abusers get clean, only to find out several years later that they too have AIDS. And most personally, I have known of medical colleagues who are now HIV-positive after an accidental needle prick in an emergency room situation. I have mourned them all.

HIV has no respect for our boundaries. It will enter the lives of us all, and it will continue to do so regardless of our social class, gender, religion or politics. My biggest fear for my children has not been violence or disaster but the tragedy that is HIV, in the prime of their young lives.

Here in British Columbia we have the opportunity to host the eleventh International Conference on AIDS. I take great pride in this event and in the knowledge that many of the doctors from St. Paul's Hospital and from Vancouver are Canadian pioneers in the research and treatment of AIDS. They will represent us there for all the world to see.

The public often sees AIDS as the scourge of the century; others see it as a by-product of the sins of modern man. Although it is a tragic condition, I prefer to recognize the opportunity it has brought. You see, Mr. Speaker, AIDS is the lowest common denominator. It alone strips away the trappings of nationality, ethnicity, class, beliefs and politics, and it makes us all the same. With AIDS we are forced to acknowledge that what unites us must be greater than what divides us. There is a collective will among the 15,000 delegates in Vancouver to eradicate AIDS. Their solidarity results from the knowledge that many of our questions about preventing, managing and curing HIV lies in our ability to unite. It depends on the commitment of people and their nations to one another.

AIDS is a metaphor to remind this House over the next four years that the need for good health care research, for funding of appropriate medication for HIV, and for good health care must be sustained. Our goal as politicians in government or in the official opposition must be to never forget that funding health care is our most important responsibility.

J. Pullinger: I want to thank the member for Okanagan-Vernon for her comments. She made a number of the points that I've made as well, and very effectively. I think it's worth noting that while we sometimes have rather lively debate in this Legislature on the opposite sides of issues, this is one of those issues that we can in fact stand together on. I think that's significant, and I also think it's very important.

I simply want to conclude my comments by providing a little bit of detail about what our government has done in terms of changing how we deal with AIDS, beginning with attitude and moving well into action. As I alluded to, our government has worked in consultation with persons with AIDS, health care providers and many others in the community to bring to fruition British Columbia's first-ever provincial AIDS strategy. It is setting priorities, dealing with everything from traditional approaches to more individual support and responses, and with public education through a variety of means.

That is a wonderful, comprehensive response that is coordinated with the community and deals with interministerial coordination of programs and responses as well, which is very significant. As the member opposite alluded to, we have a centre of excellence for AIDS at St. Paul's Hospital. I think B.C. has moved from being dragged kicking and screaming into the fight against AIDS to being one of the leaders in the fight. We have the centre of excellence. We have increased funding dramatically, from just over $1 million to $7.4 million, which I believe was the figure last year. Funding organizations such as Positive Women, which is the only response agency or organization for women who have HIV in British Columbia.... So a number of those things have happened. I believe it was on April 26 of this year when B.C. was the first province to approve and provide funding through Pharmacare for the protease inhibitors, which may -- and I hope will -- make a significant difference in peoples' lives in the battle against AIDS.

One issue, though, that I think we have to be cognizant of and deal with very carefully -- and I hope that the members opposite will provide support -- is that research demonstrates clearly 

[ Page 187 ]

that racism, sexism and homophobia present significant barriers to the fight against HIV-AIDS. Our government in the last session made a number of changes to human rights legislation. Some of them were turned into arguments about freedom of speech, which was not an appropriate response, in my view. But I hope that we will have support from that side of the House -- and I'm sure we will -- in any further moves that we make on that issue. That is significant.

I may just conclude, on behalf of all of us, by saying thank you and congratulations to all those participating in the eleventh annual conference, to those who have fought so hard in the communities and at the grassroots to bring us where we are. One of the legacies of this conference will mean that we will have 5,000 people in the lower mainland who are educated about AIDS -- the people in our hotels and in our communities, sensitized to the issue -- and that's significant. I wish the conference success on behalf of all of us.

The Speaker: If I might, just before I recognize the next speaker, I remind members that the Chair is in the awkward position of having to enforce time constraints. What I try to do, of course, is to be evenhanded -- namely, if we allow one side extra time, we allow the other. But for future reference, can I ask everybody to please bear in mind that we are bound by orders that we only have a particular amount of time? It's seven, five and three minutes. So if members would please be guided by that, I'd appreciate it.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

T. Nebbeling: Let me start off-topic by first of all congratulating the member on bringing forward this important issue in a very non-partisan way, and the rebuttal was as such. I'm just thrilled to know that I can be part of sending a message throughout this province and to all the participants that indeed we are part of the team that will make AIDS a thing we all can live with. I think what we're doing here today is very important, to get that message out.

My topic today, I hope, is also going to be considered non-partisan. The reason is that I also want to talk about people who do need our support and help. I'm talking about the people living in the Fraser, Squamish and Lillooet timber supply areas -- the people who live and work in these areas.

During my maiden speech the members may recall that I briefly touched on the fact that I really am concerned about the veil of secrecy hanging over the land claim disputes that we see happening in this province. I feel, as I stated then, that indeed that veil of secrecy is leading to more and more people becoming suspicious rather than supportive of bringing these land claim disputes to a conclusion.

There is another area where I think there is a veil of secrecy that is really beginning to undermine much of the objectives that a particular initiative created by this government had intended to have, and that is the protected-areas strategy initiative. If we look back at what the protected-areas strategy initiative was to achieve, it was not only that we had to find a place for all species that inhabit the forest; it was not only the intent to create parkland so that the people of this province could enjoy our parks; it was not only to create biodiversity protection so that future generations would indeed have the benefit of this initiative. It was also intended to create a sense of certainty within the forest industry. It was also created to make sure the people who work in the forest industry in the long term had a feeling, now that we have set aside these lands for these particular species and for these particular purposes, that they could also look at land masses that in perpetuity would be available to them to fulfil their commitment to their families, and that is to provide them with a source of income on a long-term basis.

Since that time, we have seen many things happening as far as the protected-areas strategy is concerned. We have seen the creation of a committee that has made recommendations to the government that have added up to 13 percent of the land mass of the lower mainland now being considered as land to be protected under the protected-areas strategy. Within that 13 percent, there is indeed space and room for all these species I just mentioned that need protection. Is it the spotted owl? Is it the deer that needs its winter range? Is it agricultural elements, such as mushroom farming of specific mushrooms?

[10:30]

When I talk about all these elements that have found protection, there is one species that is still in doubt as to whether its security is assured in the long term, and that is the human species. It is the people who work on the farm and in the forest industry, the people who are looking for the same type of certainty the spotted owl has been given, the people who are wondering why they are not being asked to participate in the process.

That's the point I would like to make today in my statement. Just as there is a veil of secrecy around land claims, there is a veil of secrecy around how the committee that creates these special park areas comes to its conclusions -- why it has chosen certain land masses over other land masses. The workers in the industry are really concerned that there is more and more emphasis on taking old-growth forests, more and more emphasis on taking harvestable areas out of the....

Interjections.

T. Nebbeling: Madam Speaker, my own colleagues are having dialogues over there. Now I see smiles coming my way.

I think it is very important at this point to recognize that with the whole initiative of the protected-areas strategy, which had so much support from the industry and people working with industry, so many people are becoming extremely concerned that their well-being is not being considered. Added to that, right now we see tremendous pressure again from protectionist groups to go beyond the 13 percent. They're beginning to identify new land masses that we thought were safe for further harvesting purposes.

I would like to conclude by asking members of the House to take note that right now there are hundreds and thousands of people who are uncomfortable with what is happening with the protected-areas strategy. It's a strategy that should have been a benefit to this province, but it has slowly become an undermining element in the communities that rely on forest extraction. I hope we can start inviting these people, so that they no longer have to feel as if they are the forgotten people.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I recognize the hon. member for North Island. I will also draw everyone's attention to the lights on the desk here to help give you some guidance.

[ Page 188 ]

G. Robertson: Speaking to the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, I can understand his concern. As a logger of 24 years and as somebody from northern Vancouver Island, when the land use process first started in our area, I had a number of concerns about it. At this stage the land use plan is basically finished for Vancouver Island. They're wrapping up goal 2 now, and my understanding -- I live in the North Island -- is that we're quite pleased with it and that it's working extremely well.

Our government has made historic progress renewing our forests and bringing certainty to forest communities, workers and the industry. Before our government took office, a number of serious problems were confronting British Columbia's forestry sector. Land use conflicts were ongoing. We had a war in the woods; we had stoppage of work and great concern. Public confidence in the forest practices standards of our forest industry was being seriously eroded, both here in British Columbia and globally. There was great uncertainty about the sustainability of our timber harvest levels, and increasing concern that B.C.'s forest policy was no longer committed to ensuring the ongoing creation and maintenance of good jobs that sustain the communities throughout British Columbia.

Our government has taken important steps to meet these problems and to ensure that the long-term health of the forest industry remains strong. We've created a forest land reserve that includes more than 15 million hectares of secured forest land base for the forest industry. It brings long-term certainty to the industry. We brought in regional land use planning, which involves all elements of the community and strikes a balance between environmental protection and logging. Our resource board on northern Vancouver Island has quite a combination of people on it. It has a good balance, and it's working very well in conjunction with government. We have great community participation on that, and the more it goes on the better it works and the better understanding we have of it.

We brought in the timber supply review. Our government initiated the long-overdue comprehensive review of B.C.'s timber supply, which has gone a long way in matching the timber harvest to the long-term available supply. It was very clear to us in the industry that this was a very necessary step if we were going to continue to have a bright and strong forest industry sector in British Columbia.

The Forest Practices Code ensures that British Columbia's forest practices are managed according to the highest standards in the world. For the first time, logging companies are accountable to the public for responsible forest practices in the public forests. I've participated in joint environmental-industry groups. We've done audits, and I can assure you that the people who work in our woods are very pleased with the Forest Practices Code.

We've also brought in Forest Renewal B.C., which is doing a lot of great work. This year there will be $92 million put into watershed restoration, which is good news for our fish, and there will be a lot of work created. We look forward to bringing in the jobs and timber accord with industry, to strike a balance between timber and jobs. Hopefully, we'll be looking at another 2l,000 jobs in the next five years.

In conclusion, hon. Speaker, our government has made historic progress in bringing certainty to forests, communities, workers and the industry. Our government has ended the valley-by-valley conflicts that, under the previous government, threatened the viability of the forest industry and the future of B.C.'s forests. We've established B.C.'s reputation in world markets as a leader in sustainable, responsible resource management in this province. Through Forest Renewal B.C. we are ensuring that British Columbia's future as a world leader is ensured by investing in sustainable forest practices and silviculture; restoration of our streambeds and roads; and secure, good-paying, family-supporting jobs, supporting forest-land-based communities.

Certainty in our forests will be a reality with our government, and we look forward to working with all the members in this House to make sure that continues in a very positive way.

T. Nebbeling: I'm surprised that the member responding already had two and a half pages of rebuttal ready before he knew what I was going to talk about. I'll try to respond to what he said, not having notes.

There are a couple of things that I think the member missed in his prepared rebuttal. I'm not talking about the well-being and the benefits of all the various other initiatives that we have seen being created by the government since 1991. I'm talking about what is lacking because of all these initiatives, and I'm talking in particular.... What the member seems to have a different experience with is the element of allowing communities to speak up and participate in the process: not how to manage the forest land but what lands to exclude. That's the problem with the protected-areas strategy. It excludes a vast amount of land from being part of the forest reserve.

I'll give you one example of what creates that uncertainty. It is the issue of the spotted owl. The member knows about the spotted owl, no doubt -- although they are not on the Island. Once in a while somebody goes into the woods and comes out with a big smile on his or her face and says: "You know what? I think I heard I a spotted owl." Immediately the protectionist organizations are there to jubilantly enjoy that moment with that individual who's heard, once again, a spotted owl. Immediately the government, through the Ministry of Environment together with the Ministry of Forests, establishes a new so-called spotted owl conservation area, thereby taking, again, harvestable timber out of an area that was intended to be in the reserve for timber harvesting.

That is the uncertainty that I'm talking about. All the initiatives of the Forest Practices Code, B.C. Forest Renewal.... They're great, but if the lands have been taken out of the forest reserve, they will not apply to that.

That is the problem and the reason that I once again ask the government to listen and allow the voices and the knowledge of the people who work and who live in the forests to be part of the decision-making before the protected-areas strategy committee's recommendations are adopted. That's what I'm asking today, Madam Speaker.

I. Waddell: I rise to speak today on the Fraser River. The Fraser River was called, by former Premier Mike Harcourt, the heart and soul of this province. When you look at some of the tributaries, like the Nechako and the Thompson and others coming into it, it is still the world's greatest salmon-producing river, and we want to keep it that way.

I was there, luckily, at the side of a young fellow called Fin Donnelly, from Coquitlam, who a year ago -- last September, actually -- was up at T�te Jaune Cache when he went in, 

[ Page 189 ]

near Valemount in the Rockies. I was there that morning, and it was so beautiful. It was cold and clear, and the salmon were flapping in the river. It was the way a river should be.

Luckily, I was able to be with the Minister of Environment at Prince George, when Fin came into Prince George. He was swimming the river -- 1,325 kilometres. He had just come through the pulp mill effluent, and he was feeling that a little bit. We were there with Mayor Greg Halsey-Brandt and other people from federal and provincial governments when he arrived in Richmond, and all the kids were there, cheering him. It was a great feat, because the young people realize how important this river is to British Columbia. The question is: can we sustain this great river and its basin for future generations? Every high school kid will tell us about the notion of sustainability.

The Fraser Basin Management Board was set up about four years ago by politicians who were very farsighted, including one of the founders, the Leader of the Opposition, who, I'm pleased to say, understands this area. I see this as a non-partisan area. The board included federal, provincial, municipal, high levels of the civil service, and elected municipal members. They got first nations involved, and six members from the general public, for a 19-member board. That's unique in Canada. As a former chair of the board, I've learned that the real challenge of government, when you get out of this House, is to get government cooperating within departments, from department to department, from federal, provincial and municipal, and so on -- not to mention the new challenge of working with first nations government. This is the real challenge of modern government, and the board had to face that.

The board's mandate was to report on the Fraser River and its basin, and the board came up with a report card. It was a great idea. There are millions of government reports, and I ask you: how many reports do you read every year from the government? But you read your kid's report card. So when the board came up with a report card, the parents -- us, because it's collective responsibility -- all read it. And the report card was pretty tough. It gave tough grades to us, and it made people think about it. It appeared on the front page of the Vancouver Sun and other newspapers throughout the province, throughout the basin.

I want to make this point, and I'll quote the words of Iona Campagnolo, who I'm pleased to say is the chair now. She said yesterday: "The board report card is not a grading of government, but a grading of all of us who live, work and play in the Fraser Basin." In other words, we're all involved in this. It means not only government law and government practices, but it means our own practices: how we handle our waste, deal with our sewage, deal with our agricultural business and deal with our cattle. This is what sustainability is about, and this is what we're trying to get at.

The good news is that the public and the governments are moving. The report gave good grades for the reduction of organochlorines discharged from pulp mills; also for prohibiting water export and diversion, moving towards sustainable harvest levels and involving local interests in decision-making, to ensure that all interests are represented in the planning process. But it gave bad grades for lack of comprehensive groundwater management. We've got to work at that in this House. We need legislation here. The opposition and some of us in the back bench have got to force the government to get the legislation here. It gave a bad grade for little progress in economically sustainable agriculture. A lot of that is manure, the runoffs in the Fraser Valley, and so on. But we're working on that. The farmers understand that, and we're going to work with them on that. It gave a bad grade for management of road congestion -- the traffic and so on.

[10:45]

I want to read a quote from Mark Hume of the Sun, who has written wonderfully and clearly on this matter.

"For most of its 1,200-kilometre length, the Fraser is a vibrant and healthy river. But here in the industrial heartland of British Columbia, at the border between Richmond and New Westminster, the greatest salmon river in North America mingles the sediment of distant mountains with the toxic pollutants of society.

"Some of the effluent that flows through greater Vancouver comes from as far north as Prince George (metals from mine wastes, chlorophenols, resin and fatty acids from pulp mills); more is added along the way (fecal coliforms from a series of sewage plants); but most of it is poured in as the river sweeps down through the lower mainland, Canada's third-largest metropolitan region, where agricultural development, urban sprawl and industrial discharges are concentrated."

I'll conclude by saying that we made progress last year as a result of last year's report card, where the board gave an F to the GVRD and others on the sewage discharge, and $600 million was spent to upgrade some of the sewage facilities. But it's still not enough.

I want to add that the board also came out with a basin plan, which tells every one of us what we can do to sustain this great river. People can ask to get copies of the plan, and I hope members will take that back to their ridings.

Let me conclude by saying again that I see this as a non-partisan issue -- a partisan river, but a non-partisan issue. This is a challenge for us. If we can't say to the children of the province of British Columbia that we have done everything we can to sustain the world's greatest salmon-producing river, then we've got a lot of head-bowing to do. But we can do it; we will do it if we follow what the board has said. I'll have more to say about this later, and I look forward to hearing some comments from my hon. friend across the way.

C. Clark: First, my thanks to the member for Vancouver-Fraserview for some provocative and interesting comments about the Fraser River. I have a strong personal interest in this. My family made their living on the seas and the rivers of this province for four generations. My great-grandfather was a fisherman, my grandfather was a fisherman and my father was a fisherman. I am the first generation of Clarks in my family who isn't in the fishing industry.

I am acutely aware of what the Fraser River has meant not just to the economy of our province but also to building and creating the social fabric of our province. We are a province that looks to our natural resources, including the fish and the environment that we live in, and that makes us who we are as British Columbians.

The Fraser River Management Board has provided us with a very useful snapshot of what's happening on the river, and I think it's a clarion call for all of us that something needs to be done. It paints a dismal picture, as the hon. member has pointed out, in some areas of where we are presently, and it presents a dismal picture of where we will go unless something is done. We are winning the war on pollution, it looks like, in terms of pulp mill effluent and some of the large corporate polluters on the river, but the volume of pollution is going up as growth in the lower mainland puts pressure on it.

One of the things we need to remember -- and I think the hon. member has pointed it out quite correctly -- is that the provincial government can do a great deal to improve the 

[ Page 190 ]

health of our river. Fisheries and oceans are a federal responsibility, and we agree on this side of the House that it should become a provincial responsibility. But I'd like to make the point that the province, as it stands now, should be making efforts to use the responsibilities it already has to make sure that we protect our marine habitat and our rivers, and that we improve on the terrible damage that has already been done.

I think that our record as a provincial government doesn't stand up very well. We need, as a provincial government -- and the opposition will be pushing the government to do this -- to bring in new groundwater legislation, which is something we said very clearly during the election. We said, and we still believe, that there should be base standards of stewardship for the rivers in our province and that in some cases those standards of stewardship should be much higher if there is a strong economic and cultural component to the river in terms of the fabric of our province.

We said that we should ban culverts on urban streams; they should be left open. We said that there should be no new major water diversions. I'd like to assure the hon. member that we will be pushing this government to do that.

There are other areas where the provincial government can make a difference in the environment. One of those areas is to say that we are going to be a leader in the environment; we are going to stop being the biggest polluters in the province. We are going to shut down the largest single source of greenhouse gas in the lower mainland, because that's a provincial government facility. It's our responsibility, if we are going to ask the private sector and the non-profit sector to live up to certain responsibilities, that we as a provincial government live up to those ourselves. So we are going to push the provincial government to do that.

We'll be asking the government to ensure that they audit the results of government-funded environmental projects. It's important that the province invest in improving our environment, but it's also important that the province make sure that public money is spent well, that it's spent to actually improve the environment and that we're getting the right outcomes for our taxpayers' dollars.

I'll just conclude by reminding the House that when the government talked in its throne speech about leaner government, the people in the opposition talked about the need for cleaner government. On our side of the House, certainly part of my role in this House will be to remind the government of the need for greener government.

Deputy Speaker: In rebuttal, I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Fraserview.

I. Waddell: The member opposite says she comes from a long line of fishers. Having spent a little time -- a long time -- in opposition, I know it will stand you in good stead, because there are certain similarities between a fisher and being in opposition. You cast a lot of nets and throw a lot of things out.

I thank you for your remarks -- very positive. It's in the spirit I tried to put forward, and I thank you for that. I know you have one particular issue there in my old federal riding of Port Moody, and I respect that. Perhaps we can talk about that further.

I just want to make some comments, in conclusion, about what the provincial government has done. I think the provincial government does have a great record in the environment -- the last provincial government -- in enacting a lot of laws. I was just looking at some examples, and they pertain to the Fraser Basin. The way you save the Fraser River is not.... You don't just dredge the river out. You have to do it creek by creek, stream by stream, tributary by tributary. You have to do it on the hillsides. You have to do it with what people wash their cars with; it goes into the river. You have to do it where your cows graze. I mean, it's all part of it. This is what sustainability means. We have to see that broader picture.

The provincial government passed the clean air act and clean vehicles and fuels programs, as you know. The previous Legislature passed the Forest Practices Code and the protected-areas strategy. It cancelled the Kemano completion project. It's prohibiting water export through the Water Protection Act. There are watershed restoration projects. There's great land use planning -- all that angst that went on to get all the planning in different parts of the province, the growth strategies. To be fair, we've got the legislation. We've got a lot of things in place.

But the rubber is hitting the road now. How is it being implemented? You remember that previously I spoke about coordination in government -- government actually working on the ground level. I heard the hon. member talk about forestry, about consulting the people in the forests. We have to consult the people on the Fraser, in the regions. I'm proud that the Fraser Basin board did that. And how to look at that.... We need to come up with an alternative, because the mandate is coming to an end for the Fraser Basin board. We also have the Fraser River estuary management program, FREMP. We have the end of FRAT, the federal thing. We have all these acronyms. Now we really need to think about a new organization that will bring us all together, learn from what we've done in the past and continue to make the progress that we are making to save the world's greatest salmon-producing system.

Deputy Speaker: Moving to another area for discussion, I recognize the hon. member for Richmond East.

L. Reid: As I begin my remarks today, I ask that each member in this chamber reflect on what makes their home inviting. Why is it enjoyable to return to your communities? My topic today is about assisted living for seniors -- what makes a home for seniors in our society.

I want to stress very strongly that the Liberal position is about independence for seniors, about privacy and choice in terms of seniors' housing options. We need to come, I think, to the discussion point where we all agree that it's the basic necessity. What we expect in our homes is something we should also expect when we are involved in discussions around creating opportunities for seniors' housing. Seniors' housing is an issue in terms of what we expect for people in society, but it has to be something that we actually commit to. We haven't done a terribly good job of ensuring that the same standards we have for ourselves are in place for older members of our community. It is, in my view, about developing a continuum of care. Assisted living is only one option, but it's a very progressive, healthy, honest option for seniors' housing, because I believe it is something we would all wish for ourselves.

Keren Brown Wilson is an individual who has taken on the cause and has created a company called Assisted Living Concepts. She indeed has been a tremendous resource to me. The first assisted-living project in Oregon was conceived in 1982. We do not have assisted-living projects per se in British Columbia. There is one in the province of Alberta today, and I 

[ Page 191 ]

know that over the next four to five years there will be more projects coming on stream in western Canada, and perhaps in eastern Canada as well. It is a concept that's definitely taking great strides on the West Coast, and it is something that I would love to see continue.

The reason assisted living is such a useful option is that it's taking into account consumer trends. It's looking at the attitude shift people have in terms of seniors' housing, and it's merging long term care with housing, and that is a very good option. Certainly all of us have seen, over the last number of months and years, the concern over the cost of long term care. This is not a request today for additional dollars; this is a request for a change in thinking around how best to spend the dollars we will no doubt spend on options for seniors.

What Keren Brown Wilson.... The conclusion they came to was to build something responsive to consumers' need for services and their preference for remaining at home. In lots of cases, that wasn't going to be possible, but they wanted to craft something that would resemble as closely as possible a home-like environment. Indeed, what the philosophy of assisted living looks at is that security, maintenance, meals, recreation, housekeeping, linen and laundry are all included as part of the shelter package, but that they allow the person involved to take some initiative in terms of how best to receive those services and whether or not they want to engage in providing that level of service for themselves -- again, focusing on their level of independence.

The biggest difference in terms of design features -- for instance, the living facility -- is that they're apartments. They are apartments that have doors that lock, which all of us know are not found typically in seniors' housing. Again, this speaks to the message of privacy, which is vitally important. All of us know that many of us need different temperature controls, and these apartments provide individual heat controls. They also have carpeting. How many of us think of our homes as places of comfort, and how many of us have been in long-term housing units where all there is is linoleum? There are things we can do to make those places a little more welcoming, and again, they're all things that we enjoy in our homes.

What we also wanted to say was that assisted living looks very much at encouraging people to bring their own furnishings. That is, again, something that has not been possible in a number of long term care settings in this province. We tend to do the functional -- this is your bed, this is your dresser -- and ask people to put up a few photos. But that does not, in my view, make it a home, and that is something we need to stress very, very strongly.

Again I come back to the question I posed earlier to members: what makes your house welcoming? What makes it a home that you enjoy going to? For lots of folks it's neighbours, it's music, it's friends, it's pets, it's a verandah, it's laughter, it's children. A lot of those things are absent from seniors' housing opportunities in the province today. That is something we need to rectify as a parliament. We need to come together, all levels of government, and decide that it's vitally important to put in place some choices that each of us would enjoy.

[11:00]

Certainly all the discussions around the population living longer -- most of us will need services well into our seventies and eighties.... Those kinds of options have to be decent options. All of us, I know, can reflect on an experience where they have visited a seniors' housing facility that has been a place that they would not wish to be in. So when I ask each of you to reflect on what makes your home inviting, on how easy it would be to make seniors' residences in this province inviting places to be, it's not a quest for dollars; it's a quest for an attitude shift around what we would put in place for ourselves and our loved ones. Indeed, we should put those same standards in place across this province.

Deputy Speaker: In reply, I recognize the hon. member for Surrey-Whalley.

J. Smallwood: I hesitate to start in my response by disagreeing with the presenter. The request is a request for dollars. It's also, I think, an important issue for all of us to spend a little time on. I'd like to start off by using the report of Dr. John Millar, the provincial health officer -- possibly his first to the province -- where he indicated that the socioeconomic status of individuals in this province is a real indicator of health. In doing so, he indicated that in his work he understood the importance of good, safe housing, in particular for seniors.

I think we can celebrate a tremendous success story, because one of the things that we have seen in a very short time as Canadians, and indeed as British Columbians, is the status of seniors -- in particular elderly women -- improve significantly. In a very short period of time, we have seen seniors go from experiencing a 20 percent incidence of poverty to 7 percent, and much of that had to do with the national housing strategy.

When I say that we have a tremendous story to celebrate, we continue to celebrate that story here in British Columbia. We are the only province left in Canada that continues with the housing strategy. As a government, we established a provincial commission that advised the government on how to develop a housing strategy not only for seniors -- recognizing the tremendous improvements we have made as a society in addressing elder care -- but also for the target group that is highest in need in this province at this point, and that is younger families, in particular single-parent families.

I'm going to speak specifically of the care facilities that the hon. member referenced. I've had an opportunity in the last short while on a very personal basis to help in a transition for an elder member of my family -- my mother -- from independent housing to New Horizons in Burnaby. The difference in her care -- in the security provided by the friends there who she had met in her community many years before -- and the opportunities of that supported living are very much a part of the provincial strategy of supporting seniors and ensuring that our direction in health care provides for prevention and support in a seniors' home -- and where that's no longer available, an opportunity for a transition to that type of supported living.

In this province, not only have we continued to invest in seniors, families and communities alike but we are bucking the tide. I welcome the comments of the member and expect to see continued support when it comes to the needed investments for housing in communities and for prevention and support services that will eventually, as we all know, help contain costs and ensure that the medical services we all count on and value for our quality of life in this province are continued.

L. Reid: I thank my hon. colleague from Surrey-Whalley for her remarks.

I want very much to emphasize this morning and leave you with the message that this is about a shift in attitude. I'm convinced that it is possible for governments to stop building 

[ Page 192 ]

institutions and to start building homes; I'm absolutely convinced of that fact. Assisted living is not the answer to all long term care needs, but it's certainly an option. It's an option that I will heartily endorse with all levels of government and with any group that comes before me that wishes to involve themselves in building seniors' housing. It is about decency; it is about independence; it's about privacy; it's about choice. No matter if you're a member of the Lions International, the Kiwanis, the Rotary, or anyone who wishes to build a decent place for seniors to live, you can incorporate that attitude shift into that structure. It has been done. I've travelled extensively in Washington State and Oregon to see the facilities available, and I know that British Columbia can rise to the challenge and do some very, very fine things. Again, I'm not asking for additional dollars; I'm asking for a rethinking of how best to deliver services, because I think it's vitally important that each of us has in our heart, in our soul, some sense of decency when it comes to seniors' housing.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I know that all of us have seen opportunities missed, where the challenge has not been received and has not been acted upon in terms of doing the very finest possible service delivery. I know that's a fact, hon. Speaker. I believe that assisted living offers a unique approach. I think we can deliver services in a home-like setting, and I will work with all levels of government to ensure that the province of British Columbia is home to some of the finest assisted-living facilities found anywhere in the world.

The Speaker: I thank the member, and I thank all members for their statements. That concludes private members' statements.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call the Address in Reply to the throne speech.

D. Symons: I welcome this opportunity to comment on the government's fairy tale of a throne speech. I say fairy tale because a fairy tale really tells a story that isn't true, and that precisely describes this government's throne speech.

This is to cast no aspersions on the Lieutenant-Governor, who, as we all know, is given the speech by the government to read. He might have tried that out on one of his grandchildren at bedtime, but I suspect that the child would have said: "Oh, come on, grandpa. This is just a load of NDP propaganda." Children are so perceptive nowadays.

What does this tale -- or speech -- have to say? "You each" -- and that refers to each of us in this assembly -- "have the unique privilege of serving in the parliament that will set the direction for our province into the next century." Oh, hon. Speaker, I hope not. This first week has shown this NDP government to be more deceptive and deceitful, not characteristics we'd want to continue into the next year, let alone the next century.

But I digress. As it goes on, it says:

"That direction will be different from the one being pursued in much of the rest of Canada. Ottawa is steadily withdrawing funding from health care, education, child care and the social safety net....

"But in the recent election, British Columbians chose another vision. They elected a government committed to protecting health care and education...."

That statement was made only two days before this NDP government brought in its budget and put a six-month freeze on the hospital and school construction promises. Less than a month after the election, the NDP promises and commitments made prior to and during the election campaign were put in the deep-freeze. Some commitment to protecting health care and education!

This throne speech contains a lot of boasting about the NDP's achievements over the last term in office. The only records that this government have set are record growth in the provincial debt, coupled with unprecedented tax and spending policies. At the same time, they've also set a new record for hypocrisy and deceit. I would caution the government members about drawing attention to their achievements. New lows in behaviour is their main achievement.

Let's take a look at this government's broken promises to the people of Richmond. Alberta Road secondary school, to house 1,200 students -- the planning stage is now under review, caught in the six-month freeze. Effectively, that will mean at least a one-year delay in the completion of this much-needed school. I would point out to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education that Richmond's population continues to grow and that those 1,200 students that your government is failing are not going to disappear.

Burnett Junior Secondary: on hold is the planning to increase capacity from 1,000 to 1,200. Now, that seems like a modest project, but wait. Burnett is already undergoing a construction stage to increase its capacity from 450 to 1,000 students. That was a project the NDP couldn't wiggle out of, since the contracts were already let. But wouldn't it make sense to continue on to phase 2 as phase 1 is being completed? Everybody agrees that the need is there, and the site is already in the construction stage. It's not only that: besides the classroom shortages, Burnett school has been identified as one of the most seismically unstable schools in B.C. But no, it's on hold, and this government has the audacity to claim that it's committed to protecting health and education.

The construction to increase the capacity of Palmer school from 650 to 950 students is on hold. This project was ready to go to tender. The school board had portables brought onto the site as temporary classrooms during construction. Teachers packed all their classroom material for moving, as it was expected that construction would be going on when they returned from the summer break. This has been costly, disruptive and demoralizing to those involved.

Richmond has 10,500 secondary students but only 7,500 spaces in permanent buildings. Thirty percent of our secondary students are housed in portables, but this government, claiming to protect education, has chosen to put 2,000 student spaces on ice while it dithers and wriggles about how committed it is to education.

I might remind the government members that the Liberal position before the election -- and it remains -- was that education and health care are priorities, that we would maintain funding for these necessary functions, and that if necessary we would make cuts elsewhere in order to maintain those priorities. Your government, on the other hand -- and now it's quite obvious -- does not place health care and education as priorities. You have to review everything that isn't nailed down, because this government doesn't know what its priorities are.

The throne speech goes on to say: "It will be a highly focused session -- focused on the priorities of the people of British Columbia. And nowhere will that be clearer than in the 

[ Page 193 ]

budget you will receive this week." How many of the members here, and how many of the people in British Columbia, feel that things are clearer now after the throne and budget speeches? Do you feel things are clearer? I don't. I believe the only thing that is abundantly clear is that this government says one thing and does another. Before election day, government made $2 billion worth of promises; now, only one month after the election, we are seeing the first stages of backtracking on those promises. The Premier indicated during the election campaign that they had seen the light. Suddenly it was revealed to him that the people of the province were concerned about the growth of the province's debt. Well, that's something we in the official opposition and the people of B.C. have been trying to tell the NDP for the past four years.

The speech goes on to say: "My government is listening and acting on that concern. It will continue to work hard to reduce our province's debt.... The budget you will receive this week will be the second balanced budget in two years...." How long was that statement good for? The ink wasn't even dry on that statement before it was proven to be false.

[11:15]

The people of this province want a true attack on the deficit and debt, and a reduction in government spending so that the spending matches revenues, just like the rest of us have to do. They do not want sleight-of-hand bookkeeping, but it's apparent that that is what they are getting from this government.

Let's look at the government's record. When the now Premier was Finance minister, B.C. saw the two largest deficits ever recorded in the history of the province. The provincial debt climbed by 60 percent during the NDP's first term in office. The size and cost of government has risen by leaps and bounds. Tax and fee increases of every sort have increased revenues. The only thing that has increased faster than government spending is the resulting growth in debt. The Premier, when he was in opposition, said that balancing the budget was easy. I believe he used the term: "It's a piece of cake."

An Hon. Member: Let them eat cake.

D. Symons: Well, one member has suggested: "Let them eat cake." Indeed, that might be appropriate in this case.

For two years as Finance minister, he did just the opposite. Our Premier has the Midas touch in reverse: all the gold he touches turns to lead. The people of B.C. will be paying through the nose for decades for this government's mismanagement.

Last year they brought in a debt management plan, a 20-year plan to bring the debt back down to where it was when they first took office. Mind you, 20 years to get back to the starting point is quite a debt management plan. Well, what happened to the debt management plan? In the first year of that plan they were $450 million off their mark. In the first year of the plan they were out by that much. Who can believe any figures or any plan that this government puts out? Everything is for today's consumption and not for tomorrow's reality.

I looked in vain for an economic plan in the throne speech: an outline of how this government intends to stimulate the economy or an indication of how jobs are to be created, because they claim they're creating jobs. Yet I find it difficult to believe that claim, because if you add up the claims of jobs they've made in their years in office, we've had somewhere in excess of 300,000 jobs claimed to have been created by this government. How come, if that's the case, we have the cost of social services and welfare in this province going up and up steadily? It has just about doubled in the term this government has been in office. We have to wonder about how you balance those two: the claims of increased jobs and yet the increases in the welfare rolls of British Columbia.

I looked in vain for an indication of how those jobs are to be created and a plan to show how they'll maintain their high level of spending while, at the same time, they pay down the massive debt they've accumulated. I've looked in vain for those things. In just four and a half years we've seen that debt go up considerably.

It would have been nice to have heard the government's intention to rescind many of its patronage appointments. It would have been nice to have heard of an end to the friends and insiders. It would have been nice to have heard of the reduction of the size of the bureaucracy and the red tape of government. It would have been nice to have heard of an open and fair tendering of government contracts. But what we've heard is a commitment to continue with the fair-wage -- or should we say fixed-wage? -- policy of this government. What we've heard is a commitment to continue with the health care accord, which is again a fixed-wage policy. We've heard a commitment to continue with the Island Highway contract, which again is a fixed-wage policy. All of these are costing the taxpayers of British Columbia untold millions of dollars.

I would have liked to have heard during the throne speech a commitment to carry out a commitment the Premier made during the election campaign to a public inquiry into the operation of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. I hope we will be hearing during this session of the formation of that inquiry. As of yet we have not heard of it.

All of these would have been a welcome indication that this government intended to mend its ways. But no, that's not what we heard. What we got instead were platitudes and a government resting on its dubious laurels. I did expect a bland, feel-good sort of document, as this document was, but it really hasn't done anything to indicate to the people of this province that there's going to be a change in the way this government operates. I wished that the throne speech of a new government, a new parliament, would have had a better indication of a change of heart by a government that sorely needs one.

C. Clark: Hon. Speaker, congratulations on your elevation to your present place in this House. After many years of long service to the public, I'm sure you will undertake your new responsibilities in a non-partisan way that reflects the great traditions of the Legislature of British Columbia.

My riding, Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, straddles five communities. One is Anmore, in the north part of the riding. It's a rural community where people engage in farming -- hobby farms. It's sort of an older way of life, and it's an older community. There's the beautiful community of Belcarra, which is bordered on both sides by the water of Burrard Inlet; of course, Port Moody proper, nestled in the mountains, is a largely residential community; a little bit of Coquitlam; and, of course, Burnaby, which is where I was born and raised, where my family settled in 1959. SFU is also situated in the riding. Members will know that SFU has a large residential population, and student issues were at the top of the agenda during the election.

[ Page 194 ]

As part of my response to the throne speech, I'd like to outline for members the kinds of things that I heard people talking about during the election that they wanted from a government. When I went door to door during the election, people said: "We don't understand why government can't, on the one hand, reduce the debt and the deficit and be fiscally responsible and, on the other hand, reduce pollution and do something about our environment." For years and years in British Columbia we've just swung from one extreme to the other. You've either had a government that professed they were going to be fiscally conservative but were not going to worry about any of the social issues facing our society, or you've had a government that was only concerned, or apparently concerned, about the social issues and that did a rotten job of managing the people's finances. What I heard on the doorstep -- and I think it's the reason people in my community voted Liberal -- was that they wanted a middle way. They said they wanted a government that cared about both sides of the equation, and that's what the Liberals offered in the election.

We said that we would reduce government spending and reduce the deficit, and in the end we would be able to reduce people's taxes substantially, so that we could create jobs and stimulate the economy. We said in our plan that we could do this while we protected health care and education.

People in my community said they wanted a cleaner environment. People in my community said they wanted to see some cooperation between the federal and provincial governments. But what did they get? Of course, the throne speech is the opportunity for the government to talk about where it's going to go over its term and to talk about its priorities. If we look at the throne speech we can see what the voters got. They got more spending. They got more debt. They got, apparently, a small reduction in taxes. They got capital spending promises. Every single capital spending promise has been broken. They got a few promises to clean up the environment.

If we examine the chain of events of the last couple of months, it shows exactly where the government seems to have run into some problems. The budget was tabled on April 29. Before that, we know the government had some indication that its forest revenues were going to be substantially down. They knew, we think, that the weather wasn't going to be as good as they wanted. Instead, they tabled what they called a balanced budget, and they premised that balanced budget on the expectation of increased revenues from the forest. When they realized -- or when they were told -- that forest revenues were going to be much lower than expected, what did they do? They increased their forecast so that they could go into the election with a balanced budget. The budget wasn't balanced, but they had to increase their projections -- even though they knew that wasn't true -- so that they could go into the election and say that they had a balanced budget and that they knew how to manage the economy and the finances, so that they could go into the election and not have to tell the truth about what was going on with the people's finances. As a result, they told the people: "Well, we can manage the economy."

They knew, going into the election and throughout the election, that the biggest concern that people had about this government was that they were suspicious that this government couldn't manage the people's finances. But I think people in British Columbia essentially believe that most people are honest. Most people in British Columbia are still prepared to put their trust in politicians and say: "Well, most politicians will tell you the truth." So during the election, when the NDP said they'd balance the budget, people believed them. I think you've really got to applaud the people of British Columbia when, after five years of NDP government, they are still willing to say: "Perhaps the NDP are telling the truth this time." Now we know that they weren't telling the truth. Now all those people who might have voted NDP because they figured they perhaps could, after all, balance the budget have been deceived -- and that's wrong.

The other thing we saw during the election was specific NDP candidates going out to specific ridings and making specific promises so that they could get just enough votes to get elected. When you look at the results of the election, you see that the Liberals won the popular vote, but the NDP won the election because they won in specific ridings. I think it's probably true that the government targeted specific ridings with specific promises, so that they could get those 500 or so extra votes they needed to get over the top, so that maybe in Port Coquitlam it would make just that little difference.

Then we find out, after the budget is delivered, that they've broken....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Excuse me, member. Order, members. I would remind members that I believe this is the member's first speech, and the practice in this chamber is that one is allowed to make that first speech without interruption from the other side.

C. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.

Then they found out that all those promises had been broken. All the capital spending promises were put on hold. They said: "We made these promises to you, but we're not going to do them now." I will be interested, when the budget is passed in this House, in how the members from the northeast sector and from Burnaby will vote, because they were the ones who made those promises to the people.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds was in the local newspaper with a big grin on his face, announcing spending in the local seniors home. Looking back on it, we wonder if perhaps the member was smiling because he knew he was pulling a con on the people there.

J. Pullinger: Point of order.

The Speaker: Thanks, member for Cowichan-Ladysmith. I saw a couple of members on the government side about to raise the point of order. I have been listening very carefully to the statements made, and I think we are crossing the boundary. It is well and good to talk about a government as an abstract concept, but to point at individuals and suggest that they are not telling the truth violates the convention of parliament. I therefore ask the member to simply withdraw that comment, please, and carry on.

C. Clark: Mr. Speaker, due to my newness in this House, I obviously have a few things to learn. I of course withdraw any comment that might have offended any member of this House.

The capital spending promises were withdrawn almost immediately after the government took office -- within a month.

[11:30]

There were a few other things that we heard on the doorsteps in Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, and one of 

[ Page 195 ]

them was that they wanted to see the government improve its environmental record. They wanted to see the government close down Burrard Thermal. Of course, that was a really big issue for us in Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain. I've been sorry to see that the government has yet to make any indication of whether it listened to the voters in Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain as it claims to have listened so thoroughly throughout the election. Quite clearly, the voters of Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain said that they want the government to close down Burrard Thermal. They want to close down the largest single source of greenhouse gases in the lower mainland, and I hope the government will listen as keenly to that request from the voters as it claims to have listened to some other indications the voters made of what they wanted in the election.

An Hon. Member: We will hope.

C. Clark: We will hope.

The last point I'll touch on is that I heard from people on the doorsteps that they want to see some integrity from their government. They want to see a government that not just tells the truth, but does what it said it was going to do, and that is the difficulty in the throne speech. That's why people feel so betrayed. They put their trust in this government for a second time, and they put their trust in this government based on promises that the government made during the election. Granted, it was a minority of people that did that; nonetheless, the government has a responsibility to the people to live up to its promises. They haven't done that, and that's why this throne speech is so difficult for members on this side of the House to digest. Every time a government breaks its promises, the people lose a little more faith in our democratic system. It's our democratic system that is the underpinning of our civil society. Once that's gone, what will we as a society have left? The government has a responsibility to tell the truth and to keep its promises. That is the only way that we will continue to uphold democracy. We must restore faith in politicians and in our political institutions in this country. This is something that the throne speech eminently fails to do.

So we on this side of the House will continue to try to hold the government to account, to remind the public of the promises that were made by this government, and to ask the government to be honest and fair with the people of British Columbia. I look forward to a long and productive session of doing so.

J. Sawicki: I too am pleased to join other members in the House in making a first speech to the thirty-sixth parliament. As is traditional after the first Speech from the Throne of the first session of a new parliament, I also want to talk a bit about the constituency that I represent. First, of course, I want to thank the people of Burnaby-Willingdon for the privilege of representing them again in this Legislature. I have a real personal commitment to my constituency: I was born there, and I have lived there for over half of my life. In a province with a mobile population that is so rapidly growing and changing, I think that there are probably not a lot of people in this chamber who can say that same thing.

I also want to thank the other candidates in the recent election campaign in Burnaby-Willingdon. We had a good campaign and good debates, and as I hope I have demonstrated during my first five years as an MLA, I look forward to listening to and working with all of the people in my constituency, regardless of their political affiliation. I believe that as a local community, as a province -- and, let's face it, as a nation and as a planet -- our challenges are so incredibly great that whether they are in maintaining a strong economy, in protecting the environment or in achieving any degree of social equity, it is only through working together that we have any hope of building a sustainable future for our communities and for our province.

I like speaking on throne debates, because unlike Committee of Supply, where we discuss the estimates of each ministry, or unlike specific legislation that is brought to this House, the throne speech debate is about the big picture. It's an opportunity for government to set out its vision, its direction and the vehicles it will use to lead the province forward. I happen to be one of those politicians who thinks that we collectively, in this House as MLAs and out there as citizens, don't spend enough time talking about our respective visions for the future. What kind of communities do we want to live in five, 10 and 15 years from now? What kind of province do we want to leave our children 20, 30 or 40 years from now?

In this House we sometimes get caught up haggling over the pieces of the puzzle, their shape and their size, and whether we should put this piece of the puzzle in before that, or whether the piece even belongs in the picture at all. But without an overall vision, it's like buying one of those 1,000-piece puzzles in a store and they've forgotten to put the picture in that shows you what it's going to look like once you have put it all together. But the analogy only goes so far, because while life might be a puzzle and while politics may be confusing, the picture is never really finished. But I don't think that that means we shouldn't have a vision of what we want for the future of our province. I think our government has been very clear about our vision for the future, and we've tried to capture at least a bit of that in the throne speech debate we're having today.

No, the throne speech doesn't include everything, but the broad brush strokes of the picture are there, and that picture has been painted in cooperation with the people of British Columbia -- with the women and men and children who live in Burnaby and Lillooet and Salmo and Atlin and Comox. People said that part of their vision for the future included more jobs, and they said they wanted to protect health care and education. They wanted to live in safe communities and in a clean and healthy environment. This government listened, and we brought in a throne speech and budget that delivered on those priorities.

Now, when we brought it in the first time during the last session of the thirty-fifth parliament -- a very long two months ago -- the opposition discounted it as electioneering. They said: "Oh, you'll never bring it in again after the election." But we did campaign on that throne speech and budget, and we got elected on that platform. Now we have delivered essentially the same throne and budget speeches to this House as we did before.

I want to talk about the impact that this throne speech will have on the people of my constituency and how it will address their priorities. My colleague who sits behind me, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, a couple of days ago talked about doors. As candidates, at least on this side of the House, we become connoisseurs of doors: solid oak doors and the painted metal doors, the warped plywood doors, the ones with scratches on them from the family dog who wants to be let in, and the ones with fingerprints on them from the kids who have been playing in the yard; then there are the new stained-glass doors and the apartment doors with numbers 203, 708, 1518, and yes, the doors that show evidence of break-ins, and those that are double- and triple-locked to protect against break-ins.

[ Page 196 ]

As a politician who has tried knocking on doors for the whole five years, I think doors say a lot about our communities. I can say from firsthand experience in Burnaby-Willingdon that we have all these kinds of doors and many, many more, because we are downtown Burnaby; Metrotown, one of the largest retail complexes in western Canada; stable single-family communities that haven't changed a lot in recent decades right alongside neighbourhoods that are changing so fast you can't recognize them from year to year; highrises, some of them rental, some of them strata; and 1950s three-storey walk-ups alongside that new urban housing form called the medium-density townhouse.

Burnaby-Willingdon is also home to provincial educational institutions: from BCIT and the Open Learning Agency to light industrial and high-tech R and D. Burnaby, as my colleague beside me from Burnaby-Edmonds knows, is also a green community. You can see Central Park from just about everywhere, if you fly into the international airport or on the helijet into the harbour. Deer Lake, where I used to swim as a girl, is now the recipient of joint clean-up efforts between the city, the province and local community groups so at least fish can swim in it again.

Burnaby is also a community that values arts and culture, and I am very proud -- and I know my colleagues in Burnaby are also very proud -- that our government contributed $1 million to that wonderful facility we have, the Shadbolt Centre for the Arts. It not only serves Burnaby but it also serves a regional function. That's just one example of our government's willingness to invest in local communities.

Burnaby Hospital is also in Burnaby-Willingdon, and for the past two years I've worked very hard to obtain provincial funding to build a much-needed birthing unit -- not the old model of a maternity ward but a perinatal community birthing unit that would incorporate midwifery and integrated service delivery to women and families.

Like probably every other member in the House, I too am personally disappointed that the Minister of Finance has found it necessary to announce that the actual construction of this birthing unit is under review. Like other members, I am anxious that it go ahead, because I really, truly believe that it is an important project, not only for my community of Burnaby but as a provincial prototype. But I understand the reason for that review.

I was quite amazed to see the member for Richmond Centre, who spoke earlier this morning -- a member of a party who campaigned against the record of investment this government made in our communities.... Now when we, this government, have listened to the people's concerns and said, "All right, we will have to review some of those projects," that member stands up in this House and criticizes that, as well.

I think this review is a responsible thing to do. I think the public has given us a message that we have listened to. Yes, they want us to continue the priority of investing in health care and education and in infrastructure. They don't want that other vision of cutting spending on services for people while cutting taxes for major corporations.

When I was talking to the local media the other day, the reporter said: "Okay, Joan, but be more specific. What's in this throne speech and accompanying budget for Burnaby-Willingdon? How are your constituents going to benefit?" Well, I want to say that like most British Columbians struggling to make ends meet, my constituents will benefit from the tax cut. The 1 percent cut in personal income tax rate, together with the B.C. Hydro and ICBC freeze, will save the average family in Burnaby-Willingdon about $500 a year.

Houses are expensive in Burnaby. That's why I think it is important to my constituents that our government has moved to increase the property transfer tax threshold, which will save up to $3,500 when someone is buying a house. If they already own a home, they will benefit from the raising of the homeowner grant threshold.

One half of my community are renters -- many single-parent families, two-parent families working at close to minimum wage, and a substantial number on social assistance. They will benefit from the B.C. Family Bonus that will help all lower-income families.

My constituency has a vibrant and progressive small business community, and I have worked personally with the chamber of commerce on several innovative projects, including Burnaby Works, which was a pilot project that matchmakes between people on social assistance and local businesses with employment opportunities. That was incredibly successful, and that's why that is now a provincial program.

[11:45]

For Burnaby's small business community, the throne speech and accompanying budget are also good news -- the 10 percent cut in the tax rate and the two-year tax holiday for new small businesses. We all know that it's small business -- not the major corporations -- that create most of the jobs, and our government's record in terms of job creation in this last mandate has been second to none in Canada -- 35,000 new jobs since December alone.

This throne speech that we are debating today gives top priority to job creation, committing to a further 40,000 new jobs in this fiscal year. That's why it makes sense to give a tax break to small businesses, not the largest corporations, as the opposition party had proposed. During the election campaign, the Liberal candidate in my riding was very fond of repeating the sentence: "Government has no business in business." I disagreed with him then and I disagree with him now, because job creation is no simple matter. I reject outright the flawed right-wing economic theory that says that if you give enough money to business, then they'll make sure everyone has a job. It's not the role of business to look after the greater public good, and I think that we should quit pretending that it is.

In a democracy, I think it's partly the role of government -- and I believe people expect their governments to do that -- to work in partnership with the business community, labour and local communities to create jobs and build economic stability. We've demonstrated in the past that through innovative programs like Forest Renewal B.C., our government can build partnerships that work. This throne speech continues on that course, through support to small business, through the jobs and timber accord, and through value-added -- whether it's wood, fish, food or tourism. We'll deliver on our commitment to ensure more jobs, not only for the people of Burnaby-Willingdon but for people throughout the province.

I know that people in my constituency, along with so many other British Columbians, share concerns about crime and safety, especially within our rapidly growing urban areas. That is why I was pleased to see in the throne speech that in addition to the several very excellent initiatives that we took in our last mandate, our government will follow through on the commitment to establish a new provincial homicide unit and provide additional resources for community policing.

[ Page 197 ]

I could go through the rest of the throne speech and speak about how I believe it meets the priorities of my constituents, but I would probably run out of time. I need to save a few moments to talk about one aspect of the throne speech that hasn't received a lot of attention. It's one that my constituents would expect me to talk about. Indeed, they would probably be incredulous that I could stand up in this House during a debate that had any leeway at all and not mention the need to continue forward on our tremendous record on environmental issues. Only future generations will truly appreciate the significance of the over 200 new parks and protected areas that we have established, including unique and irreplaceable ecosystems like the Tatshenshini, and critical habitats -- whether for the grizzly bears in the Khutzeymateen or for migrating birds in Boundary Bay -- and key natural areas like Burnaby Mountain that will keep our urban communities livable. The throne speech commits our government to continuing our system of parks and protected areas, comprising 12 percent in representative ecosystems by the year 2000, and to enshrining those in law.

Another environmental issue that's high on the public agenda, and included in this year's throne speech, is the protection of salmon and salmon habitat. My community of Burnaby has benefited tremendously from the provincial urban salmon habitat program as we work together -- city, province and local community groups -- to take a watershed approach and clean up, rehabilitate and enhance the lakes and rivers of the Burnaby lake system.

That's incredibly difficult to do in a watershed that is 90 percent urbanized, but we're making progress. I'm very pleased to have been a part of the announcement last March of the first set of community grants under the urban salmon habitat program, where the Burnaby project received $45,000. I was doubly pleased to accompany the Minister of Environment last week to announce the second set of community grants, where our Burnaby project received a further $30,000. Yes, it does take dollars, but there is no other way to do this if we are serious about restoring the Pacific salmon fishery and if we are serious about cleaning up the urban waterways that form such a critical network that flows through so many of our communities.

The member for Vancouver-Fraserview has already talked about the recent Fraser Basin management program report card. He did that just this morning, so I'll shortcut that part of my comments. I have to say that it is a big challenge to turn the direction of a supertanker that has been on a collision course with ecological and economic disaster, and redirect it to a more sustainable course. I'm not surprised at the tough ratings we received in the report card. I think it recognized that yes, we've made a lot of progress this last year, but we have tremendous challenges ahead of us. In my new role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, I am looking forward to working with the minister and with our government to help meet those challenges.

Protecting the environment; making affordable investments in health care, education and infrastructure; and, most importantly, creating jobs, especially for our young people -- those are the key components of our vision for the future. The people of B.C. chose that vision over the alternative vision offered by the opposition.

I am very proud to be here again to represent the people of Burnaby-Willingdon and to stand up to speak to this, the first throne speech of the thirty-sixth parliament. I want to reiterate the views expressed by several of my colleagues on this side of the House and say that I hope we can work together in a way that the public expects us to: with animated but respectful debate to try and deal with the complex problems that face our province.

We said we would listen to the people of the province. This throne speech reflects the messages we heard. It commits us to deliver on the election promises we made, and I will be very pleased to be able to vote for it when the time comes in this House to do so.

With that, hon. Speaker, I would adjourn debate until the next sitting of the House.

J. Sawicki moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I wish members on either side of the House a happy and restful weekend. Be ready for the next full week of work. With that, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. U. Dosanjh moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

Copyright © 1996: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada