[ Page 6951 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. G. Clark: On behalf of the member for Delta North and myself I'd like to welcome to the precincts Cougar Canyon Elementary School. My wife Dale Clark and her teaching partner Kim Hill are here with several dozen students from Cougar Canyon in Delta, and I'd like the House to make them most welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: I would like to introduce to the House the B.C. legislative representatives of the United Transportation Union. The list is rather long, so please forgive me: Tom Cormac from Smithers, Larry Bennetts from Revelstoke, Keith Cameron from Kamloops, Robert McDiarmid from Port Coquitlam, Michael Petrescu from Prince George, Guy Storry from Prince George, Walter Plomish from New Westminster, Barry Gray from Kamloops, Craig Good from Cranbrook and Brian Gleason from Surrey. Accompanying them are the Manitoba legislative representatives of the United Transportation Union: William Katerynuk from Winnipeg, William Bandarenko from Winnipeg, David Pollon from Minnedosa, Don Tennant from Winnipeg, Wally Geiler from Brandon, Vernon McDuffe from Dauphin, James Moran from The Pas and Dan Irwin from Alola, Manitoba. Would the House please make them all welcome.

W. Hartley: It's my pleasure to welcome today some 50 grade 6 visitors, several adults and their teacher, Ms. F. McCarthy, from Marysville Middle School in Marysville, Washington. They're here for comparative government and local history. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: Without getting into naming everybody, I too would like to join the hon. Minister of Women's Equality to welcome all of the members of the United Transportation Union. So would the House please make them welcome again.

J. Sawicki: In the gallery today is Malcolm Fairbrother. Malcolm is one of the interns working with our caucus. I have asked him to come to the gallery today because he has done a lot of the background research work on the private member's statement that I'll be making today. I want the House to make him welcome.

Petitions

The Speaker: Thank you very much for that petition.

Now I recognize the member for Burnaby-Willingdon for the first private member's statement.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

GREEN TAXES

Next week, as we all know, is Earth Week. While Earth Day is officially April 22, it's become so popular that it's been expanded to Earth Week. It's now practised by over 200 million people in over 150 countries. Therefore it's become absolutely the largest grass-roots, volunteer-based environmental celebration on this planet. As is my tradition in this House, I use this opportunity to talk about ecological issues. This time I'm going to come at it from the economic side and talk about green taxes. I guess that's a little timely, because it's not only tax time for all of us personally, but with the throne speech and budget debate it's also been a topic of great debate in this House.

The premise of green taxes is not so much about how much we tax as it is about what we tax. We know that the tax system is not neutral, just as free enterprise is not free. There are a whole bunch of costs that the marketplace doesn't reflect, and they're called externalities. Industry and business don't pay them; society pays them, or we leave them for future generations to pay. We all know what those are, like the environmental costs of air pollution or social costs like health and unemployment. Indeed, for all the current mantra about letting the marketplace dictate, markets can only be efficient if prices actually reflect true costs, which they don't. Tax systems all over the western world reflect that inefficiency.

Our whole industrial system evolved at a time when we had fewer people and lots of natural resources. The limiting factors were labour and factories. It was also a time when we had great scope to create growth from producing consumer goods, and that became the goal of economies. For a while that worked. Then things started going fundamentally wrong. I think a lot of people know that; they just don't want to admit it. As our ability to gobble up resources increased, it became cheaper to use more resources and to employ fewer people. That resulted in a tremendous waste of resources. We've undervalued the materials that go into producing our goods and overvalued the labour. We can't afford to take care of things and repair things. It's also resulted in a massive waste of things -- whether it's the waste of food or computers or VCRs or whatever else goes into our landfills. Saddest of all, I think our tax system has resulted in a massive waste of people, through unemployment, homelessness and drug addiction.

A lot of economists are now thinking that our current problems can be traced to a tax system that's taxing the wrong things. It doesn't recognize that we no longer have huge natural resources and few people; we have just the opposite. We have a huge number of people and diminishing resources. Paul Hawken, who is an author of several books, said it best: "Our thinking is backward: we shouldn't use more of what we have less of -- natural capital -- to use less of what we have more of: people. . . . We have to revise the tax system to stop subsidizing behaviours we don't want -- resource depletion and pollution -- and stop taxing behaviours that we do want: income and work." Allan Durning of the Northwest Environment Watch, which has just published a new book on tax shift, says the same thing. He says that our current system is encouraging labour conservation instead of resource conservation.

[ Page 6952 ]

There's nothing radical here. There are a lot of examples elsewhere: in Sweden and in Denmark, which have brought in ecological tax reforms that tax a whole bunch of practices in exchange for reducing taxes on social security and income. They expect that shift to create 2,000 jobs by the year 2000.

The benefits are many. I think that with the world population doubling sometime in the next century and with resource availability decreasing by at least half, our planetary challenge is pretty clear. We need an economy that uses fewer resources and produces more jobs, an economy that produces less waste and more services to people, an economy that rebuilds natural ecosystems and nurtures human ones. That means we need a tax system that helps us, not hinders us, in achieving that goal.

With that, hon. Speaker -- I see the light is almost ready to turn red -- I will wait for the rebuttal from the opposition member.

[10:15]

The reduction of pollutants is a goal that everyone and all governments must have. It must be a universal goal. I know that we all care about the future of our children and our grandchildren. But the question is: how do we best attain those goals? Green fees, green taxes, environmental levies or eco-taxes are certainly instruments that are available to governments and appear to be tools increasingly utilized by this government. The real question we need to ask about these types of policies is: are they the most effective and the most efficient way of reducing pollutants?

Unfortunately, this very important question is frequently obscured by other factors. The temptation with these types of levies and fees is for governments to introduce them in a fairly targeted manner -- for instance, an environmental tire levy. However, instead of these funds being utilized in a targeted manner, too often these proceeds find their way to other pools of money for other factors. What the consumer thinks are well-intentioned goals end up being cash grabs by a variety of governments. Of course, when this happens these are not fees to help our environment; they are, plain and simple, just additional taxes. A further problem that eco-fees often create is a distortion of the market economy, as consumers and producers adjust their behaviour to try to minimize the effects of these fees.

There is a cost. We must all realize that there is only one person that pays all of these costs in the final analysis: it is the consumer. All too often, we forget that.

Eco-fees, when introduced in many jurisdictions, including our own, often add significant bureaucracies, as these structures are required to administer, collect and enforce the accompanying regulations. What we have to do is make sure that regulation and eco-taxes do not unnecessarily boost our costs, that there is a trade-off between the effectiveness of green taxes or the instruments of environment policies and their power as revenue-raisers. The bottom line is that we all want to protect our grandchildren's environment. However, distorted political agendas get in the way of true, honest and meaningful solution-building. For effective results to protect our environment, we need open, honest, timely and measurable dialogue in solution-building. Real consumers must be involved, real producers must be involved and knowledgable advisers must be involved with open government, with a very workable timetable for change. It cannot just be imposed.

I look forward to hearing the reply from the member for Burnaby-Willingdon. We want her to know that the opposition side of this Legislature wants to work to protect our environment, but we must do it by consulting the folks that it impacts every day. We must make sure that it is achieving the goals it set out to achieve.

J. Sawicki: I agree with some of the comments that the hon. member has made in terms of eco-fees changing behaviour. I mean, that's exactly what they're supposed to do. Taxes change behaviour; they dictate behaviour. I think where he has missed the boat, however, is that he expressed a concern that it would impact on costs.

My point this morning is that price must reflect the true cost of production. What we're talking about here -- and the nice thing, I suppose, about tax shifts -- is that in many places where they are being tried, they are seen as revenue-neutral. In other words, we are talking about how, for every dollar that you might add to tax resource use and waste, you would reduce a tax on labour or income. That's a pretty strong message that business can therefore remain more competitive, not less. In fact, in Denmark the Minister of Economic Affairs, in talking about their success in using green taxes to encourage employment and to decrease pollution, said: "We have not damaged our competitiveness one bit because of green taxes." As I say, they're predicting the creation of 2,000 new jobs.

I understand the positioning on green taxes that usually comes from the right side of the spectrum. I just want to conclude by saying that our government has tried in this budget to reduce income tax on individuals and small businesses. But I want to encourage our government to make a more fundamental shift and make that connection between what we want our tax system to do. . . . I think economists are making it very clear that it can appeal to both sides of the political spectrum. In closing, I want to say that I hope the opposition will join us, as they say, in working together to achieve these goals.

With that, hon. Speaker, I want to urge members to take part in Earth Week, and I suggest that the opposition leader in particular needs to do some penance, since he didn't mention the word "environment" once in his throne speech debate. I hope he'll be taking part in community activities during Earth Day.

For hon. members, I would leave them with one more quote from Paul Hawken -- an economist, I might add -- to remind us all: "It is cheaper to take care of something -- a roof, a car, a planet -- than to let it decay and try to fix it later."

CHARTER OF RIGHTS
OR CHARTER OF WRONGS?

[ Page 6953 ]

Others argued forcefully that the Charter was a significant and necessary step that would change the relationship between government and citizen by imposing new and necessary limits on the powers of government to violate the rights of citizens. Some saw the Charter as a tool for advancing the causes of social justice, and still others were concerned that the Charter would give too much power to the judges.

All sides to this debate could take comfort from the language of the document itself. Upon close inspection, the Charter is strangely ambivalent. The enumerated rights and freedoms are expressed, for the most part, in unqualified terms, and in some places the language approaches elegance. Yet all this boldness is qualified by the first section, which says that the guaranteed rights and freedoms are subject to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." And if these words did not give comfort enough to those who were concerned about the prospect of change to our legal and political traditions, section 33 gave governments the power to override many of the rights.

Yet those who predicted that the Charter would not mean much have, I think, been proven wrong. The Charter has been a powerful tool for change. Some of these changes are more subtle than others. I think the Charter has been a major force in changing the way we talk about issues and problems that confront citizens in a democracy. I'm speaking here of the phenomenon called rights consciousness. Increasingly, it seems, we conduct the dialogue about public policy issues in terms of rights rather than needs, wants and competing interests. This is unfortunate. It tends to debase the coinage of rights, for rights are not simply goals and aspirations; they ought to be the non-negotiable conditions of a free and democratic society.

But the phenomenon that concerns me more is the extent to which the Charter has encouraged judicial activism and the risks that this poses for our society. In giving expression to a new balance of power between government and citizenry, the Charter would seem to be the embodiment of democracy. But taking power from government has meant giving it not to citizens but to judges, and they have exercised that power. A long list of decisions has established the courts, particularly the Supreme Court of Canada, as more than willing to assume the burden of judicial law-making. Let me be clear about one thing: a great many of the Supreme Court's Charter decisions are not only defensible but clearly right. I am not for a moment suggesting that we wind back the clock. I am, however, suggesting that we need to be more mindful of the risks and the problems associated with the growth of judicial activism.

To state the obvious, judges are not elected; they are not accountable. In practical terms, it's nearly impossible to remove them from office. Some would argue that this independence from the day-to-day compromises of partisan democratic politics makes the judiciary better qualified to decide important and difficult political questions. I disagree. I think the better argument is the one which, in defence of judicial independence, sounds a cautionary note concerning judicial activism in political hard cases. The fact is that if the judges are wrong, there's little that can be done. The "notwithstanding" clause is virtually moribund.

But it's not just a question of not being able to fix their mistakes. Equally importantly, the process of judicial decision making does not lend itself to resolving complex social policy questions. Arguments about rights and principles, even if they are legitimate, are not sufficient. It's also necessary to understand and anticipate consequences. Here the problem is that the court's ability to receive and process relevant information is limited. To give just one example, economists are seldom called to give evidence about the potential impact of major decisions. As a result, decisions are sometimes made which have profound economic impacts in circumstances where those impacts were not made known to the courts.

I think the judiciary should use their powers sparingly. I think that in their willingness to embrace an activist role with respect to the Charter, the judiciary have cut some of the traditional bonds of restraint which preserved both their independence and their democratic legitimacy.

Where does this leave us today? If I had a message which could be heard by the judges, it would simply be this: the ice of democratic legitimacy on which you are skating has become thinner; take care, because if you fall through, we will all be at risk. The message for us as legislators, though, is different. We must find a way to restore our own legitimacy and to take back the public agenda on difficult political questions.

In giving expression to these concerns today, my goal is simply to make a good thing better. I'm enormously proud to live in a country which has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is enforced and that is meaningful. I also hope that the occasion of its anniversary is an opportunity to reflect on the ways in which we can fine-tune things so that in another 16 years, public confidence in the Charter and in the judiciary is not eroded, but enhanced, as it should be.

[10:30]

Leave granted.

R. Masi: In the precincts today there are 30 elementary students from Jarvis Elementary. It's my pleasure to introduce them to the House. They are accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Jennifer Crawford. Would the House please make them welcome.

The Speaker: In response to the private member's statement, we now have the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

M. Sihota: I want to start by thanking the hon. member for forwarding me a copy of his carefully worded text. I appreciate that. Since I never work off a text, I'm not sure that my comments will be as carefully worded. That may, of course, cause some comment from my colleagues. I think we on this side the House share a wide spectrum of views with regards to this matter.

I had the good fortune to be there in Ottawa 16 years ago. A handful of young people from the Island were invited, and I was one of them. I too thought about the kinds of impacts that this document and these changes would have on Canadian society. It's hard to believe it was 16 years ago -- really hard to believe.

The hon. member is quite correct in saying that it has generated a broad level of rights consciousness and awareness. In my view, in some aspects the Charter clearly has had a

[ Page 6954 ]

I should also say that my applause for the courts ends at that point. I believe profoundly, to the very core of my fibre, that the place for public policy determinations with regards to Canadian public policy is in chambers like this one and not in the courts of the country. I often find myself thinking that there's too great a temptation for people to simply, if dissatisfied with government policy, take the matter to court, whether it's threats like no-fault or what government does on legal aid or even challenging the outcome of an election campaign. I think that in some cases people are just too quick to assert their "right," while recognizing that there are far more effective venues -- and I'll get to those -- in that regard. I still fear today, 16 years later, that we will become far more American as time goes on. I don't think that's a characteristic with regard to judicial activism that we want to see in this country -- where people go to the courts before they turn to chambers like this one to deal with issues that upset them.

With regard to being upset, I think that the public at large, although it accepts rights and responsibilities in a society -- remember, they go hand in hand -- from the comments I get, are dissatisfied about the way in which those rights are applied in the area of criminal law. In particular, I think there is a growing feeling in society that loopholes are often being generated out of the rights provisions in the Charter in a way that offends people and denies basic justice. That's where the court really starts to run contrary to public opinion, and it should be wary of that fact.

The real place to bring about changes in economic and social policy in society, as I said earlier on, is here in this chamber. This is where you have the essence of accountability. We don't have a lifetime job here, nor do we have accountability that is tested only every four years. It's tested every day. Every one of us, whether we're on that side of the House or on this side of the House, is constantly under pressure to bring about profound economic and social change.

One ought not to underestimate the impact that phone calls from constituents, letters from constituents and petitions from constituents have. One ought not to underestimate the effect that an effective opposition can have in bringing about changes in social policy. Believe me, as someone who sat on both sides of the House, I know that they do have an impact. It may not feel that way at times, but they clearly have an impact. And so they should if the democratic structures that we're part of are going to work. Similarly, civil servants who bring matters to you to be able to make decisions have a profound impact on the way policy is drafted. Debate in this chamber does, as does debate both in caucus and in the executive council. Those are really the sources where change is made and should be made.

G. Plant: Well, since I found myself in the almost alarming position of agreeing with almost everything that the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin was saying, I was tempted to give him a couple more minutes. But I think it is important to see that on the one hand, there is some shared opinion in respect of the importance of the Charter and the limits of the Charter -- the importance of the Charter in sending signals to communities of the disadvantaged, in setting new rules and new principles for the way our society should be governed. I also think it's important to recognize that we have here some shared agreement on the importance of what takes place in this chamber for real social and economic policy change -- and, I would argue, perhaps change beyond social and economic issues.

When the member spoke about criminal law and how the court has had a profound impact on criminal law in the last 16 years, he touched a nerve which resonates with me and indeed resonates with all British Columbians. At some moment the court chose to take its role in relation to criminal law and the Charter as not being simply around the process of the criminal law but also the substance -- in effect, to second-guess the wisdom of parliaments, in particular the federal Parliament, on the appropriate direction for criminal law policy. There, I think, is a place where the courts are way out on the edge of democratic legitimacy. I hope that over time, we here in this chamber will find a way to get that ground back and that the parliamentarians in Ottawa will find a way to get that ground back in a way which ensures that the principles of the Charter are respected and also that we continue to function as a truly free and democratic society.

I was not in Ottawa on the day that the Charter was proclaimed; I was at home watching on television. I think all Canadians who were there felt that it was an important moment. I was in Ottawa the first time a Charter argument was made in the Supreme Court of Canada. That was clearly an important moment. Since then we've had a lot more of them, and we have a lot more ahead of us. But I'm glad that we've had this opportunity to ventilate these issues here today, and I look forward to continuing debate and discussion on these important questions.

CONNECTIONS TO
THE INTERNET

In particular, I'd like to zero in a little bit on the provincial learning network and the impact that it's going to have on the connections to the Internet in a constituency like Rossland-Trail. High costs and poor access to technology have been barriers for B.C. schools, colleges, institutes and agencies for some time. The provincial learning network, it appears, will be an affordable telecommunications network providing support for instruction, learning and advanced forms of distance education to students and educators. It will do this in our 59 school districts and 1,700 schools; our 22 post-secondary colleges, institutes and agencies, with 112 campuses throughout the province; and in 20 community skill centres. Also, the connections will be available to public libraries, independent schools and non-profit cultural and scientific organizations in British Columbia.

This provincewide network will provide equitable and cost-effective access to information services in B.C. and throughout the world. It's a wonderful opportunity for the people in the constituency of Rossland-Trail to reach out and touch the world. I just can't say enough about how I feel that

[ Page 6955 ]

The contributions to the objectives of the province of British Columbia on the electronic highway in meeting the needs of education and training by supporting goals of equitable access to educational programs and information resources are an important part of our connections to the Internet. For example, a high-band-width connection in a Kootenay community was quoted at $10,000 per month, while the equivalent service in Vancouver costs $1,000 per month. By purchasing a large volume across the province, the provincial learning network will provide affordable electronic connections for participants, so that no communities are excluded because of high costs. Kootenay towns like Salmo, Rossland and Fruitvale will now become part of the worldwide electronic highway.

What are some of the applications? Well, we'll have delivery of online interactive credit and non-credit courses, for example, in programs and situations where teacher and learners are typically separated by distance and time. This is an all too common situation in constituencies like the one I represent, and this presents a tremendous opportunity for people in small remote communities to have the amenities that heretofore only people in large urban centres had the ability to attain. There will be provisions for teachers, instructors, librarians, curators and other professionals for access to information, resources, training and professional development opportunities, once again opening up a whole new world in areas like the Kootenays. There'll be provisions for all learners, with access to interactive activities and information. There'll be provisions for education and cultural institutions, with the ability to communicate through e-mail and video-conferencing, as well as access to the Internet.

The provincial learning network is being implemented on a continuous basis and will be in the process of being implemented in the province over the next two years. You'll be able to check on the progress of this on the Internet, on the web site.

Every school in B.C. needs reliable, effective and affordable telecommunications access to a variety of learning resources, education materials and information services. Students will have an opportunity to access specialized courses that are not available at their local schools, without leaving their community. They'll be able to participate in learning projects with other students and teachers from around British Columbia. They'll be able to access up-to-date multimedia resources located in the community, the province and indeed throughout the world.

Schools and school districts will be able to provide a broad range of educational services to students located in remote areas. They'll be able to provide distance education programs to students. There will be the provision of flexible delivery of courses for adults continuing their learning within the public school system. Teachers and administrators will be able to communicate with educators in other districts to share resources, software and instructional strategies, exchange ideas and participate in on-line professional development. They will be able to exchange administrative data with other schools, school districts, ministries of education and post-secondary institutions.

[10:45]

The Speaker: Hon. member, I draw your attention to the red light that is now on. Your last few words.

E. Conroy: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I'll just wind up by saying what a wonderful opportunity the Internet is going to provide for constituencies like mine.

T. Nebbeling: I want to join in that last statement by the member for Rossland-Trail. Indeed, the Internet and its opportunities will create wonderful opportunities for students throughout British Columbia.

I am very fortunate that in my riding there is a secondary school that has links with various open universities already. I see these students having the ability to tap into knowledge bases that will be part of the programs for students throughout British Columbia, and it's a tremendous opportunity.

However, at the same time, I must also ask some questions that I believe would be questions asked by students if they were in the gallery today and heard this announcement by the member for Rossland-Trail. That is, while it sounds good that you're going to hook up 1,700 public schools and you're going to provide this service for 22 post-secondary institutions and 20 community skill centres, it is also a six-year program. And I think the question by many students will be: "When will I have that opportunity?" There is a financial commitment of $123 million towards the program. When is this money going to be spent? Is it in this year's budget? Is it part of the $380 million that the government has committed for capital projects? Is it going to be next year? Is it going to be six years from now? We will have an election in that period of time, and it is doubtful that the implementation of the program six years from now will be done by the government that is in place today. Judging by the polls. . . . They very clearly indicate that that will not be the case. These kinds of questions have to be asked.

The other point, of course, is that this is not the first time this government started an initiative to broaden the opportunities for education throughout the province. Five years ago, the Minister of Education announced in this House a program where every elementary school was going to be given computers for their students and every secondary school was going to be given computers for their students. I did some checking, and five years later many education facilities do not have the opportunity to use computers which was promised under that program.

Yes, I am very excited that this initiative has been taken, but I'm also very cautious about being too optimistic about the implementation. It is the implementation that is truly going to prove that this is not just a promise that will not be met over time. I already indicated that in my riding we have the opportunity today to tap into sources that make education a lot more exciting for students. I have spoken at Rockridge Middle School in West Vancouver to students who were kind of bored about having to go to school, going through the motions and everything. Ever since this program was introduced in that

[ Page 6956 ]

E. Conroy: Well, I know that the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and I agree on the importance of the Internet. I can hear that in the tone of what he's saying. He asked a little bit about how this was going to be rolled out. As I said earlier, progress reports will be available on the Internet. You can stay tuned, hon. member, and you will be able to follow the progress as this program is rolled out over the next two years.

The whole thing around high-tech, as I see it, is the opportunities it is going to offer to people in areas like the one I represent. I can't stress that too much. This is an opportunity -- and I will repeat myself -- that people in areas like the one I represent only dreamed about. To see that in the next couple of years the whole world will open up before the communities in the Kootenays is unbelievable. As a person of middle age -- I don't want to say advanced age -- I am just beginning to learn about a lot of this stuff. In particular, my teenage son and I sit there doing the typical dad stuff, and he's wanting me to learn as much as I possibly can. The amount of information that I've been able to access in the last six months has just been unbelievable in terms of helping me to serve my constituents. As this whole program expands, I can see how it's going to be a real boon. I think the $123 million program that our government is committed to over the next couple of years will be done within the next couple of years -- for the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. It will be done very, very successfully. Having said that, I'd like to say thank you.

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

I recognize, for our fourth and final statement, the hon. member for Okanagan West.

AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION

The National Cancer Institute of Canada recently estimated that 129,200 people will be diagnosed with cancer in 1998, and 62,700 will die from the disease. Three types of cancer account for more than 50 percent of the new cases of cancer. Among women, these are breast, colorectal and lung cancers. Among men, these are prostate, lung and colorectal cancers. Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death for Canadian men and women. In 1998 the National Cancer Institute of Canada projects that 85 percent of all lung cancer patients will die within five years of their diagnosis.

We know there are four important aspects of cancer control; they are prevention, early detection, treatment and palliative care. It's expected that the cost of diagnosing, treatment and providing palliative care to patients with cancer will have a significant funding challenge for our publicly funded health care system. The financial cost of cancer places an enormous burden not only on society but also on the cancer patient and the family. Specialized treatment is often necessary, and the indirect costs to the family are often significant, including loss of earnings from premature disability and death, and the depletion of family financial resources. In any case, even putting dollars aside, the agony of watching a loved one suffer and then die is an incalculable emotional burden that no dollar amount can be attached to.

When we talk about cancer, we tend to speak in very clinical or sterile terms, but I know that we all will be touched in some small way by real-life stories of people with cancer. I've worked as a cancer nurse, and I've witnessed firsthand the devastation and grief that cancer can cause. On a personal note, I lost my best friend to cancer ten years ago, and my grandmother died of cancer five years ago.

We know that in many instances, cancer is a preventable disease. However, in many circumstances, the actions necessary to ensure prevention of cancer may be required early in our lifetime. Prevention of cancer is probably the most cost-effective approach in the long term, given the financial costs predicted for the treatment of cancer in the years to come. We all can reduce our chances of getting cancer by making changes in our personal lives.

The single most effective action one can take is to never start smoking, or to stop smoking as quickly as possible. Smokers develop lung cancer at about 30 times the rate of non-smokers, and about one in ten smokers who smoke a pack or more a day will develop lung cancer. Smokers also have a higher risk of developing cancer of the lip, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, bladder, kidney and pancreas. Users of smokeless tobacco -- otherwise known as chewing tobacco or snuff -- also have a higher risk of developing cancer of the mouth.

I think it's very important to make children aware of the risks and ensure that they have the information they need to help them, to educate them to never take up smoking or help them quit as soon as possible.

There is a real concern today, with statistics reporting that there is a rising incidence of teenage girls taking up cigarette smoking. Dietary choices and habits are clearly important too. Dietary risk factors have been linked to a number of common cancers, including stomach, breast, colon and prostate. Eating a healthy diet may serve as a protective measure against a number of diseases, including heart and stroke. Alcohol, as well, is generally considered to be an important cause of cancer. Alcohol has been identified as a cause of oral, pharynx, larynx and esophageal cancers, especially when associated with heavy smoking. Also, in primary liver cancer and possibly as a cause of breast and colorectal cancers, alcohol is related. It is recommended that the consumption of alcohol should be limited to no more than two drinks a day and not more than 12 drinks per week. For some cancers, there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.

There is also some evidence that even moderate levels of physical activity will help reduce the incidence of breast and colon cancers. Physical activity, together with a balanced diet, ensures that an appropriate body weight is maintained. We also know that exposure to sunlight may make you feel good, but too much sun or exposure to ultraviolet lamps will age your skin and may give you skin cancer, especially if you have light skin or a blond complexion.

I remember working in the skin clinic at the cancer centre in Calgary. We saw a lot of young men and women who worked on road crews or had outdoor jobs. They came in to get a lot of little skin cancers removed from their face and arms. They did not know that they should protect their skin with sunblock. So if you work outdoors or you're exposed to the sun a lot, you should use sunscreen. We also saw a lot of

[ Page 6957 ]

Early detection and diagnosis, although not a substitute for prevention, can be very important in terms of catching the cancer before it has spread and increasing survival time. The prognosis of a wide range of cancers, particularly skin, breast, cervix, colon and larynx, depend on how early they are picked up and treated effectively, in which case the result could be a complete cure. In view of the importance of early diagnosis, especially for some of the curable cancers. . . . There are cancer screening tests available. These include Pap smears for cervical cancers, pelvic examinations for uterine cancer, and breast self-examinations and mammography for breast cancer.

[11:00]

H. Giesbrecht: I thank the member opposite for her comments. Clearly we can consider ourselves fairly lucky if our lives have not been touched by someone going through the devastating experience of cancer and cancer treatment. The topic was titled "An Ounce of Prevention," and clearly the member opposite demonstrated that that's the route to go. There probably isn't enough money in taxpayers' pockets to continue dealing with symptoms in many of these cases, so what I want to suggest first is that while it's the sensible way to deal with it, it's also a cheaper way to deal with it.

However, there is a challenge when you decide to change the traditional practice, sometimes with limited resources, from programs that are geared toward dealing with the symptoms to new programs geared toward prevention. You can expect anxiety, even criticism, when you shift those resources. For example, we could maintain hospital beds at the levels we had years ago to deal with the symptoms, but shifting some of those resources to prevention programs makes a lot more sense, and governments must deal with the criticism. The other problem is that success is not always immediate. The cost savings are long term, and governments must have the courage to wait out the critics.

It's worth mentioning, of course, that in B.C. we're spending half a billion dollars more on hospital care today than we did six years ago. That trend cannot continue. It's an increase of 22.8 percent. B.C. spends 10.1 percent more per capita on health care than the next-highest-spending province. B.C. has maintained health care as a priority in spite of the federal government cutting its support for health care by billions. Much of the criticism and controversy is because there has been an emphasis on preventive programs. Much of the funding has gone toward those programs -- community health programs.

Last December an advisory committee developed a list of health goals for B.C. They identified six goals. They were announced on March 9 in the report "Health Goals Approved for British Columbia." You can use the six goals to kind of categorize the actions of the government in the past seven years or so. These actions obviously don't involve just the Health ministry. The member referred to some of those issues. I won't read them out to you, so let me just summarize.

Goal No. 6 is stated as "reduction of preventable illness, injuries, disabilities and premature deaths." Goals 1 to 5 deal more specifically with the prevention aspect. Clearly, if the first five goals are not achieved, then our government has an obligation to deal with goal No. 6, which is more about the symptoms.

But let's focus on the first five goals. The prevention part of achieving good health. . . . All those factors that contribute to the physical and emotional well-being of the individual are important. A clean, healthy and safe environment is necessary -- clean air and water, land free from pollutants. We need more effective and efficient health services providing equitable access and improved health services for aboriginal people. In looking at prevention, we need to consider the following initiatives across the spectrum of actions that have led to prevention of -- and I use the same terms -- injury, illness and disabilities. For example, a livable wage has an obvious impact on health. In B.C. that minimum is now $7.15 per hour. About a million British Columbians either have reduced MSP premiums or have no premiums at all. This initiative, introduced some years ago, needs to be recognized as a major step forward in preventing illness.

We could talk about the Healthy Kids program, the Building Blocks program. We could talk about B.C. Benefits and what it means to the health and well-being of B.C. families. There was a provincial mental health plan announced in January. There are low-income housing initiatives and projects that were achieved without federal assistance, and there are programs to prevent violence against women. We could talk about initiatives to protect the environment, with the province being on the leading edge of pollution standards -- all those measures to provide clean, safe air to breathe and water to drink. We recently had an official opening of the $30.6 million Kelowna cancer clinic.

Without prevention or preventive programs like B.C.'s tobacco use reduction strategy, we won't be able to keep up with future demands for cancer treatment. B.C. is working with federal, provincial and territorial governments to establish a new blood supply system. A provincial strategic plan is being developed to prevent HIV/AIDS. We have increased funding for mammography clinics, drug and alcohol counselling and new immunization programs.

In closing, it's important to understand that prevention is primarily an individual responsibility. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, the red light.

H. Giesbrecht: And ever since Justice Seaton made his report, we have been trying to gear toward that goal.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan West in reply.

S. Hawkins: I appreciate the comments from the member opposite. Yes, we have made progress in encouraging public policy that focuses on prevention. But I think that we can and, as legislators, should be doing more to promote healthy lifestyles and healthy public policy. I think healthy public policy should be focused on ways to make it easier for members of the public to adopt healthy lifestyle choices and practices by putting real strategies to work.

For example, we all know that smoking increases the risk of a number of cancers. Although the number of smokers has declined substantially in the last 25 years, the use of tobacco products is still the most preventable cause of premature

[ Page 6958 ]

We know that smoking is the leading cause of preventable premature death in our society. For the sake of public health, we should vigorously support measures directed at reducing the prevalence of tobacco use in our society. We know that this government has what it calls its tobacco strategy, one arm of which is a tobacco lawsuit which, I believe, this government has embarked upon not as a measure to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use in our society, but as a measure to increase the government's share of the profits from that industry. We don't have a commitment from the government that the profits from that lawsuit will actually go back into health care and prevention strategies.

Hon. Speaker, I believe that raising awareness about the prevention of cancer is key to reducing the incidence. In that vein, I'm particularly proud of a group of high school students in Kelowna who make up a theatre company called Rutland Seniors Voodoo Magic Theatre. Last year these students were encouraged and commissioned by Dr. Andy Pattullo and some of his colleagues to produce a play entitled "The Boardroom" in order to educate other children about the pervasiveness of tobacco advertising. I understand they will be doing another production this year, and I hope to attend that production.

The Speaker: Hon. member, your time has elapsed.

S. Hawkins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I think these kinds of initiatives need to be recognized and encouraged.

The Speaker: I want to compliment all members who participated in private members' statements today on the spirit and tone in which they were all delivered. It's much appreciated.

Hon. L. Boone: I call Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Throne Speech Debate
(continued)

A review of the throne speech of this government, this session, reveals a number of assumptions and priorities: "Our people share a vision of a province that is building, growing and creating opportunities for all British Columbians; a province that in the twenty-first century enjoys an economy as vibrant as its people; where everyone has the chance to succeed, where no one is left behind and where our young people can look to a future second to none."

Undoubtedly, British Columbians do share a hope that somehow the vision stated in the throne speech could someday be a reality. In my opinion, however, it is misleading, if not demeaning, to suggest to the people all across this province that the spouting of these words -- to hold out these lofty utopian visions when the reality of today is presented in much more harsh terminology. . . . In the harsh words of Statistics Canada, we are last place -- province No. 10 -- in economic growth; last place -- province No. 10 -- in job creation. In fact, we had fewer jobs, fewer people working in January 1998 than we did the previous year, and we have the highest unemployment rate west of Quebec.

The reality is that private sector investment has dropped to last amongst the six largest provinces in Canada. Even our gross domestic product has us far below the national average. The reality in this province is that young people cannot look to a future that's second to none, as stated in the throne speech. The reality is that youth unemployment has jumped to 19 percent, and fewer job opportunities mean higher debt as students struggle to pay for tuition and books with part-time employment -- that is, if they are lucky. As job prospects dry up in B.C., our youngest talent is being forced to look for work in other provinces. Last year, B.C.'s youth saw a net loss of some 10,000 jobs.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hopefully, in the future, perhaps under a new government in British Columbia, we can, as this throne speech states, enjoy an economy as vibrant as its people. But now, as expressed to me during my travels throughout this province, our fellow citizens are not feeling very vibrant. The people I've listened to don't sound terribly optimistic. They don't seem to see the positive signs that the government sees, especially in light of so many previous commitments that have gone unmet, so many goals left unattended and so many statements left unfulfilled. Accordingly, what tangible plans does this government have to return the vibrancy to the people of this province -- to make people again proud of this province and of our collective achievements?

The government said that the challenges of the economy call for a renewed commitment on the part of government to listen to British Columbians and to respond to their priorities. If we are to keep B.C. the best place to live in the world, I agree. We on this side of the House have been listening, and sometimes what we hear is not very pleasant. Does this government have the political will to truly open its ears to the people and to truly interpret those aspirations? This government has said that British Columbians have made it clear that they want government to focus on building the economy. For this government to hear this message at this time is indeed a signal that loud and repeated cries finally do get through. Their penetration allows us to agree on the problems; now on to the solutions.

[ Page 6959 ]

[11:15]

Hon. Speaker, this province is hurting intensely enough. The government now seems to have found that the creation of wealth is necessary for the provision of social programs: the more wealth, the more social programs. Let us have the social programs which we all want and need, but let us ensure that we first have that "strong investment climate" and that we have reduced debt so that we can afford the education, health and social programs which we indeed want and deserve. Anything less would doom the people of this province to the fate of Sisyphus, to roll a huge weight of debt up a mountain forever, never fully free to enjoy life, always giving so much just to stay even and so much more just to move so little, never free to walk unencumbered on a level playing field.

We have come a long way towards agreement -- at least on what our goals may be. At least we have, if the words of the throne speech can be truly believed. . . . If they can, then this government will have to get the will, the credibility, the management skills and the moral fortitude necessary to carry out its expressed directions. If credibility is based on past performance, then we need some work.

This government's budget targets seem a little like those of Charlie Brown. The famous cartoon character just doesn't understand the value of established goals and a clear aim. One day he was in his backyard involved in target practice with his bow and arrows. Charlie would pull the string back as far as his little muscles would allow and let the arrow fly into the fence. Then he would run over to the fence and draw a target around the arrow. Several arrows and targets later, Lucy arrived. "That's no way to have target practice!" she screamed. "You are supposed to draw the target and then shoot at it," she said. Charlie's response is a classic: "I know that, Lucy, but if you do it my way, you never miss." Sound familiar? Budget targets of years gone by, perhaps.

Aristotle told us that we are what we repeatedly do and that excellence, therefore, is not an art but a habit. Well, if we are to believe Aristotle, and many current thinkers have said very much the same thing, including Stephen Covey, the author of the bestseller Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. . .

An Hon. Member: It's educational.

G. Hogg: It's a good education for you. Please pay attention.

. . .then the opposite is also true. Failure can also become a habit if it is repeated without the benefit of learning from experience -- a skill which many people and governments do not seem to possess. This throne speech has the potential to elevate the repeated failures of past throne speeches and budgets to the art form which Aristotle first referenced. The government cannot talk itself out of something which it has behaved itself into. It will take years of positive behaviour to compensate for behaviours of the past.

It is said that organizations learn by studies and that people learn by stories. A government is both an organization and people. Assuming that it is capable of learning from experience, then we have both studies from Statistics Canada and sad stories from all across this province -- stories of families being broken up due to job losses, stories of families leaving this province, stories of organizations leaving the province because the laws made them feel unwelcome and stories of dashed hopes and shattered dreams. These are the stories of real people in the communities across this province. Our most valued experiences must truly come from these people. They must come from the streets, from the health care facilities, from the group homes, from the schools, from the seniors' facilities, from the small business people and from the foresters, fishers and miners all across this province. Those are the real people doing the real work of creating wealth -- people living together and caring for one another. That is where this province truly comes to life, not in this crucible that we call the Legislative Assembly. My experience in the real world, my reality, tells me that a disparity exists between these experiences and the actions of this government.

Perhaps naïvely, I still believe that each one of us in this assembly cares about the people of this province. We believe that our plans for them can work. We each believe that our perception reasonably reflects the aspirations of the majority of the people of this province. How is it, then, that our approaches to the throne speech and to the budget speech can be so polarized, so opposite -- so opposite in the extreme? Could it be based on our conflicting ideologies or paradigms or perceptions of this world? These competing paradigms, as Barker has postulated, practise their trades in different worlds. Two different groups of politicians see things differently, even when they look from the same vantage point and in the same direction: the Rashomon effect.

It's not that we can see anything we want to see, although some would certainly argue that. Paradigms or belief systems seem to act as the filters through which we view the world. Thus any information which exists in the real world but that does not fit into our model of reality will not get through the filter; we will not be able to see it. The information which we do see is concentrated and magnified by that filtering process, thus ultimately creating an illusion of even greater value. What we see may in fact be determined by what we believe. Consequently that which may seem obvious to one person may indeed be invisible to the next. Different political contexts; different political parties. Does our polemic gain value

[ Page 6960 ]

So how do we know what we know? Are our arguments based on rational, empirical practice characterized by unsparing skepticism, criticism and a respect for evidence? Or do we accept or reject knowledge according to how personally or politically rewarding it may be, with indeed little respect for the evidence? Each one of us must ask ourselves those questions. We must ask them as individuals, as organizations and as political parties. We must apply the answers to the policy questions which we face daily. Anything less than asking those questions would be a failure. A failure to ask them will mean that important decisions about the lives of the people of this province will be made without the due diligence which they so rightly deserve.

Hon. Speaker, my answers to those questions, when applied to the throne speech, tell me that some of the directions hinted at are correct, but they lack the substance, the depth and the focus necessary to achieve the shared vision of the people of this province. I am therefore unable to support the throne speech.

T. Nebbeling: Like my colleagues, I would also like to make some comments on the presentation of the throne speech. Since I arrived in this House, I have always looked at the throne speech as an opportunity for the government and for members of that government to share with British Columbians a vision of what they hope to achieve, what they believe they will achieve and to show a snapshot in time of the consequences of all the programs, plans and pieces of legislation that will be introduced in this House and where they will lead.

Of course, the throne speech, because of its nature, always has a very optimistic and positive tone. It is what we expect. At the same time, I think the people of the province should be able to expect that it contain not only a serious segment of truth but also an element of achievability. Since I was elected, I have now been presented with three throne speeches. I have listened very carefully every time. Every time I have considered the throne speech as a snapshot of what the people of this province can see happening and what will happen to their quality of life because of the steps taken by this government.

When the first throne speech was delivered in 1996, much of what was in that throne speech was related to the promises made that year, an election year, by the Premier of this province. We know he travelled this province; his candidates travelled the province. They made billions of dollars worth of promises, be it hospitals, be it schools, be it courthouses -- anything that any community needed. Somehow, somewhere a promise was made that what you desire, what you need, will happen if we get elected. So the first throne speech reflected many of these promises. I believe that at that time, a lot of people indeed expected that much of that would happen. A picture of a time in the future that would lead to all of these elements was seen as a true reflection of what this government intended to do for the people of this province.

When the throne speech of 1997 was presented, many of the promises made in 1996 were clearly not fulfilled. They were repeated in 1997. Again we talked about more schools, more hospital beds, more money for students and more money for the well-being of patients. We wanted to believe in 1997 that indeed this government was committed to making this all happen and that they had a financial strategy that would allow all these promises to come to fruition.

Now we are in 1998. Looking at the throne speech again, it is really telling that what was reinforced in 1997 is back again in the same throne speech -- maybe a little different wording, but the same type of promises. Again, they were promising to listen to people: "Times are tough; we know times are tough, but hang in. If you hang in with us, then this is what will be available to you at the end of the road. You will have your hospital beds; you will have your schools; you will have all the good things that you expected us to deliver, because not only do you need them, but we promised that we would deliver them."

[11:30]

To illustrate some of these areas where promises have been made and not been delivered and to illustrate some of the emotions that I talked about -- the anger, rather than throwing in the towel -- I would like to take you on a quick trip through my riding, West Vancouver-Garibaldi. Half of West Vancouver, from 22 Street up to the west side, is actually part of my riding; the other half of West Vancouver belongs to West Vancouver-Capilano. So I will take you on a little trip to West Vancouver-Garibaldi, and I will point out some of these areas where people feel that they are getting a raw deal but are certainly willing to fight back.

West Vancouver, you would think, is one of the areas where everybody wants to live. It is considered to be one of the affluent areas in British Columbia, if not in Canada. One of the things that many people forget -- and I think the members opposite certainly have forgotten -- is that a large segment of our population is senior citizens on fixed incomes. These senior citizens do not necessarily live in their own homes. We have many rental properties in West Vancouver. Every time

[ Page 6961 ]

In 1994, if you remember, when government took a big chunk of conditional grant money away from municipalities, it committed to all municipalities in this province that from 1994 onward they could count on X number of dollars -- $250 million, I believe it was. That money was a sacrilege; that was for the communities there. It would increase by the index, and communities could count on that funding. That was only in 1994. Well, in 1997 the government played another little trick and somehow found the nerve to come back to the municipalities and say: "Listen, we have made a decision. We are going to reduce your grant money by X number of dollars. The reason is that we are having tough times, and we all have to take our share."

The total number of dollars taken away from municipalities was $113 million -- $113 million less than what was committed in 1994 to be there for communities. What could councils do? They had to go back to the property owners and say: "Sorry, folks, we're getting less money than we anticipated. We can do a couple of things. We can reduce our existing programs -- be it policing, grant-in-aid programs or youth programs. But we will somehow have to cut. Or we can increase property taxes."

Some councils went with the cuts, some councils went with the property tax increases, and some councils had a mix of these two elements. But every time a council had to increase property taxes in West Vancouver, everybody thought: "Oh, it doesn't matter; those people can afford a little bit extra." But it did hit the senior citizens. I had more phone calls on that particular issue -- the increase in property taxes -- from people on fixed incomes who owned their homes and paid excessive property taxes. Because it was not based on their income; it was based on the value of a property which they may have owned for 40 years. They may have bought for $28,000, and through circumstances it is now worth $4 million. But you can't buy a loaf of bread by going to the baker and saying: "Here is my property worth $4 million. Will you give me a loaf of bread?" People cannot buy with that asset. So they were forced to sell their property because of excessive taxes. People were living in rental units, as I said before, and the landlord would knock on the door and say: "Listen, Mr. So-and-So, I know times are tough, but you know what? Government has just imposed another tax on me; property tax has gone up by $400 or $500, and I have to somehow recoup it. Your rent will go up by X number of dollars per month."

These people do not have those surplus funds to absorb the extra taxes that they see their rent being increased by annually. Though they talk about well-being and no tax increases, through little sneaky tactics this government has indeed increased taxes for a large number of people in this province. Every tax increase means less money in their pockets for people to spend.

That is West Vancouver. We go up to the Sea to Sky Highway. But before we go there, we go to Bowen Island, which is a small island with 3,000 people living there. Last year, especially in November and December, much attention was paid to Bowen Island because of the increase in ferry fees for people who had to get to the mainland on a daily basis, either to go to school or to go to work. In the past, the Ferry Corporation has given a fare reduction to people who live permanently on the islands. This applied to all the islands. Last year the government, without consultation. . . . They did have a stakeholders' group, which said: "Don't reduce the subsidy that is given to islanders without consulting that stakeholder group." Once again they did something that was totally unexpected: they removed the subsidy. For some families that meant up to $400 a month in increased ferry fees to get from their homes to their work.

So Bowen Islanders, when asked about this particular Speech from the Throne and when asked about throne speeches in the past, hon. Speaker. . . . If I ask, "Do you think things are getting better for you, as was promised in this throne speech," I can tell you that their answer is a resounding no. Not only are things getting more expensive, but at the same time the government is trying to take more money out of their pockets, in spite of the promises by this province not to do that. So this is just another small group of people that are saying: "We are angry."

What they did. . . . They didn't just stay on the island. They went to the mainland. They went to Horseshoe Bay and stood in front of the ferry. They did hold up the traffic, and they said: "Listen. We're not doing this because we want to make your life miserable trying to get home. We're doing this to let the world know that we cannot afford to get to work any longer." Thank God, because the other islanders also joined, and we had demonstrations throughout the island groups. In spite of what the Minister of Employment and Investment at that time said, islanders forced this government to reverse the decision, and things are back to normal again. But what we have achieved here, again, is a group of people that are truly angry with what this government is doing. The price that this group of people is going to exact from this government is the price they will pay when we have the next election.

Up the Sea to Sky Highway. . . . Thank God there is one little place where there is a fair amount of peace. It's Lions Bay. But then we get to Britannia Beach. Britannia Beach is, I think, the most shameful area that this province is responsible for. Over the years it has been known by this government that there is a terrible environmental disaster lurking. We know that there are incredibly poisonous acids draining into Britannia Creek, which drains into Howe Sound. We've known it for years. The problem has been identified, and it has to be solved. All these years we've talked about this environmental problem, and nothing was done about it. I know that there is a dispute happening about ownership of the lands. In the past these mines were creating these acids through seepage through mine shafts. But the real problem is that this problem is happening, the acid is going into Howe Sound, and in the long run we will see further pollution of the water area that is being used today by fishermen harvesting crab and shrimp. It's unacceptable, in my opinion, that this government remains silent, knowing about the danger of what's happening today and knowing about the incremental danger that will happen in the future if something is not done immediately.

So Britannia Beach will, in my opinion, become -- because I will speak on it as many times as need be -- an issue that this government will have to deal with. As long as they will not deal with it, we will, from time to time, make this government, when they dare to stand up in this House and declare themselves so environmentally responsible and proactive. . . . Whenever they say that, I will remind them of this disaster that is lurking in Britannia Beach along the Sea to Sky Highway.

[ Page 6962 ]

Now, we know that for two years we've had a food bank in Squamish; we know this. But nobody has ever seen 300 or 400 people standing outside this food bank on a daily basis for a bowl of soup. And that is what Squamish has. A once-thriving, forest-dependent community, a forest-dependent community that was promised assistance time after time -- in throne speeches, through programs, through the Ministry of Forests or other ministries -- to do something to rebuild the economic viability of the community. . . . That community today, a small community, has a food lineup of 300 to 400 people. If that is not telling this government something, then what will tell this government something?

Just incidentally, this morning the Premier was on the "Rafe Mair Show." It was really telling when the Premier tried to defend Skeena Cellulose by saying: "Well, we had to save this town. This $330 million that we have guaranteed in loans will save this town from oblivion." Then he went on to say: "If there's any other forest-dependent or resource-dependent community in British Columbia that is in the same situation, we will do exactly the same."

The minister opposite, who represents that riding, has a big smile on his face. Now, I don't know if the smile is caused by the fact that the newspapers have declared him a young 52-year-old. After being identified yesterday as an old man, he is so vain that he called the reporter and said: "How can you call me an old man? There was a Japanese reporter here, and he called me a young-looking 52-year-old." So I don't know if the smile is representing the fact that he got this retraction from the reporter about his looks, or if he indeed has the smile on his face because he really did something -- which is being seen as self-serving -- by getting Skeena Cellulose $330 million.

The real clincher now, of course, is that the Premier committed on the "Rafe Mair Show" this morning that any other community that is in dire straits and is a resource-based community will get exactly the same treatment. So I'm looking forward to seeing communities like Squamish getting the assistance that they have been promised and that they need. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing Port Alberni getting a good chunk of money. I definitely look forward to seeing Ucluelet getting some financial support, so that these displaced forest workers are not just sitting in the skills centres learning how to compose a letter of reference or learning how to compose a job description. I mean, what is a 50-year-old logger going to do with the ability to write a résumé? There is no job for these workers. This is how the government keeps some people in the stream -- by pretending that there are actually not as many unemployed people in the forest industry as there are, and by making them learn how to write a job reference and a job résumé.

I think Port Alberni should get a tape from the radio program this morning with the Premier, because he, as the Premier of this province, made the commitment that from now on every resource-based community in dire straits will get funding, just as Prince Rupert got funding for the Skeena Cellulose pulp mill.

[11:45]

We can go on. . . . Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to Whistler a little later. If there is one area in this province where I think it can be seen that if you do things the right way, great things will happen, if there is one area where we can show, with the initiative of private industry and the initiative of small business people, that from very little you can build something phenomenal that will ultimately be recognized as something so special that the whole world will be talking about that place, it is Whistler.

So I will come back to Whistler and talk a little bit about what happened there, but I want to go on to Pemberton. Pemberton is very much like Squamish. It used to be a very thriving community, and suddenly the rug was pulled from under them. This community, which used to be a viable community, has now got an unemployment rate of close to 23 percent. At the same time, the infrastructure in that community has just gone down the drain. For years it has been trying to let this government know that their elementary school is in such a state that no child should have to enter the building and live with the health risks that they get exposed to on a daily basis because of the air quality. When I say how serious this particular issue is, I can say it with some conviction. An air-quality test was done recently in that building for the Workers Compensation Board to see how the air quality was affecting not only the students but also the teachers. That study clearly showed that the school should be closed immediately. That was the recommendation from the study: that the air quality is such that it is not a viable environment for anybody to either work in or learn in. This study has gone to the Minister of Education. Because of this study, the replacement of this school -- not the fixing of this school, but the replacement of this school -- became the number one priority for school district 48.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

For years we have been trying to talk to the minister to do something about it, and for years we have gone nowhere. This year school district 48 again put forward a list of needed facility improvements, and again Signal Hill was right at the top of the list. What does the government do? They don't go with the recommendation of the people who know exactly what's going on there. They just ignore it. They go to priority No. 3, which is an add-on to the classrooms in Squamish. They go to No. 6. But priority No. 1, which has the highest priority because it undermines the health of the students and the teachers, is just totally ignored.

Rather than this community of Pemberton saying: "Well, we throw in the towel; this is it. . . ." No, no, no. They start fighting back. They are angry. Up to now all we have seen done by the community of Pemberton is a lot of letters coming to the Minister of Education talking about this issue. The community is not taking it any longer. They will now come personally to Victoria and let Victoria know how they feel about how they are being treated and what their vision is of this province if this kind of stuff continues to go on. So again, that's another community that is extremely angry.

I have been quite negative in analyzing what is happening in this province, and I've used my riding to give some

[ Page 6963 ]

What are we doing today to create jobs? Maybe we should ask what we should be doing to create jobs in this province. The very first thing we have to do is recognize that it is the small and medium-sized business sectors that create jobs. It is the small and medium-sized business sectors that have to be part of the engine of rejuvenation of this province and its economic viability. The tokenism that is included in the budget, where small business is given a tax break which doesn't happen until next year. . . . Why it was announced in this year's throne speech baffles me, because it doesn't do anybody any good. Nevertheless, what has been offered will add up to approximately $200 a year for the average business. If this government believes that $200 a year will make a small business owner decide to hire another person, I've got news for them: it won't. It doesn't do them any good. This government says: "Listen, we are giving them an incentive; we are giving the small business sector a break." At the same time, because of other little initiatives of the government -- like putting $36 million more in highway costs onto these small communities -- these communities are forced to increase property taxes. The commercial property taxes especially will most likely increase by considerably more than the $200 that this government so generously throws them as a bone and as the vessel to rescue the economic viability of this province. So that $200 means nothing.

The same goes for the promise to let people keep more money in their pockets by reducing income taxes. It's a great thing to say that a family with an income of $50,000. . . . It's not this year, because this year nobody gets a break. Next year a family with an income of $50,000 is going to get a break to the value of 59 bucks a year. This family is going to say: "We got a break on our income taxes. Let's see how we're going to spend this money." They can't even go to Denny's for dinner with $59. It's tokenism, and it doesn't do a darn thing.

If we truly want to see something happen that will seriously give small and medium-sized businesses a real break, what we have to do is look at what Alberta is charging in small business taxes. When we realize that Alberta charges 50 percent less than this government charges businesses, then it would make sense to get a small business tax that is lower than Alberta's, that will make people come back to this province, that will bring in investment money and that will create jobs, because people will consume more, and consuming creates jobs.

B. Penner: I'd like to thank the previous speaker for highlighting some of the concerns affecting his community. I hope to do that in my speech, as well, but first I'll start with general comments responding to the throne speech.

I think it was almost four weeks ago that the Speech from the Throne was read by the Lieutenant-Governor. I have a copy of the Speech from the Throne. As I recall from sitting here four weeks ago and listening to that speech, the first thing that caught my attention was the comment that we have an economy in British Columbia that is "as vibrant as its people." I was instantly struck by the question: is this a deliberate and backhanded comment about the people of British Columbia, comparing the people to the state of our economy and saying that the people are just like our economy? I hope that was an oversight and not a deliberate attempt to slight the people of British Columbia. The fact is that we haven't had the most vibrant economy in Canada. In fact, in the past five or six years our economy has been on a continuing downhill trend. This year we're projected to have the lowest growth rate of any province in Canada. Last year, 1997, we actually created fewer jobs in British Columbia than the smallest province in Canada, Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island, I will point out, is a province that has a population, I believe, that is about the size of Coquitlam, yet that province was able to create more jobs than all of British Columbia. That's dismal. So that comment about British Columbia's economy being as vibrant as its people. . . . Clearly the speechwriter better go back and do his homework and come up next year with something a bit more appropriate for describing people in British Columbia. They are better than that; they are better than last place in Canada. They are better than a province such as Newfoundland, which is leading the country in economic growth.

When I was growing up and going to high school and looking for work, living in this province and seeing all the great things around me, I would never have believed somebody telling me that the day would come when British Columbia would be last in Canada in economic growth and Newfoundland would be leading the country. I think that's upside down; that's certainly upside down from what I grew up with. It's completely backwards, and something needs to be done about it.

In analyzing the contents of this year's throne speech, I thought it'd be valuable to take a look at what they said last year. What is their track record in terms of promises and commitments laid out in the throne speech last year? Well, last year there was a quote: "My government is committed to creating 21,000 new jobs in our forest sector. . . ." Well, what happened in our forest sector last year? More than 5,000 people lost their jobs in the forest sector last year. In fact, by Christmastime last year, there had been approximately 15,000 layoffs announced. So much for the promise of 21,000 new jobs in the forest sector. We actually went downhill.

There were other promises in the throne speech last year. There was a commitment to creating more jobs for young people and youth. We heard all about the government's supposed Guarantee for Youth, which I note is missing from this year's throne speech. The Guarantee for Youth slogan has been quietly dropped, and no wonder. What kind of guarantee was it? A guarantee of more jobs? In fact, B.C.'s youth unemployment rate has gone steadily upwards. When the Premier, who calls himself the Minister Responsible for Youth, took on that role, youth unemployment was just around 14 percent -- I believe a shade under it. Today the unemployment rate for youth -- young people between the ages of 15 and 24 -- is 18.6 percent. Some track record! Some success! It's a complete failure. As Minister for Youth, he has been a complete failure; he has not lived up to the promise. So it's little wonder that they ditched the slogan, Guarantee for Youth, because it's been a broken guarantee. Perhaps the Premier was afraid that young people would try to enforce that guarantee and sue, according to the terms of that guaran-

[ Page 6964 ]

[12:00]

Much has been made by this government of the economic downturn in Asia. They're pinning the responsibility for British Columbia's declining economic performance on what's happened in Asia. Well, I can't blame them, I guess, given their track record of trying to pin the blame on anybody but themselves. The fact is that the Asian crisis didn't really start to develop until last summer, and it really didn't start to affect markets until the fall. But British Columbia's economic performance has been declining for the last four or five years. When you look at key indicators such as productivity in our leading sectors in British Columbia, we have been losing ground consistently for four or five years. We didn't feel it right away. It takes time for economic trends to manifest themselves in terms of measurable statistics such as unemployment figures. But it's happening; it's catching up to us. Today British Columbia's unemployment rate is 9.9 percent and rising, while the rest of Canada's unemployment rate is 8.5 percent and dropping. Something's badly out of whack.

If it were really true that Asia is the root of all our problems, why is it that our neighbouring states and provinces, who rely heavily on the Asian market, just like we do, are booming while we're falling? I refer to the state of Washington, hon. Speaker, just a few miles to the south of us. Their unemployment rate is somewhere in the 4 percent range, I believe. What is ours? I just said what it is. It's almost 10 percent, and for young people it's 18.6 percent. Look a little bit to the east. I know they don't like hearing about it on the other side of the House, but Alberta has an unemployment rate that for the past year has consistently been in the 5 percentage range. British Columbia's rate is almost 10 percent and still rising.

These are our competitors. We should be in the marketplace with them, and we're not. We're not even in the same ballpark. What's happening? It didn't just happen with Asia. This trend started a long time ago, and it is the result of a consistent series of policy measures implemented by the current government that have hurt our economy and hurt individuals' ability to compete and that have scared investment out of British Columbia, taking jobs and people's hopes and futures with it. It's completely unacceptable.

A few days ago -- I think it was two days ago -- I attended a conference in Vancouver, and I met with some legislators from the United States. I spoke to one person who is a representative in the Washington State Legislature. She told me that the biggest problem they're dealing with in the legislature in Olympia is what to do with their ever-increasing surplus. Can you imagine having that problem here? They're only a few miles away, and they're struggling to cope with an $800 million (U.S.) surplus. We in British Columbia are adding to our debt, year after year after year. Increased debt is simply another way of saying taxes deferred, because it has to get paid somehow.

In Washington State, I'm told by the same legislator, their total debt. . . .

Interjection.

B. Penner: Hon. Speaker, I think the member opposite would like to hear this.

The total debt for the state of Washington, which has a population greater than that of British Columbia, is $350 million. That's million, not billion. Our total debt in British Columbia is 100 times greater than the debt in Washington State, according to the legislator I spoke to on Wednesday. Talk about a difference!

At the same time, they have a surplus of $800 million (U.S.). In addition to that, their legislation, which requires them to balance their budget and to not run deficits, has required them to put money into a rainy-day account. There's now about half a billion U.S. dollars in that account, and they're retiring their debt as the bonds come due. Talk about a tale of two different places! I know the other side gets weary of hearing about Alberta -- frankly, I get tired of talking about Alberta, too, because it's depressing -- but take a look to the south of us. Washington State has major markets in Asia, and they're booming. The unemployment rate is less than half of what ours is. They have surpluses every year. They haven't had a deficit in Washington State since the late 1980s, but we, through good times in the early nineties, continued running deficits.

They have balanced-budget legislation in Washington State, but we don't in British Columbia. We have a government here in British Columbia that doesn't support balanced-budget legislation, although the opposition consistently raises that as a proposition and has tabled balanced-budget legislation that's available for this government to adopt if it so chooses.

Let's just remind ourselves that our economic problems in British Columbia started a long time ago, and they are a direct result of consistent policy choices made by this government. It's not rocket science. When you tax people, when you strangle them with red tape, when you send messages to the foreign investment community that this is a place that is hostile to business, is it any surprise that they go elsewhere? I don't think so. Boeing, of course, is a major employer in Washington State, but what I'm interested in is the fact that 50 years ago, roughly, we in British Columbia had a chance to have Boeing locate the bulk of its facilities in our province. I know that, because near my community of Chilliwack there is an outlying area known as Yarrow, and Boeing had a plant in Yarrow up until the early 1940s. Local people who lived there told me about it, and they said: "Barry, just imagine what would have happened if Boeing, instead of deciding to put most of its investment into Washington State, had maintained that facility, their production and their investment in British Columbia. Just imagine what we would have in our community and in the Fraser Valley."

Similar lost opportunities are occurring every day. We don't hear about them, but every day there are people who could be creating jobs in British Columbia, could be investing here, could be creating the next Boeing or Microsoft, but are

[ Page 6965 ]

For the last couple of years I've sat in this House -- I was first elected in May 1996 -- and I've never heard anything in a throne speech from this government about what they plan to do in the wake of the closure of the only land-based military force in British Columbia. I'm referring to the federal government's decision to close Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack. We've heard nothing from this government in response to that closure. When faced with the same challenge, other provinces got to work, actively working with the federal government to find solutions and alternatives. What has this government done? There's been a deafening silence. We have a Premier who says he likes to stand up for British Columbia, but where has he been on this issue? He's been off the radar map.

There's a contrast. Earlier this week the Calgary Herald ran a story about the closure of Canadian Forces Base Calgary. That closure was announced about the same time as the closure of Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack. The difference is that the province of Alberta didn't take it lying down. They went to work, they started lobbying the politicians in Ottawa, and said: "This is an issue you can't ignore. We won't allow you to ignore it. We're not going to allow you to leave that land sitting idle and let those buildings fall into disrepair, because after all, it was paid for with tax dollars." So what happened this week? Well, Canada Lands Company has announced that it's taking over the lands at the former Canadian Forces Base Calgary and will be spending $100 million to renovate the facilities and turn them over to a private sector developer who will, in turn, put in $400 million to create a state-of-the-art movie production centre. This is the first phase of redevelopment that will begin next week -- not next year, not next decade, but next week.

I'll give you some more specifics, hon. Speaker, if I may quote from the article in the newspaper from Calgary: "Projections released Tuesday show that Calgary stands to gain 14,000 jobs and $1.5 billion in economic development benefits from the redevelopment of the Currie Barracks site located at former Canadian Forces Base Calgary." Meanwhile, what's happening at Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack? It's virtually deserted. It's collecting weeds and cobwebs. That's completely unacceptable. If taxpayers in this province had any idea of what was happening to their hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in that facility over the years, they would be outraged. But there has been no comment from this government in any throne speech that I've ever heard about, saying to Ottawa: "You've got to do something about this facility. It's an absolute waste of taxpayers' money to let those buildings fall into disrepair." Yet that is what is happening.

There are some alternatives that this government could consider. I'm not saying that there's any one solution to what happened at Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack, but there are a number of options that could be pursued. This government keeps talking about wanting to establish a technical university for British Columbia, yet they've never seriously considered locating a technical university at Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack. Well, you might ask: why should they? What is there at Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack that would be suitable for a technical university? I'm glad you asked that question. According to an article in the Chilliwack Progress dated March 27, 1998, this is what is located at Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack, and this is how it could suit a new university:

". . .a virtually new $10 million educational facility with fibre-optic links, computer modem terminals in all classrooms, a 300-person theatre, cafeteria and library. There are 40 offices for administration space. The 76,284-foot building has 27 classrooms and is wheelchair-accessible. There is room for further expansion, additional office space nearby, and more than 300,000 square feet of dormitory and residence facilities. A multi-purpose recreational complex is within walking distance."

I believe that it's incumbent upon this government to come out and take a serious look at what some of the opportunities are at the former Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack. It's a public asset going to waste. In these times of limited financial means, while this government keeps racking up the debt -- another $1.25 billion again this year -- we can't afford to squander a resource that's already been bought and paid for but is just sitting empty now. We have to put those kinds of resources to work for people in British Columbia.

Yesterday a bit of a debate arose concerning the problem of leaky condominiums. This is an important issue in our economy in British Columbia, because many young people -- many first-time homebuyers -- can't afford to buy a single, detached dwelling. Rather, they opt to locate in a strata complex -- condominiums. Yet throughout the lower mainland the problem of leaky condos has become almost epidemic. What did we find out yesterday? We found out that this government commissioned a report -- good on them for doing that -- but then forgot about it for the last almost two and a half years. I think it sat in the Legislative Library for 27 months -- again after being paid for with tax dollars. What did they do with it? They let it sit in the library and gather dust. It wasn't until the Liberal opposition removed that report from the library that it got any public attention.

Late yesterday, the member for New Westminster said that the Liberal opposition only yesterday got interested in the whole topic of leaky condos. That is absolutely untrue. I was researching Hansard earlier today, and I found out that our member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, as our Housing critic, raised the issue of leaky condos in June last year, in a debate with the former Minister of Housing -- who has just now entered the chamber. It was this side of the House that raised the issue in June last year. The member opposite -- the minister responsible -- said that he would look into it. They had already looked into it; they had already commissioned a study and had already paid for it with tax dollars. They had people from the private sector volunteer their time. Busy people with many talents and skills dedicated themselves to putting recommendations into that report as to how to solve the problem. What did the government do? They put it in the Legislative Library 27 months ago and forgot about it, and it's been collecting dust ever since. Shame!

[12:15]

[ Page 6966 ]

What's even more shocking is that the member for New Westminster, who chastised us for not raising this issue earlier, should have known better. He participated in a debate on that very topic of leaky condos about six weeks later, but he seems to have forgotten. Let me just refer to the specific page. On July 18, 1997 -- it was a Friday -- there was a debate concerning leaky condominiums and the increasing problems that that was posing to people in British Columbia. Again, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove participated in that debate and reminded the member opposite, in case he'd forgotten, that he himself -- the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove -- had raised that very issue six weeks prior. Again he indicated that it was a very serious problem that he knew that members from the private sector had been meeting with members of government earlier to try to find a solution, and that they had come up with a number of recommendations. His question, which I think was more than a rhetorical question, was: what is the government doing with those recommendations?

Well, we got the answer yesterday. Nothing. Those recommendations sat in the Legislative Library -- just outside the door here, down the hall -- for 27 months and gathered dust, after being paid for with tax dollars.

I think that is relevant when you assess this government's stated commitments in this year's throne speech. Will they forget about the commitments in this throne speech, in this document, just as quickly as they forgot about the recommendations on leaky condos? Will this simply be filed away again in the Legislative Library, maybe to be found in the future by some student doing research? I hope not, hon. Speaker. I hope they don't forget about their commitments and their promises. We can't afford any more broken promises in British Columbia.

I note that the next speaker scheduled is the Minister of Environment. I would like to take this opportunity to raise a matter of local concern, not precisely in my constituency but affecting the Chilliwack River valley, which is just to the south of my community. For the last number of years there has been an ongoing crisis in the Chilliwack River valley affecting fish habitat. I'm referring to the Slesse trailer park clay bank slides that have occurred repeatedly in the last number of years. There was a major slide in January of 1997 that for a moment actually stopped the flow of all water in the Chilliwack River valley, until the water built up behind this new mudflow and broke through. Imagine if that slide had been bigger. Imagine if the amount of water behind that flow had been bigger and had broken through. There are almost 2,000 people who live in the Chilliwack River valley. Their lives and safety could have been jeopardized. In fact, I suggest that their lives and safety are being jeopardized now because the fundamental problem has not been dealt with. The slope instability at Slesse Park remains.

This government, I'm sorry to say, has done very little to address it. Proposals have come from the Chilliwack area to have forest renewal funding applied to solve the problem, to help stabilize the slope. But guess what. We were told that FRBC money was not for that purpose. Well, what on earth is it for? That valley has been heavily logged since the turn of the century. In fact, at one time there was a private railroad that went all the way from Yarrow to Chilliwack Lake itself. If you spent some time hiking in that valley, as I used to as a park ranger, you would find remnants of that railway bed still existing in the forest. That entire valley was logged, and now the mountainsides are being logged. Much of the flooding problems that arise on an annual basis -- particularly in November, December and January -- are at least exacerbated by the effects of logging over the past century. Yet what is the answer we get from Forest Renewal British Columbia? "This is not an appropriate project. We'll give you $100,000 for further studies on the spotted owl" -- a topic that's been studied to death by our American cousins. Surely they would be happy to share some of their research with us instead of having us reinvent the wheel at taxpayers' expense.

Interjection.

B. Penner: Yeah, perhaps those studies are already in a library and have been forgotten about.

But when it comes to solving a specific problem in a valley that was heavily forest-dependent and has perhaps been damaged to some extent by heavy forestry activities of the past, we're told that FRBC money is not applicable.

The contrast between what the Ministry of Environment is requiring of private landowners and farmers in my area and what they require of themselves in terms of being good stewards of the land is, frankly, dramatic and shocking. The difference is absolutely night and day. They're telling private landowners that they had better stay 15 metres back, maybe 30 metres back, from any ditches -- which they're now calling watercourses -- because there might be fish in those ditches. Well, I'm concerned about fish too. But I would hazard a guess that there are far more fish in the Chilliwack River than there have ever been in any particular farmer's ditch. So why concern ourselves so much about a smaller problem, when you refuse to deal with a much bigger problem? I suggest that it's because it's easier to pick on the small guy than to deal with your own problem. It's easier to point fingers than to solve the problem.

I know the minister opposite is anxious to respond to that. I wish to convey to her my sincere invitation to come to the Chilliwack River valley at some point in the future and see the problem firsthand. I would be happy to accompany her, and I'm sure the member for Abbotsford, whose riding extends into the Chilliwack River valley, would be happy to join us on a walking tour to take a look at the problem. I know that some studies have been commissioned. Thurber Engineering has taken a look at it, but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist or even an engineer, frankly, to get a sense of what the problem is. You can see it when you take a walk; you can see what's happened to that slope. It's just continually eroding. There's no longer any foliage on that slope to make it stable. Every time we have heavy rains, down comes more clay. The clay goes into the water; the clay settles through the water. What does it do? It falls to the bottom of the riverbed and blankets the gravel bed, which needs to be left open so that air can oxygenate the fish eggs that have been laid there by spawning salmon and steelhead. If those gravel beds are covered with that kind of silt, the oxygen will not be able to get through to the salmon eggs, and we will lose fish in British Columbia. This government purports to be concerned about fish, but here is a real opportunity for them to demonstrate that it's more than just rhetoric on their part. Here is an opportunity to do something to improve fish habitat. FRBC did fund some spawning beds just above these clay bank slides in the Chilliwack River valley. I was there last fall for the opening. It looks very aesthetic, and it's very nice. They've

[ Page 6967 ]

We had another major slide in January 1998. At first it was estimated that 90,000 cubic metres of material again blocked the river. What happens? This big clump of clay comes down and sits in the river and slowly gets eroded away. According to documents we obtained through freedom of information, Ministry of Environment staff are aware that the result of these slides will be an ongoing increase in turbidity levels. That's just a fancy word for saying dirt in the water, and dirt in the water harms fish. So the Environment ministry's own staff are aware that these slides and these clay bank problems are increasing turbidity in the water and that it's posing a challenge to the fish.

Hon. Speaker, I'm going to try and paraphrase a reference from the Bible, if I can remember back to my childhood days at Sunday school. I think the phrase went: "Don't be concerned about a sliver in the eye of your friend when you've got a board in your own." I think this government could take that to heart when dealing with private landowners, saying: "Look out for this little ditch in your front yard." I say, "Look out for the Chilliwack River valley," which has historically been one of the leading showcases for salmon and steelhead fishing in British Columbia. With that, I look forward to the remarks from the Minister of Environment.

W. Hartley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: Today in the Legislature we have 45 grade 5 visitors from St. Francis Xavier School in Vancouver, accompanied by several adults and their teacher Mrs. Aurita Josef. Please welcome them.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's certainly my pleasure to have this opportunity near the end of the debate to speak on the Speech from the Throne. I would like to begin, if I could, by really bringing members of this House up to date on some of the issues and achievements by residents in Kamloops and the important events that have happened in Kamloops since the last time I had the opportunity to address the House on these matters.

First, I'd like to speak to some of the personal achievements that Kamloops residents have made in the last few months. I'll begin by acknowledging the new contributions being made by Kamloops-area residents to a number of important boards and agencies in the province, including Kent Wong, who was recently appointed to the Heritage Advisory Council; Mary Ann Sandrelli, giving advice to the Minister of Health on matters related to our AIDS strategy; Mo Bradley, on his appointment to the habitat conservation trust fund; Jann Bailey, on her reappointment to the B.C. Lottery Corporation; and Al Knight on this reappointment to the private post-secondary institution. I send my congratulations to all of them once again.

I'd also like to acknowledge the work that's ongoing in the community right now related to a very important part of the throne speech which was addressed to economic initiatives. It was referenced directly in the Speech from the Throne, I believe: the need to address regional economic development strategies. Again, I'd like to acknowledge the work that's going on at this time by Robert Fine, who is serving as co-chair of the economic summit advisory committee, along with many other members from Kamloops and other Okanagan and southern interior communities.

At this time I'd also like to welcome the new president who was just appointed to University College of the Cariboo, which is a very important educational institution in our community and again speaks to the commitment this government has made to education through the Speech from the Throne and the budget speech. The new president is Dr. Roger Barnsley. He comes highly recommended from the province of New Brunswick and places very high priority on work with the community, which will in fact continue in the tradition of UCC.

I'd also like to acknowledge again a particular member of our community, Rick Laidlaw, who was actually honoured here several days ago for his contribution to the food bank and the B.C. Sharing program and for his enthusiasm and how that has really kept it going in our community, even though the provincial program had ended. He certainly is what one would call a real B.C. hero.

I'd also like to acknowledge the work of several agencies in the community, including the Kamloops Heritage Society and, in particular, Melanie Formanski, who is the society president. She has begun work on the restoration of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, with thanks to the B.C. Heritage Trust for the grant that gave them the opportunity to begin that important work.

I'd also like to thank the Real Estate Foundation of B.C. and our local members for the work they did in creating a safe home for runaway students. They've worked with the community for some time in order to create that building opportunity. It will be supported through the Ministry for Children and Families. Again, it's a very important part of this government's commitment to children and their families, and it addresses a very important issue related to safety for children who find themselves in a situation where they need to take the time to feel safe while they make better decisions about their personal circumstances.

[12:30]

Finally, I'd like to speak to another recently formed agency -- a society, really -- in Kamloops. It's the Council of Canadians, a new chapter. The local presidents are Dalton and Anita Strong. They've been doing some terrific work around the issue of MAI in particular. They've organized several community events that I've had the opportunity to speak at, and it has really heightened awareness in our community of Kamloops about the potential implications of MAI.

In the same vein, there's a new campus organization called SPEAC -- Students Protecting Environmental Action and Concern -- with Joanne Digeso as a founding member, again taking on not only environmental issues but MAI as well.

If I could, I'd also like to mention a couple of important events. I won't go into too much detail, because otherwise I won't have an opportunity to address some of the concerns that the member opposite raised in his remarks. But I acknowledge the huge effort of more than 1,300 volunteers from Kamloops in the Ford world curling event last weekend in Kamloops. In particular, I pass on my congratulations to Norm Daley, who is not only a good friend but was president

[ Page 6968 ]

I would be remiss if I didn't also mention an important event in our business community. That was the official opening of Sun Peaks Village at Tod Mountain in February. It was an amazing opportunity to really see the number of businesses and hotels, as well as the expansion of the skiing operation in that area and how it has really become a huge tourism draw for the Kamloops area.

I would like to acknowledge the contribution made by Nippon Cable and Mr. Ohkubo, who is the largest investor and was on hand for those opening ceremonies. His investment has created many new jobs and opportunities for the Kamloops area.

I'd like to turn my remarks momentarily to a couple of topics that were raised in the Speech from the Throne related to environmental issues. Before I forget to do so, I'd like to offer this to the member opposite who made remarks about the Chilliwack River valley. I take his concerns most seriously. I would like to take him up on his invitation to visit, and I hope we can do that once this House rises in the fall. I assume it will happen by then.

In the environmental part of the Speech from the Throne, there were a variety of references, including the TransCanada Trail, which I hope I'll have the opportunity to speak to again in this House; our Parks Legacy program, where we're taking the opportunity to review possible new ways of creating stewardship through our parks system and to involve more communities in efforts around managing our parks; and the reference to new stewardship opportunities. In particular, I think that attention can be drawn to our beverage container management strategy and the expansion of the beverage container deposit refund system. There was also particular reference to environmental issues that happen in an urban setting, mostly about air quality and water quality. I hope I'll have the opportunity in estimates to talk more about the work we're doing related to the historic Kyoto agreement and the work this ministry needs to do around air emissions and greenhouse gas reduction.

I also speak in support of the many references in the Speech from the Throne which support our traditional economic engines in the province, including changes to the Forest Practices Code in the forestry sector -- which will, of course, not affect environmental standards at all but will in fact improve them in several ways -- and of those initiatives in the Speech from the Throne that make reference to supporting our mining industry. It is also a very important economic driver in our community, in the Kamloops area in particular, which employs many more people.

I applaud the direction in the Speech from the Throne around fisheries and the references that have been made to them. I know the hon. member opposite agrees on the need for this government to support fisheries. I look forward to him supporting the work of the new minister, who has been appointed to fisheries management issues, and continuing to work with me around fish habitat matters.

Hon. Speaker, it would be my pleasure to speak at greater length on the Speech from the Throne, but seeing that the hour is what it is, I would like to give my thanks to those members opposite for listening to my very brief remarks about my community and my positive comments around the Speech from the Throne. Thank you for this opportunity.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I will put the question on the Speech from the Throne.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 36
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Hammell	Boone	Streifel
Pullinger	Lali	Orcherton
Stevenson	Calendino	Walsh
Randall	Gillespie	Robertson
Cashore	Conroy	Priddy
Petter	Miller	G. Clark
Dosanjh	MacPhail	Lovick
Ramsey	Farnworth	Waddell
Hartley	Sihota	Smallwood
Sawicki	Bowbrick	Kasper
Doyle	Giesbrecht	Janssen

NAYS -- 26
Sanders	Gingell	C. Clark
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Plant
Chong	Whittred	Jarvis
Anderson	Nettleton	Penner
J. Wilson	Weisgerber	Nebbeling
Hogg	Hawkins	Hansen
Thorpe	Symons	van Dongen
Barisoff	Dalton	Masi
McKinnon		G. Wilson

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:43 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada