1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5843 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Saanichton marina Indian land claim case. Mr. G. Hanson –– 5845

Relocation of Saltspring ferry terminal. Mr. Lovick –– 5845

Effectiveness of Oscars in oil spills. Mr. Long –– 5846

Gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. Mr. Rose –– 5846

Capping of assessments in Vancouver. Mr. Blencoe –– 5847

Sale of Expo lands. Hon. Mr. Michael –– 5847

Ministerial Statement

Mammography expansion program. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 5848

Mr. Perry

Budget Debate

Mr. Sihota –– 5848

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 5851

Mr. Cashore –– 5854

Mr. Chalmers –– 5858

Mr. Williams –– 5860

Hon. Mr. Michael –– 5863

Ms. A. Hagen –– 5866

Mr. Mowat –– 5869

Mr. Gabelmann –– 5871

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

MR. PELTON :

Mr. Speaker, hon. members, we are indeed honoured today in having with

us in the members' gallery Dr. Wilbert K. Chagula. Dr. Chagula is the

Ambassador of Tanzania and permanent representative to the United

Nations. Accompanying the doctor today is Mrs. Zeri Aziz and her

daughter, Miss Shabnam Aziz. I would ask everyone to make them welcome,

please.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, for three

days this week, from the 3rd to the 5th inclusive, we are hosting nine

Washington State legislative interns and their program coordinator.

This is the second part of an exchange program, as we paid a visit to

their state capital in Olympia just three weeks ago.

While

the B.C. interns have visited Olympia in previous years, this is the

first time that Washington State interns have come here. During their

time in Victoria they will meet with several elected and appointed

government officials to provide them with an overview of British

Columbia's political system. I'd like to introduce them to the House:

Robert Sturgeon, Bruce Miller, Stuart Tennis, Randy Sadler, Todd Comer,

Carol Nielsen, Sarah Bradley, Sharon Heck, Gail Stone, and their

coordinator Jeanne Smith. I would ask this Legislature to make them

most welcome.

MR. ROSE : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on

behalf of the opposition to join the government in welcoming our

American cousins up in the gallery. There are probably no two people so

much alike in the world, sharing as we do the same language, the same

commitment to democracy and a similar set of values — and, incidentally, sometimes regretfully, the same TV programs.

are alike in many ways, but we Canadians cherish our differences and

want to remain different, distinctive and, above all, independent. We

believe that we have built what we consider to be a more compassionate

society, with our medicare and universal social programs. We think we

are less violent, less flamboyant and perhaps even less confident. We

are sometimes inclined, unfortunately, to waiver between self-doubt and

self-righteousness. Nevertheless, neither society is perfect, and if

given the choice of neighbours with whom to share this continent, most

Canadians would choose U.S.A. ten to one. May your visit to B.C. be

both productive and enjoyable.

HON. MR. VEITCH : On Friday I had the very distinct honour of being inducted

as an honorary Young — underscored — Socred. Two of my young colleagues are

here in the audience today. From the University of Victoria, formerly from Abbotsford,

I would like the House to welcome Mr. James Kwantes and Mr. Shawn Bonstra. Would

the House give them a really good welcome.

MR. G. HANSON :

We on this side of the House would like to welcome our friends from

Tanzania. As one of the members for Victoria, I would like to extend an

invitation to come and enjoy the friendly games in 1994 here in the

city of Victoria for our Commonwealth friends.

MR. KEMPF :

We in Omineca are very proud of our mining industry. Somewhere in the

gallery this afternoon are two of my constituents from Fraser Lake,

Colin and Joan Seeley. Colin is the new mine manager for Endako Mines

at Fraser Lake and is attending the managers' spring session here in

Victoria. I would ask the House to make both Mr. and Mrs. Seeley very

welcome.

Also in the precincts are Peter and Jerri Martin.

Peter is the manager of Equity Silver Mines at Houston. I would ask the

House to make them welcome also.

HON. MR. VANT : It's

not too often that I get to introduce constituents from the great

Cariboo constituency, but I am very pleased to introduce two

Indo-Canadians to the House this afternoon: a very distinguished

citizen of the city of Williams Lake, Alderman Gurbux Saini; and

accompanying him, Jit Saini. I know the House will want to give them a

warm welcome.

HON. MR. HUBERTS : In the House today

we have three individuals from the city of Campbell River who are with

the Campbell River Museum and Archives. They have given us a great

presentation on their museum and its potential. I would ask the House

to welcome Morgan Ostler, Bill Harrison and Jay Stewart. Let me also

say — to show you the calibre of the people from Campbell River — that they remembered that today is my birthday and brought me a cake.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to introduce a constituent of the

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller). Her name is Mrs. Frances Smith,

and she is from Prince Rupert but was born in the beautiful native

Indian community of Lax-Kw-Alaams.

I would also like to introduce my wife Sharon who is in the gallery today.

[2:15]

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today, visiting from the great country

known as Skeena, are some folks from Kitimat down here doing good

things for the people who elected them to council: His Worship Richard

Wozney, mayor of Kitimat, Alderman Joanne Monaghan, Alderman John

LeSage, Alderman Michael Corbeil and city administrator David Morris.

Would the House make them welcome, please.

MR. BLENCOE :

On behalf of our side of the House, I'd also like to welcome our

friends from Kitimat. Last year I had the privilege of attending the

north central municipal association meeting in Kitimat

[ Page 5844 ]

mat,

and it was a great event. I understand some are still recovering from

that meeting. Would the House and my side join in welcoming Kitimat

council members.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : Mr. Speaker, I

have the sincere honour to introduce to the House members of the native

Indian heritage centre advisory committee. This committee, comprised

primarily of native leaders, is here today. They have been meeting for

the past two days — and for the last few weeks and months — putting together a proposal for a centre or centres.

your gallery, Mr. Speaker, are: Ms. Gloria Cranmer from Alert Bay, Dr.

George Louie from Victoria, Ms. Sophie Pierre from Cranbrook, Chief Tom

Green from Queen Charlotte Islands, Chief Alfred Joseph from Hazelton,

Chief Joe Michell from Prince George, Chief Manny Jules from Kamloops,

Dr. Thelma Sharp Cook from Vancouver and Mr. Mac Norris from Vancouver.

Unable to attend today are Ms. Mary Thomas from Enderby and Mr. Percy

Paull from North Vancouver. Accompanying them are two staff members:

Ms. Leoni Rivers and Mr. Eric Denhoff. This very able committee is

chaired by the first member for Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa).

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, I would like, as a member of the opposition side, to

indicate our welcome to these native leaders. We'd also like to express

to them that we await the legislation coming before this House, so that

we can at long last expedite language centres and heritage cultural

centres for native people. We look forward to that legislation coming

as quickly as possible.

MR. PETERSON : Mr. Speaker,

on behalf of the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and myself, I'd

like to introduce to the House two very good friends of ours. First of

all, Dr. Neil Snider, the president of Trinity Western University, and

his good wife Mrs. Snider. Would the House please join us in making

them very welcome.

MR. LOVICK : On behalf of my

colleague the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), who is unfortunately not

able to be here today, I would like to make a brief introduction.

Attending the new managers' conference are two people from Stewart, Mr.

Denis Gregoire and his wife Donna. I would ask the House to please join

me in making them welcome.

MR. PELTON : Hon. members,

in the gallery today are 120 young British Columbians from grade 11 at

West Vancouver Secondary School. These young people are here today

accompanied by a group of their teachers. I would ask you to make them

very welcome.

MR. MILLER : I join with the Minister

Responsible for Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) in welcoming Mr.

Tom Green from Skidegate, a long-time leader in the Haida community.

MR. BRUCE :

There have been some problems in the community of Lake Cowichan, but I

can also assure this House that there are going to be so many great

things happening there, and it's a result of some of the fine people

who live there. One such person, a good constituent and a friend of

mine, Mrs. Volkers, is here with friends. I'd like the House to please

make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA : A couple of matters.

First of all, I would like the House to join me in welcoming in the

gallery today my wife Jessie, my sister-in-law Debbie and my daughter

Karina, who is two and a half years old — and I can't believe she hasn't said a word in the last 15 minutes up there. Would all members give them a warm welcome.

second matter. It's not every day that a member of the opposition has

the opportunity to rise in the House and shower a member opposite with

praise. But then again, it's not every day that a minister,

particularly a high-ranking one, receives an international award of

distinction in a prestigious journal. In fact, this award was given in

January 1989, and I'm not too sure why we haven't seen a press release

emanate from that minister's office. Perhaps it's because the minister

is known for his humility or his brevity, or for his modesty and verbal

virtuosity.

In any event, there is an international award

that should come to the attention of the House. The Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) has been bestowed this particular award from this

prestigious journal. While the minister basks in the warmth of my

tribute, let me advise the House that the journal in question is the Quarterly Review of Doublespeak ,

which is issued each year in the United States. This award is no small

achievement even for our Minister of Finance, because a nomination for

the prestigious Orwell Award is only provided "to public figures who

have perpetrated language that is grossly deceptive, evasive,

euphemistic, confusing or self-contradictory."

For the

record and for posterity, because I am sure the minister, since he was

replying to a question from me and the member for Vancouver East on

Expo lands.... If I may be allowed, let me just provide the quote that

won the minister this distinction. The quote was, of course, on the

applicability of the property purchase tax to Expo lands. The minister

said: "The negotiations went through many combinations and

permutations, so that I am happy to advise the member that, to the best

of my knowledge, tax will be paid. I will be happy to confirm that upon

passage of a little bit more time. Let me study the comments."

the journal notes: "That wasn't too bad, but Mr. Couvelier was only

warming up." When he was asked what the sale price was on the tax, he

responded:

"Therein lies my hesitation, Mr.

Speaker. In any event, to the best of my memory there were no

particular arrangements provided in that respect.

"I think the hon. member, by virtue of his previous life,

of all the individuals in this House, would be most aware of the fact that those

lands had a very heavy cost associated with them in order to reclaim

[ Page

5845 ]

them so that they were usable. This hon. member who asked the

question, by virtue of his peculiar knowledge; would appreciate the enormity

of that necessary reclamation. Therefore the issue of the pricing of the terms

of the necessity had to recognize those unusual aspects of the sale."

I will end there, Mr. Speaker, but I should add as follows....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I know the hon. member wants to pay tribute to the minister, but I wish he would close.

MR. SIHOTA : I'm only quoting the minister, Mr. Speaker.

any event, some time ago the Premier and the Minister of Tourism (Hon.

Mr. Reid) circulated these certificates of appreciation, and I've

autographed one and will give it to the Page so he can present it to

the minister. Also, protocol has asked me to make this award to the

minister, but, in the true spirit of doublespeak, they've asked that it

be returned after this ceremony.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Well, I'm delighted, honoured and deeply humbled by this. It strikes me

that the hon. member might have been slightly out of order with that

presentation.

MR. SPEAKER : More than slightly.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Therefore it seems to me only fair that we should have a chance to respond. Despite our differences in this House — we sometimes get a little bit harsh and biting —

I think it's appropriate that we have some levity and humour, and I,

like some others, attempt to provide that from time to time. It's nice

to be recognized.

Oral Questions

SAANICHTON MARINA

INDIAN LAND CLAIM CASE

MR. G. HANSON :

I have a question to the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs. There

are currently about 100 civil cases in the courts involving native

people and native rights, and approximately the same number on hunting

and fishing cases. Native people are being asked to spend more and more

money to defend their rights or to advance them. The annual cost of

litigation is estimated at $4 million — $20 million over the next five years.

Has

the provincial government, after losing the Saanichton Bay marina case

at both the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C. Court of Appeal, decided to

appeal this case to the Supreme Court of Canada?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : I'm sure the hon. member is aware that that

would be a decision made by the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith). After reviewing

the case, I'm sure he'll make the appropriate decision.

MR. G. HANSON :

A supplementary question. The B.C. Court of Appeal, in upholding the

Douglas Treaty, firmly stated that: "The province cannot act to

contravene the treaty rights of Indians nor can it authorize others to

do so." If this case involved an issue of such importance that the

province felt an appeal to the B.C. Court of Appeal was appropriate,

can the province assure the Tsawout band that they will be fully

compensated for the thousands of dollars they have spent to defend

their claim?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : No, I'm sorry, I can't confirm that.

MR. G. HANSON :

As I mentioned earlier in other comments in this House, courts at

various levels are sending signals to the government. When is the

province going to stop harassing native bands through the legal system

and begin to negotiate land claims?

RELOCATION OF SALTSPRING

FERRY TERMINAL

MR. LOVICK :

My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. It

concerns the relocation of the ferry terminal on Saltspring Island to

Isabella Point. On Saturday the minister said the decision had pretty

well been made. Two days later the same minister gave assurances to his

colleague the Minister of State for Vancouver Island (Hon. Mr. Huberts)

that the decision has not been made. Which of those two statements is

the true one?

HON. MR. VANT : I'm going to get right to the point —

to Isabella Point. First of all, the B.C. Ferry Corporation, in its

wisdom, does get into long-term planning. Currently, Fulford Harbour is

very limited in its capacity both on the marine side and on the land

side. I want to emphasize that the proposed ferry terminal at Isabella

Point is just that — proposed. As far as the B.C. Ferry

Corporation is concerned, at this time it is the most likely

alternative. That is exactly why I made the statement that I did.

For

sure, the Ferry Corporation has engaged in a consultative process.

Indeed, early in February both the board chairman and the general

manager of the B.C. Ferry Corporation held meetings on Saltspring

Island. There were a number of people at those meetings concerning

Isabella Point, including, of course, Nick Gilbert, chairman of the

Islands Trust. Quite frankly, I'm shocked that he's making statements

that he has not been fully informed. He and many other people were

informed at that time. At the time of that meeting there seemed to be a

consensus of widespread support for the proposed Isabella Point project.

can assure the member that there will be ongoing consultation under the

Minister of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and North Coast, Mayor

Gillian Trumper and the regional transportation committee, and further

meetings and consulting about this transportation initiative. The final

decision has not been made; it is just proposed at this time.

[2:30]

[ Page 5846 ]

MR. LOVICK :

I'm wondering what the minister's definition of consulting is. Is it

not the case, Mr. Minister, that when you met with the Islands Trust

representatives, they went back to prepare a brief for presentation to

your transportation subcommittee offering their input, and your

announcement made the decision in advance of receiving the brief? Is

that not true?

HON. MR. VANT : The hon. member

opposite doesn't seem to fully embrace our sincerity in having a

consultative process. At this time I just want to inform you that quite

some time ago my ministry was approached very properly by the B.C.

Ferry Corporation. Whichever site is picked on Saltspring Island, it's

going to be a very sensitive one. We have to look at both the social

and environmental impacts, and at this time we have only studied aerial

photographs and maps regarding any proposed ferry terminal site. I'm

emphasizing to the member that it's at a very preliminary stage and

there's lots of time for ongoing, proper consultation.

MR. LOVICK : That's not very comforting, sadly, because how then can the minister — I'll repeat my question; I think it's in order —

say that the decision has, as I quote him, "pretty well been made"? He

is now saying something quite different. Which of those statements does

he want to stand by?

HON. MR. VANT . At this time no final decision has been made. The most

likely probability that's been identified is Isabella Point — that's

it.

MR. LOVICK :

A question, if I might, for the Minister of State for Vancouver Island.

You have stated, Mr. Minister, that the announcement about Isabella

Point was a surprise.

Yet, Mr. Minister, it was you who

established the transportation subcommittee whose mandate is to examine

transportation issues for that area and to talk about long-term

planning for that area. The question is: why were you surprised, Mr.

Minister? Were you, in fact, not consulted?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : Everything is going according to plan as far as the minister of state and the task force is concerned.

EFFECTIVENESS OF OSCARS

IN OIL SPILLS

MR. LONG :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of the Environment. On

the evening news recently, one television report suggested that

machines called Oscars are available for purchase at a modest price

which would substantially improve our ability to cope with oil spills

such as the recent ones on our coast and in Alaska. Could the minister

comment on the viability and effectiveness of these machines and advise

the House whether or not the government has plans to purchase them at

this point?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : This has been a hot

topic. As a matter of fact, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr.

Sihota) in speaking to the throne speech suggested that if the

government cared about the environment, they could get out and prevent

oil spills — should they occur — with such equipment.

Well,

of course, such equipment does not prevent oil spills, but it can aid

in some ways in cleaning them up. Oscars and other mechanized pieces of

equipment for dealing with oil spills have been investigated by our

ministry. There are probably about half a dozen proposals in front of

us now; all of them are being looked at. All of that information is

being shared with the Canadian Coast Guard as well. I think the thing

to remember, particularly in the case of the bunker oil that arrived on

our shores from the Grays Harbor spill, is the fact that the oil was

largely subsurface and could only be tracked by infrared tracking

devices used in some cases by the Coast Guard. It is difficult to

track, particularly when it is eight or nine days old, as it was in

this case. Unless you can track it from the surface, then you cannot

deploy machines such as Oscars.

GAS PIPELINE TO VANCOUVER ISLAND

MR. ROSE :

I congratulate the minister for his reply to the previous question and

admire the way he came up, as if he had no previous knowledge of the

question.

I wonder if he could respond to this one. Last

December the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Energy (Hon.

Mr. Davis) directed the public utilities commission to examine whether

or not the pipeline to Vancouver Island should go ahead. Since then,

both ministers have released statements promising the pipeline will go

ahead. Indeed it was found also in the Speech from the Throne and the

budget speech. If there's no doubt about whether that pipeline is going

ahead, why is the government allowing the B.C. Utilities Commission to

waste its time indulging in a long and costly charade of hearings to

consider whether or not it should proceed when the decision has already

been made?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Number one, with

respect to the Utilities Commission's hearings, I will take that part

of the question on notice for my colleague the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources, as he has the responsibility for that.

But I can tell you peripherally, with respect to that specific part of

your question about BCUC, that there's far more to their hearings than

simply whether or not it's going to go ahead and at what date. They

have a variety of issues to discuss and decide: pricing, routing,

environmental concerns — many issues. So the work they're doing now is of benefit to us.

Secondly,

you should be aware that the Minister of Environment under current BCUC

legislation does sign off all energy certificates, and that has been

the case since 1981, when we introduced the Utilities Commission

legislation.

[ Page 5847 ]

Thirdly, it's my opinion — and I've stated this strongly for some time now —

that from the point of view of the Ministry of Environment, this

project should go ahead. A gas pipeline and having the Vancouver Island

industry use natural gas is environmentally sound and is indeed

welcomed. Currently, on Vancouver Island, industry uses bunker C oil,

which as we all know is subject to spill and which does contain sulphur

and does in fact cause acid rain in this area. Conversion to natural

gas, clean-burning North Peace natural gas, will be a tremendous boon

to the Vancouver Island environment. On the basis of that, I strongly

recommended the project proceed.

MR. ROSE : Mr.

Speaker, in view of that response, I suggest that the minister is

jealous of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). He's trying to

challenge him for the next award.

The question was not

asked whether the pipeline was of benefit to Vancouver Island. Nobody

quarrels with that one, least of all the current Minister of Energy,

who was adamantly opposed to it three years ago. Don't forget that.

What

I want to ask now, since it affects my riding.... A number of groups,

including the GVRD, are very concerned, not about whether or not

Vancouver Island gets a gas pipeline, but about the proposed route

through the Coquitlam watershed. Since a lot of groups and

individuals — certainly in my riding — oppose this when there

is an alternative route up Indian Arm, I want to know whether the

minister has decided to require the company to find a route that does

not threaten the pristine clean water for Vancouver and lower mainland

consumers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Those studies are

going ahead by GVRD officials, and I will await their report to see

what they have assessed in terms of environmental impact. I think it

would be presumptuous and quite premature for me to offer a comment at

this point.

CAPPING OF ASSESSMENTS IN VANCOUVER

MR. BLENCOE :

I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Yesterday we

had more disturbing evidence of erratic Social Credit economic policies

when the minister announced the concept of a yo-yo property tax scheme

for the city of Vancouver. Taxes up in one neighbourhood, down in

another neighbourhood: a proposal that belongs more in the twilight

zone than in reality. In light of the concern of those who have

pronounced this plan ridiculous, has the minister decided to abandon

her erratic idea and have meaningful discussions with Vancouver city

council on real alternatives?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I

imagine that some of us in this House have ideas and attempt to solve

problems and that others just sit back and complain about other

people's ideas. Those of us on this side of the House realize it's a

problem in pockets of areas of Vancouver, North Vancouver and West

Vancouver. We are attempting to come up with a way of resolving it.

I'm waiting to hear from the city of Vancouver to see if they have any other options that they would like us to review.

SALE OF EXPO LANDS

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I would like to respond to a question taken as notice yesterday from

the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), who asked: "Would

you confirm that since the down payment last year of $50 million on

these lands, no further payments are needed, or due, until 1995, and

that any amount of the land could be sold during those intervening

years — i.e., up to 1995 — without getting any more funds from Concord Pacific?"

Very

briefly, the answer to the question is yes, with the comment that we

could receive additional funds as a result of the participation

agreement that BCEC has with Concord Pacific. I should point out that

the person who asked the question certainly should have been aware, as

a result of press releases made many months ago outlining the answer to

the question.... It is well known and was circulated several months ago

that the next payment due from Concord is on May 11, 1995, in the

amount of $10 million. There are further payments in ensuing years, up

to 1999, of $10 million per year; $20 million in the year 2000; $40

million in 2001; $60 million in 2002; and a final payment of $100, 000

in the year 2003, for a total of $270 million over the nine-year period.

might add that these funds are guaranteed by an irrevocable letter of

credit from a chartered bank in the Dominion of Canada. Certainly the

chartered bank is well known, and as long as we can keep the previous

member for Vancouver Centre, Gary Lauk, from returning to the

Legislative Assembly, I'm sure the bank will be able to deliver on that

irrevocable letter of credit, if need be.

MR. MILLER :

I rise under standing order 49 to ask for unanimous consent to make a

motion to refer the urgent matter of the sustainability of our coastal

log harvest to the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands.

MR. SPEAKER : The hon. member knows that is not in order. If he would like, I could refer him to a famous book in this House, Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia . It says:

"Decisions

of this House relating to standing order 49 have made it clear that a

member is not entitled to rise and ask leave to move a motion without

notice unless the House is engaged in the business of motions on

notice, as designated under standing order 25. Nor may a member seek to

invoke standing order 49 when rising on a motion under standing order

35. The House Leader has considerably more latitude as the member

responsible for arranging the business of the House."

MR. ROSE :

Although the rule doesn't say that, obviously some of the jurisprudence

does, and precedents. I respect those, as I respect all precedents

reported by the Clerk-Assistant. Perhaps on behalf of the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), under

[ Page 5848 ]

standing

order 49 I could ask for unanimous consent to make a motion to refer

the urgent matter of sustainability of our coastal log harvest to the

Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands.

MR. SPEAKER :

The standing order, for the opposition House Leader, is that the

government House Leader is the one who has the right to do the business

of the House. I would refer the opposition House Leader and the member

to the citation in Parliamentary Practice ; it's confirmed and enlarged upon in the journals of this House, 1982, at page 64. As well, in there is a recent decision by a former Speaker of the House.

[2:45]

Ministerial Statement

MAMMOGRAPHY PROGRAM EXPANSION

HON. MR. DUECK :

I joined with the Canadian Cancer Society to announce the expansion of

the screening mammography program. This was a very significant

announcement and has been virtually ignored by the media, except for a

few radio stations and the Province newspaper.

bring it up today because I think this is too important to the women

and families of British Columbia to ignore, and I am sure the members

of the opposition will agree. The Canadian Cancer Society will be

providing a mobile mammography screening van, and the Ministry of

Health will provide the operating costs to travel the province and

provide breast screening services to women in rural and remote

communities.

I also announce that because of the success of

the screening clinic in Vancouver, the Ministry of Health plans to

expand the screening mammography program in this new fiscal year by

adding three more fixed sites in addition to the mobile van.

The

screening mammography pilot project in Vancouver has been an

outstanding success in terms of its acceptance by the women of British

Columbia. The program has been widely acclaimed both publicly and

professionally. But perhaps the most important point by far is that

because of this clinic, 17 women have been confirmed as having

previously unsuspected and undiagnosed cancer, and that's what it is

all about — early detection. This is one project where we want to

encourage as much access as possible, where increased use improves

cost-effectiveness and where people are provided with an invaluable

service — a service which could have saved their lives.

MR. PERRY . Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. minister for the courtesy

of passing us a copy of his statement in advance. On behalf of the opposition,

I'd like to respond briefly. I welcome this as a very encouraging announcement,

although I'm not familiar with the details beyond the statement.

find it very encouraging that the government is beginning to look ahead

in the planning of health care. This is something that the health

professionals in British Columbia have worked for for a long time. I

can only commend the government. At the same time, I'd like to

encourage the minister to consider the provision of similar screening

and preventive services. just to start things off in this session on a

good footing, I'd like to suggest five examples very briefly.

One of them — the most important, perhaps — would

be cholesterol screening to prevent the epidemic of heart disease in

this province. Another would be the upgrading of our genetic services

which recently were in trouble financially and fortunately were

rescued. I hope we'll see them flourish. Third would be changing the

structure of MSP fees, so that a fee can be paid to the physicians in

this province for preventive services rather than only for curative

services.

A fourth would be a meaningful anti-smoking and

anti-drinking education program in the schools, not funded only by

temporary grants but through ongoing, compulsory health education,

including sex education. A fifth would be the meaningful provision of

services and facilities such as contraceptives, diaphragms and

intra-uterine devices for reproductive choice in the province, so that

we don't have to rely so much on abortion as a method of last resort

for reproductive choice in the province.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. SIHOTA :

It gives me pleasure to engage in the debate with respect to the budget

and to put aside some of the frivolity that we were engaging in this

morning when we were discussing the budget.

I want to take

a few minutes now to make some comments with respect to the nature of

the budget and the fact that the government has suggested that this is

a balanced budget. Certainly I must say that as a goal a government

ought to be aiming to balance their budgets and of course come up with

surpluses whenever possible. Of course, that is something we take pride

in and something that was done by our administration between 1972 and

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The issue is

not so much whether one balances his budget but how a budget is

balanced. I should say before I get into that issue that I know that

our finance critic, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark),

has commented at length with respect to whether there is a balancing of

this budget. I will leave those arguments to him. Like I say, the issue

is not whether or not you balance a budget but how you balance it. This

is a budget, in my submission, that has been balanced from the backs of

ordinary working British Columbians.

To be more direct,

it's a budget that institutionalizes and entrenches tax unfairness. I'm

going to be spending a fair bit of time in the 10 or 15 minutes

allocated to me on the budget to talk about the concept of tax

unfairness. It's a budget that entrenches

[ Page 5849 ]

and

institutionalizes tax unfairness. It's a budget that says to the

average working British Columbian that a larger chunk of his income has

to be taken out in terms of taxes while the rich — and I will give some examples of this — and large profitable corporations will continue to get a break.

think that the goal of government, when it wishes to balance a budget

or when it finds itself in a surplus situation, ought to be to move

towards addressing tax inequities, about giving the average working

person in this province a break when it comes to taxation rates and

trying to secure the income from other sources. That's easier said than

done. I think it's incumbent upon those in opposition not only to be

critical of what government has done in this instance but also to offer

alternatives to what it could have done. I intend to do both.

Over the past four years successive Social Credit budgets have reduced corporate tax rates — and I am really talking about large corporate interests —

by some $500 million. In order to make up that loss of revenue from the

large corporate sector, individual tax increases have resulted in $500

million being taken out of the wallets of individual working families

in British Columbia. Since this Minister of Finance took office, tax

rates for large corporations — I am not talking about small businesses; I'm talking about large corporations — have decreased by 2 percent.

the same time, individuals and families in British Columbia are now

paying $1,400 more in taxes than they were two years ago. When I say

this budget has been balanced on the backs of working families of

British Columbia, it's with that last statistic in mind that I speak.

Individuals are now paying $1,400 per year more in taxation than they

were two years ago when the Minister of Finance took office.

fact, not only have individuals been asked to make up for the loss of

revenue from large corporations, but small businesses have been as

well. It's a matter of record that small business taxation rates have

increased under this government while taxation rates for large

corporations have decreased. In fact, the government's record is so bad

that in 1987 the provincial government, through the Minister of

Finance, chose to provide tax breaks to banks and mining companies to

the tune of $18 million per year. Think about that. While we are on the

one hand asking working families in this province to pay more in

taxation, while we are imposing new levels of taxation, particularly

with respect to property taxes on seniors, we are turning around and

saying to banks in this province that they must pay less in taxes.

When we talk about tax unfairness, those are the kinds of things we talk about.

We say that if this government wished to balance this budget, which is a commendable

objective on the part of government, then it ought to make sure that those large

profitable corporations like the banks and some of the mining companies begin

to pay their fair share of taxes. It's not fair or correct to ask individuals

to pay a disproportionate amount of taxation, to the point now that 83 percent

of all revenue that the government gains comes from individuals.

Eighteen

million dollars. There have been years in this province when a bank

teller working for the Royal Bank has paid more in taxes than the bank,

and a gas jockey working for Shell Oil has paid more in taxes than that

oil company. What we say on this side of the House is that those

loopholes, those mechanisms, that exist for large corporate interests

to avoid taxation ought to be plugged.

If a government is

to take pride in balancing a budget, it ought not to take pride in

balancing that budget on the backs of working families. It ought to

take pride in balancing that budget on the backs of banks and oil

companies that are not paying their fair share of taxes. When this

government chose in 1987 to reduce taxation rates to banks and mining

companies to the tune of $18 million per year, that same year it

increased personal taxes for British Columbians to the tune of $195

million and, indeed, instituted additional tax increases on goods and

services in this province.

In 1988 this government

compounded that problem with respect to what we are now seeing as a

problem with school taxes. Because of the quirks in legislation

introduced by this and previous Social Credit governments, families who

own property in British Columbia are now paying too much, or a

disproportionate share of, school taxes. If the government had made the

amendments that we on this side of the House suggested to make the

commercial property owners pay their fair share of taxes for school

purposes, then some of these problems could be averted.

is not right that in a community like Sooke, individual residents ought

to be required to pay the burden of increases in school costs when the

shopping centre in Sooke, Evergreen Plaza, is not required to pay any

of those additional school costs. You can't continue to transfer the

tax load onto residential property owners in communities like Sooke,

the Western Communities, Esquimalt or anywhere else in this province

without inviting a tax revolt. It is basically and effectively unfair

to ask them to pay their share and not to make the same request of

commercial property owners.

Let's talk about what we

believe the alternatives are. There is an alternative. The alternative

is tax fairness. To balance this budget, the government could have

raised corporate tax rates. Right now, if we were to restore them to

where they were prior to the election of this government, that would

require large — I'm not talking about small business —

corporations to pay 16 percent in taxes. Just restore that 2 percent

that you reduced. And individuals in this province still pay about 33

to 37 percent on the average in income tax. That would not be an unfair

move with respect to the large corporate sector, and at least it would

provide the beleaguered individual taxpayer with some break.

Interjection.

[ Page 5850 ]

MR. SIHOTA : I'm glad to see the Premier is here. The Premier is making notes of this. He should write this down.

The large corporations, Mr. Premier....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : How large?

MR. SIHOTA :

The banks and the mining companies, which you, Mr. Premier, should know

were in 1987 given tax breaks totalling $18 million, should now be

required to pay their fair share of taxes. If you were to restore it

only to where you were two years ago, you would ask them to pay a 16

percent rate.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mining companies pay more taxes.

MR. SIHOTA : Mining companies are making profits. They should pay their fair share of taxes on those profits.

There is no excuse — Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier, who is now listening and wishes to heckle — and no justification for this government to allow banks to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

On top of that, it is high time that this government said to those thousand British Columbians — 934, 1 believe, to be exact —

who last year earned incomes In excess of $100, 000 and paid no taxes,

that they have to pay their share of taxes. If you want revenue, that's

where it should come from: those 900-odd British Columbians — close to 1,000 — who paid no taxes.

[3:00]

If the Premier wishes an alternative in addition to what I've said,

then let me say this to him: this government should restore the surtax

on the wealthy that it eliminated two years ago, the surtax that

required them, because of their high incomes, to pay more in taxes.

Those

are five constructive suggestions to the Premier on how the government

can move towards tax fairness. The Premier, of course, who chooses to

heckle now, can well read the comments in Hansard and see what we're saying.

The

point here is: let's introduce tax fairness. If you want to balance a

budget, Mr. Speaker, don't balance it on the backs of ordinary working

British Columbians. Let's start to reverse what this government has

done over the past few years in terms of the $1,400 more that you're

asking British Columbians to pay in taxes.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The taxpayers have supported Social Credit.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Premier says: "The taxpayers have supported Social Credit." I want

to tell the Premier that if he still feels that way, let's call an

election. Let's see where taxpayers stand today. I'd be very happy, Mr.

Premier, to hit the campaign trail along with you to get an accurate

reading of your popularity today. In fact, if the Premier wanted to

show true moxie, he would of course call an election right now on this

budget, which he says is the best budget British Columbia has received

in years. Let's show true moxie.

Now, Mr. Speaker, because

my time is just about up, I want to talk very quickly about some

specific matters. The first is the allocation made this year by the

provincial government with respect to justice. The Premier, who is now

leaving, will recollect that back in December 1986, after his election,

he was visited by members of the Legal Services Society. In fact, I

recollect very clearly the details that came out to all of us who are

lawyers about how good people felt about that meeting.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : More money for lawyers.

MR. SIHOTA :

Since that time this government has not increased expenditures for

legal aid. The Premier says it's money for lawyers. It's money for

people who require assistance in enforcing maintenance orders, in

resolving custodial disputes, and in handling matters in front of the

Workers' Compensation Board. This government has cut and whittled the

legal aid program in this province to the point....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Not true.

MR. SIHOTA : I would invite the Premier to read — I don't have them here with me —

the press releases issued yesterday by the Legal Services Society and

the day before by the British Columbia bar which are critical of this

government's ineptitude when it comes to funding legal aid in this

province. We have not seen an increase in any significant terms for

legal aid in the past few years. Let me put it this way: in 1984 this

Social Credit government conducted a task force which indicated exactly

how much funding was required for legal aid. Those task force

recommendations were never implemented.

The Jjustice Reform

Committee, which the Premier speaks so fondly of, went around the

province ably headed by Mr. Hughes and recommended that the government

implement its 1984 recommendations with respect to funding legal aid

and restore legal aid to where it stood prior to the cutbacks.

Presentations were made to the government. The government has not acted

on its 1984 task force or the task force that came down from Mr. Hughes

through the Justice Reform Committee.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Not true.

MR. SIHOTA : I would defy the Premier to show the opposite.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Okay, I will.

MR. SIHOTA : The Premier can now be released to go back to his office and deal with all the other matters of state.

The

opportunity for government in terms of justice and providing people

with the type of representation they require in dealing with disputes

with

[ Page 5851 ]

the

rentalsman, UIC, social assistance.... Power and legal assistance

through some of the very difficult situations people find themselves in

ought not to be something available only to those who can afford

counsel. It's something that ought to be provided through a funded

legal aid program.

I see that the Premier is gone, but he

would be interested in knowing that in 1984 the task force concluded

that lawyers in this province were providing about $20 million in free

criminal services alone to make sure that the needs of those clients of

modest means were being met. The bar is making its contribution, and

certainly the government ought to be providing some assistance to legal

aid, a tariff which has not increased significantly over time.

also have some great concerns about what this budget contains with

respect to the environment and the way in which this government.... I

guess some have called it a born-again environmentalist government;

that's assuming they were environmentalists in the first place. I am

cognizant of the time, and I must say that we will be watching with

great interest what this government does with respect to environment

regulation.

I can say again, as I've said before in this

House, that the place for the government to start is with the laying of

charges in an environmental spill that occurred in my riding on January

24. Regulators have said it was in violation of the regulations at

Millstream Creek; to date we still haven't seen the government take

action. It's one thing to suggest in your public relations propaganda

that you are going to get tough on polluters; it's another to take

action. Certainly I will be watching with interest to see what the

Minister of Environment does on that.

Finally I want to

conclude with one other comment with respect to the decision of this

government to invest considerable sums on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

I don't think that is an appropriate way for the government to deal

with taxpayers' funds. The VSE is a speculators' exchange. I will grant

that the activities of the exchange have improved over the past few

years, but it is still not an appropriate place, to my mind, for

government to engage in investments. I must say that I concur with the

comments of the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs.

McCarthy) in this regard, and I trust that we will see the government

reverse its investment policy as a consequence of the second look it

should be taking on this matter.

That concludes my comments with respect to the budget.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

It's indeed a pleasure for me to rise in this House today and speak to

you in support of the '89-90 budget presented by my colleague the hon.

Minister of Finance.

I am certainly proud to be part of a government that has been so responsible

and purposeful in presenting not only a balanced budget but one that is balanced

with sensitivity. I strongly believe that the budget presented to us by the

Finance minister presents a very firm foundation for a great future for British

Columbians. There are new burdens that future generations will have to pay for.

We have shown that we can accommodate the cost of a caring society without creating

new financial burdens for future British Columbians.

am proud to stand here as one of the two MLAs for Delta, as well as the

Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, not only to comment on this

budget but to clearly illustrate the vital contribution that

agriculture, fisheries and the food industries are making to the

provincial economy that is led by this government. I am also proud to

represent the fine people of Delta and, in addition, all the dedicated

and hardworking food producers and processors of this great province.

The food production system is growing each year; it now represents

close to $9 billion of the total provincial economy. The food

production system also employs in the total agrifood industry, as well

as in its related activities through sales to store shelves,

restaurants, etc., close to 200,000 jobs.

With the advent

of free trade and the agreement, I believe we are entering a new window

of opportunity for the British Columbia food industry. We have many

challenges, and I believe we can use them to our advantage. As an

example, the grape and wine sector is now repositioning itself as an

agricultural commodity within the North American economy with the help

of this government and also the federal government. We are sensitive to

the livelihoods of those involved and are helping these particular

citizens.

As you well know, the free trade agreement allows

for the grandfathering of the estate winery system, whereby we are

limited at 30,000 gallons, but does not prevent the opportunity for

specializing in some of the premium wines and premium grapes that we

produce in the Okanagan and for expanding in that sector. I hope the

grape-growing industry does take those opportunities and come through

to fruition and see that they will have a healthy industry with which

to survive. I strongly believe that the wine industry is second to

none — some of the quality wines that we produce from these estate

wineries. Also, the commercial wineries will be involved, probably

bringing in some U.S. grapes but blending very nicely with some of the

grapes we grow here.

This budget provides some leadership

for the vision of tomorrow. I think that is extremely obvious. We are

very sensitive to the development of all regions throughout this

province. This budget has provided for a major impetus to the agrifood

regional development subsidiary agreement — ARDSA in its shortened form — which will allow us to demonstrate our ongoing commitment to the hundreds of communities throughout this province.

The

number of projects undertaken in that ARDSA $40 million agreement with

the federal government for agriculture has been very fruitful for

agricultural communities. It has provided the opportunity for many

drainage and irrigation projects that have benefited our agricultural

community as well as the rural areas, and the impact it has had on the

urban drainage and the urban irrigation. I think those are

[ Page 5852 ]

very

important projects that have been undertaken by ARDSA; they have proven

very useful and helpful to basically the farming community but also to

some other parts of the communities involved.

We introduced

the three e's: the environment, the economy and education. They are

three major priorities for the coming decade. Not only did the project

I mentioned before in ARDSA provide a major enhancement to economic

development on a regional basis throughout this province, but many

other government programs, such as the new employee equity program, the

regional seed capital program and others in the energy, forestry and

mineral sectors, are also providing for economic development

opportunities throughout this great province.

Food products

from British Columbia are finding their way to many Pacific Rim

countries. This activity will be enhanced through the new British

Columbia trade development corporation which will help small and

medium-sized businesses enter foreign markets for the first time. I

don't believe there is any limit to the opportunities that present

themselves — not only in the Pacific Rim but with trading partners

around the world. I think the agrifood sector has the opportunity, and

from the point of view of the fisheries side I can tell you that

British Columbia product is well recognized as one of the high-quality

products in our trading world.

There are many food

production units in our particular constituency of Delta that I'm sure

will be of benefit to all and that are part of the benefit to all of

this province as we produce product that is shipped throughout the

province. These programs show that we are not blindly buying our way

into economic growth, but rather managing our way into economic growth

in a very creative way.

Environmental quality has always

been a major priority in the agrifood sector and its business. Our

position is that environmental protection is the responsibility of

every farmer, as well as every small businessman or, for that matter,

any large corporation. Our aquaculture sector regards the quality of

the environment in a case where foreshore and water...to be of critical

importance, and that is why waste management impact studies have been

initiated: to make sure that fish and shellfish grow in a clean

environment, and to make sure that water quality for other users is

maintained.

[3:15]

I'd like to say that a number of concerns have been expressed over

the aquaculture sector and its quick growth in the province, but I'd

like to reassure this House that we are monitoring it very closely and

have brought in some regulations relative to the use of drugs, etc., in

fish food. It has to be dispensed by veterinarians, which, I believe,

is a move towards responsibility of what we're trying to do.

The

seafood that we presently consume.... There were some concerns well

recognized, and my hon. colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) did take action immediately about some of the dioxins that we

are concerned about in seafoods, and we well recognize how important

that is. It does say that this government is taking a lead. I commend

the Minister Responsible for Environment, and the Premier and my

colleagues, for responding very quickly to environmental concerns,

because they are a priority for this government.

Also, as far as the use of chemicals goes, not only in agriculture — I mentioned a little about drug use in aquaculture —

but the chemicals in controlling pests.... Our farmers have taken a

responsible and active role by implementing environmental control

programs for the sole purpose of providing consumers with high-quality

and nutritious foods grown with care. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that

the industry is undergoing numerous tests on integrated pest

management, which relates to biological control. I don't think there is

anyone in this assembly who would argue the case for as much

chemical-free product, or organic food, as we can possibly obtain. I

noticed with interest in the paper recently a lot of concern about

chemicals in a number of different products. I read in that same paper

about natural poisons, if you like, or dioxins, the toxic contents that

plant and animal life does have. Sometimes the figures go as high as

99.9 percent, as opposed to what would be applied to any given food

item. Consequently we are given warnings quite frequently about how

poisonous some particular plants are because of the toxins prevalent in

the natural state.

I have to say that we are being very

responsible in recognizing the concern about chemical use, and we are

constantly monitoring it, hoping that with the new capabilities in

testing, where we can now measure very easily parts per trillion,

whereas before we were measuring them in millions, and that as science

and technology advance, we will see a more and more sensitive reading

of what parts are contained in all the items we eat. It will take a

fair amount of testing, as you can well imagine, Mr. Speaker, to give

the results of the commodities that we are consuming.

Certainly

we'd like to also recognize that there is major increased spending in

environmental programs and a commitment of approximately $200 million

in this budget. I really believe it does show a sensitivity towards

preserving our environment.

The third "e," education,

relates to our youth and the importance we give to a strong and

vigorous educational system. I think it goes without saying that our

future is our children and their children. I believe it's very

important that we are the custodians of their future and that we are to

be held responsible that they in fact do have a future. When we talk

about the opportunities for our students, our children, we talk about

the Royal Commission on Education. Commissioner Sullivan brought in a

report that I was very proud to say covered many of the concerns for

our future generations in education. I'm very proud also to say that

this government has implemented virtually all of those recommendations.

I'm also proud to say that I'm pleased to be part of a government that

examines its work and policies, and accepts and implements

recommendations such as those brought in by Commissioner Sullivan.

[ Page 5853 ]

I'd

like to go back. The level of education is important to students. As

you know, Mr. Speaker, our students did extremely well in examinations

in world testing. I think we can be very proud not only of our students

but of our education system and our professional teachers who provide a

service for the future of our children. Also extremely important is the

fact that post-secondary education is just about as important as the

primary, getting our children started out. The post-secondary or the

advanced education side of our commitment to education.... It's

extremely important that as we see technology and science advance, we

provide the opportunities for those who will require upgrading of

knowledge and skills, so as not to have a social impact that is

negative to the people who work for all of us in this province. I

believe it's also very important to say that the government has made

strong commitments to postsecondary access for all programs, and I

commend the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) and this

government for that commitment. It will open new opportunities for our

young people and help them meet the challenges of tomorrow's issues.

Delta we have a very strong education system that is made even

stronger, and we are looking forward to a brighter and better future

for all our children.

I'd like to touch a little bit more on our constituency —

I refer to my hon. colleague, the second member for Delta (Mr.

Davidson). I'm certainly proud, along with him, to be representing that

constituency, and I can tell you that it is a major economic force in

this province, with a wide base not only in the agrifood business but

in many sectors of the emerging manufacturing and commercial

industries. We take such industrial operations as the Roberts Bank, a

terminus of the B.C. ferry system, the Tilbury industrial park — all major contributors to the economy of Delta and of this province.

mentioned the agrifood business. It is separated by three communities

in Delta, and they all get along very nicely, integrated one to the

other and with respect by one to the other. That is so important in

developing guidelines for future community plans or development areas

that may well see growth without intrusion, hopefully, into the

agricultural communities.

I've had the opportunity to talk

with a number of my constituents, and a number of them have told me how

pleased they are with the budget that's been presented and the throne

speech. They know the government is doing an exceptionally good job of

providing an excellent array of programs for British Columbians.

Health care, of course, is always a concern to people, and it's through

sound fiscal planning that we are able not only to sustain funding for health

care but to enhance a system that now produces over $1 million per day in benefits

to British Columbians. If you figure that out, it's what we have added to

the budget; it exceeds over $1 million per day in costs. Health care spending

is a major portion of the provincial budget, and it is also one of the major

priorities of British Columbians. That is why we are committed to preserving

and improving a health care system which is already among the best in North

America. Delta's health care facilities will continue to work to keep our

world-class status. Not only are we improving health care to seniors, but the

important three-year alcohol and drug TRY program will improve family life by

reducing substance abuse, particularly among our young people. Delta's programs

are in place, and services are available for those seeking help or advice.

Affordable

housing has been discussed to some extent, and it is an important issue

in the Delta constituency. It is also a priority within our

constituency, as, I'm sure, it has been well mentioned throughout this

province. Our vibrant economy has resulted in many new British

Columbians wanting to own their own homes and live in our constituency

and surrounding areas. The provincial budget has provided an

opportunity to help people achieve these goals, with the homeowner

grants that will be increased, plus the housing-related and mobile home

programs that are being introduced. There are also deferred taxes and

interest programs that are being introduced, and a property purchase

tax relief program that has been announced. All are programs to put

more British Columbia families into affordable housing.

Residents

of Delta have contributed a great deal to the vitality and vibrancy of

the provincial economy in the past, and let me assure you that Deltans

look forward with anticipation and excitement to the future.

grew up in Delta and many of my family members still live in that

community. It is my home, and as one of its MLAs I am watching it grow

and mature into what I believe to be a very fine community. I'm proud

to tell you that I am a new grandfather, believe it or not.

MR. ROSE : First time?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

First time. I want to ensure that my new granddaughter has the

opportunity to live and grow up in the area that has among the best

educational systems anywhere and is provided with top-quality health

care, has comfortable, warm and affordable homes to live in, and clean,

wholesome food produced in well-tended soil, and clean, fresh water.

This budget and the programs that go with it are balanced and sensible.

They will provide all British Columbians with the opportunity to live

and work in an area of the world that is second to none.

believe British Columbians are very fortunate. I just hope we can

continue this good fortune. I believe the commitment of this government

to the people of British Columbia has been solidly laid out, not only

by the throne speech but by the leadership of our Premier and the

commitment and vision of the government of B.C. I take great pride in

supporting the budget speech.

[ Page 5854 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER : just before we proceed, the second member for Vancouver South rises on a point of order.

MR. ROGERS :

During the course of the throne speech debate and the budget speech

debate, a number of members have confused the role of the person

occupying your chair and the chair at the table. From the point of view

of decorum in the House, perhaps you could advise the House Leaders to

have the appropriate address made to you, in your position as Speaker

when you're in the Speaker's chair and as Chairman when you're Chairman

of the Committee of the Whole.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Thank

you very much, hon. member. I was most reluctant to mention that

myself, but I appreciate your bringing it forward for me.

Before

we proceed, hon. members, the hon. Minister of International Business

and Immigration would beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce to the House Mr. Sam Sitland,

manager of international air and traffic control systems for Hughes

Aircraft Co. of Los Angeles, California. The Premier and I recently had

the opportunity to meet with Hughes Aircraft in California, and it is a

pleasure now to welcome Mr. Sitland to British Columbia. Would the

House please join me in welcoming him.

MR. CASHORE :

I appreciate the comments made by the second member for Vancouver South

with regard to how we should address the Chair. I'm sure he's aware

that we all get nervous and say things, thinking we're saying "Mr.

Speaker" when we should be saying "Mr. Chairman, " and vice versa. I

appreciate that reminder.

Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, present in the gallery today is Mr. Glen McIntyre. While

I'm making this introduction, I hope the Minister of International

Business will listen, because we had a conversation at breakfast this

morning about this chap. Mr. McIntyre is with OSR Systems. That is the

company that is in the process of developing the Oscar technology

referred to in the question from the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long). I

know from having had breakfast with the Minister of International

Business that he is most interested in hearing from Mr. McIntyre. Would

the House join me in welcoming him.

[3:30]

appreciate this opportunity to rise in the House and speak on the

budget. Given the speeches I've heard in the House to date, one could

hardly under stand how the two sides of the House are talking about the

same document. We hear government members speaking in glowing terms

about this budget, and then we hear opposition members speaking about

the budget as though it really is not a very good budget at all. How

are we to find the truth? To find the truth, I think we cannot rely on

either members of the government or of the opposition. We can only rely

on members of the public of British Columbia — the citizens of this province —

and those people are making it very clear that they do not trust this

government to fulfil the kinds of commitments they are making.

share the sentiments stated by the previous speaker. I appreciated many

of his comments, when he was talking about the kind of world we wish to

leave to our grandchildren and when he referred to education and to

environmental considerations. All of us share those sentiments, but

when we look at them in the context of this budget, it comes down to

the question of who has the political will to fulfil the needs, the

hopes, the dreams and the expectations of the people of British

Columbia in this day and this generation. Who is going to be able to

provide the kind of leadership that is going to enable our children and

our children's children to inherit a world that is truly sustainable, a

world in which they can have sustainable living, and a world in which

economic development is not development that harms our environment but

is indeed development that all of us can feel good

about development that creates opportunity, is in harmony with

nature and is able to take into consideration the global perspective

with regard to what sustainability is all about.

I want to

acknowledge that it does indicate in the budget that there are some

improvements with regard to environmental spending. It states within

the budget — although the factuality remains to be seen —

that there is $200 million for environmental programs. Let us make it

very clear that this money is for an array of ministries, not solely

the Ministry of Environment. It refers to such things as

waste-to-energy technology to help with the production of hydro power.

It talks about that technology as being environmentally friendly. I

think the members of this House know that the jury is out on that

issue. It is not proven that that is environmentally friendly. It is

still a deep concern with regard to the kinds of emissions that would

be going into the atmosphere from that type of a process.

think it is well known that the road to hell is filled with good

intentions, and using one good intention to justify another is not

necessarily environmentally friendly.

When we look at this

budget, we have to look at the government track record. That is the

only appropriate way to look at it. When we look at it from that

perspective, this government has failed to provide environmental

protection in this province. This government is the problem with regard

to the environment; it is not the solution. This government stands

condemned on its environmental record. On that record alone it stands

condemned and deserves to be defeated on that record alone.

Environmentally this government has "shot itself in the foot," and as a

result of that has become an environmental lame duck.

[ Page 5855 ]

has shot itself in the foot in many ways: one, by destroying the morale

of the very good staff within the Ministry of Environment; another is

in destroying the Environmental Lab, selling off its assets for a mere

$800,000. I have been through that lab and I have seen the instruments

and the facilities there. It is tragic that we have lost that jewel of

a resource.

MR. PETERSON : Is the lab working? Is it operating now?

MR. CASHORE :

I refer the member to Mr. Doug Sandberg, who will come forward with

some very interesting revelations with regard to the lack of proper

monitoring of instrumentation on stacks throughout this province. They

should be monitored appropriately by this province.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, the noise that we are hearing from this corner is an

indication of the severe embarrassment that this government is

experiencing over the fact that it sold that lab. I will submit at this

point that if the environmental concern that we are hearing from the

public on this day had been a concern that we had been hearing two

years ago, this government would not have dared to sell off that lab.

They would have known that it was politically an unfriendly thing for

them to do. They would not have dared.

All we need to do is

get the appropriate select standing committee meeting and have Mr. Doug

Sandberg, who left the government in disgust, come and meet with that

committee and let him give evidence. He has a great deal of

embarrassing information to put forward with regard to this government.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE :

One of the reasons that there is a lack of political will in this

government such as the hon. member is pointing out is that we have a

government which resorts to hollow words. When we are hearing about the

dioxin discharges and the lack of enforcement, the words we hear from

the minister are: "I am an enforcer." That's a joke. This government is

not an enforcer. When this minister decides to prove that what he is

saying is factual, he talks about a $65,000 fine in a Prince George

mill. That minister shouldn't be bragging about that. That's a

disgrace. He should be hanging his head in shame.

First of

all, this government allowed the situation to get to the point where

pulp mills were polluting. They should have had enforcement taking

place at a much more elementary level so that it didn't get to that

point. This indulgent parent of a government wasn't treating the

industry like an undisciplined child. Instead the lessons should have

been taught at an early stage. What this government is guilty of is

inappropriate upbringing with regard to the industries in this province.

They

have sent out a message to those industries to do what they like

because this government is not going to do anything about it anyway.

Now they are talking about rattling their sabres. Now they are talking

about buying time. What they want to do is buy enough time so that they

won't have to do anything prior to the next election. What they want to

do is make it look as though by bringing in some new legislation, by

throwing some money at it, that they are doing something. All the

minister can come up with as an example is that fine in Prince George.

Given the profits that are being made in the pulp industry at this

time, that fine is quite insignificant. The minister also goes on to

brag about a $300 fine at another mill.

In order to make

his point that he's an enforcer, the minister refers to the Rankin

report. As you know, the Rankin report by Professors Rankin and Brown

of the University of Victoria studied two regions, Vancouver Island and

the north, and came up with evidence — which the minister has acknowledged in the House —

that persistent polluters in those two regions are not dealt with. Time

and time again they are allowed to get away with violations of their

waste management permits.

The minister, to try to convince

the House that he's taking that seriously, points out that that study

took place until May 1987, prior to his becoming the minister. He

doesn't say he's going to bring in a freedom of information act so that

the information they're using can be made public. Oh no, the Minister

of Environment doesn't trust the public of British Columbia with the

information they have a right to. Such legislation exists federally;

such legislation exists in eight other provinces; but in British

Columbia the Minister of Environment and the government are too

embarrassed to allow the information to come out so that the

organizations trying to protect the environment on behalf of the

people, such as Greenpeace, the West Coast Environmental Law

Association and many others, would have access to that information.

What

does the minister say? So that we will believe he's sincere, he says:

"Why, I invited Professor Rankin to come and sit in this House on the

day of the throne speech debate" — as though we're supposed to see

in that a change of heart. Somehow we're going to find that suddenly

our environment is going to be protected. I don't think Professor

Rankin — or anybody else, for that matter — looks to the

government as being a government that should do anything less than show

by its actions that it means what it says, not by inviting somebody

into the House but by showing concrete results. For instance, can the

minister point out that the record of enforcement in those two regions

that were studied — Vancouver Island and the north — has

increased considerably? I don't think he can. But if he can, I think

that would be a very worthwhile thing. What he tends to do, when he's

asked that question, is to answer with some other response about

enforcement in the lower mainland.

I think there's no

question that this government is a lame duck when it comes to the

environment. For instance, the only response to the oil spill has been a

[ Page 5856 ]

public

relations response. The first meeting of the task force that has

received so much publicity didn't take place until March 20. 1 have a

copy of the draft plans that were put forward, and it's very

interesting when we look at that. Yesterday the minister couldn't

assure the House that meetings of the joint oil spill task force held

in B.C. would be open to the public. The minister responded that it was

too complex. That's a surprising response, given the official

communication strategy of the public affairs bureau and the minister's

own PR staff, which states categorically that because the task force

meeting is a working meeting involving government agencies, it would be

inappropriate to involve the public.

Isn't that interesting —

government's own public relations agency saying it would be

inappropriate to involve the public. The question is: has the minister

decided to reverse the official position of the public affairs bureau

and his department and open the meetings to the public, as they are in

Washington State? My colleague has just pointed out to me that we're

not really dealing with a lame duck; we're dealing with a lame ostrich.

I've pointed out before that this government says it supports the

Brundtland Commission. The Brundtland Commission is founded on public

participation. If there's no public participation, there's no

sustainable development, and the government is hypocritical in saying

it believes in sustainable development. We can go through the list of

many activities in which this government has not functioned in a

sustainable way.

I would like to refer now to something

that relates to the two very devastating oil spills that we have

experienced recently. Yesterday the first member for Vancouver-Little

Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) made a point that I don't think many people

heard, because there was a lot of conversation going on in the House.

It was an appropriate point, which I discussed this morning with the

Minister of International Business and Immigration (Hon. J. Jansen). I

have discussed it with members of our caucus, and I know that they

affirm this point.

The point is that British Columbia,

given our tremendous environmental resource, is in a position to

develop environmentally friendly technologies that are second to none

in the world. By manufacturing these technologies here in British

Columbia, we are in a position to bring about a win-win.

Therefore I want to speak about some of those technologies at this time. Yesterday

the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain spoke about the submersible technology,

and I don't think I need to add to her comments. Certainly it interests

me, given the present situation, that as far as I know that technology has not

been put to work up in Prince William Sound. I also wonder if it might have

been used during the recent oil spill off Grays Harbor.

The second point I would like to refer to — and which was referred to by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) in question period — is the Oscar technology. This is a Victoria company, OSR Systems. It's not —

as the minister has referred to it publicly - a skimmer. That's not

what it is. This technology is a vessel that has the ability to go out

to sea. It will not only pick up oil on the surface, but it will pick

up oil to a depth of two to three feet.

[3:45]

Just imagine for a moment a tanker such as the Exxon Valdez

steaming along. It hits an iceberg or the ground when trying to avoid

an iceberg. Up on the deck is this 40-foot vessel perched beside a

crane. The crane lowers the vessel into the sea, and then that vessel

puts out its apparatus to surround the spill at source. It then

proceeds to pump the oil into a device in such a manner that the oil is

separated from the water, and the oil is placed back into safe storage.

that type of technology were available, it's very likely that it could

have prevented both the Grays Harbor fiasco and the fiasco that we are

experiencing in Prince William Sound.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE :

The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) stands there and

self-righteously says "private enterprise," as though somehow he owns

private enterprise. I want the members of this House to realize, as the

people of British Columbia realize, that it's the New Democrats who are

standing up for private enterprise in this province. It's the New

Democrats who are intervening on behalf of the technology of this

province that should be deployed.

MR. CHALMERS : Born again....

MR. CASHORE :

"Born again." That is nonsense. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, if these

people are going to start using the terminology of being born again,

they had better be very careful.

With regard to the Oscar technology, one of the things that happened —

and this is how governments can do things.... The federal environment

ministry tested this technology and made the same mistake that the

minister had made and looked upon it as a skimmer. They evaluated it on

that basis. But it's not a skimmer; it is something that pumps the

water out of the area affected. It removes the oil from the water, and

it is a technology that needs to be looked at very carefully.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE :

The Oscar comes in different sizes, and I am glad to know the member is

interested in this. I hope that you will join your Minister of

International Business and Immigration in helping this company get this

technology into the place where it can be used. It comes in different

sizes from 40 feet to 120 feet. Some of them could be deployed so that

they could be on tankers themselves. Some of them could be deployed at

various places around the coast such as Port Renfrew, for instance, and

Vancouver harbour.

This is a proven technology because it has been used on oil spills in Vancouver harbour — and with great success. It is a tragedy that those in positions of responsibility have not had the foresight to make this

[ Page 5857 ]

technology

available so it could be deployed at a time like this. This is an

environmentally friendly technology, and if this was a proactive

government and if they really meant what they say, they would be on top

of this very quickly.

Just one final thing about the Oscar,

and that is that it has the capacity to lift 30 tonnes of fluid a

minute. Therefore if 10 percent of that was oil, it would be removing

three tonnes of oil per minute. I don't think I hear anybody heckling

at this point, Mr. Speaker.

A third kind of technology here

in British Columbia is the Candel technology known as the Sea Rover

III. The Sea Rover III is produced by a company here in Saanich, and

the people from Candel have been trying to get the attention of this

government. They've been trying to get the attention of the federal

government. This technology is a radio-tracking device; when an oil

spill occurs and they don't have the Oscar present to clean it up at

source — if because of government incompetence it gets away —

then they can deploy this technology, this Sea Rover III, this

radio-tracking device, and place it in the water so that it will follow

the ocean currents. It has a device that will attach itself to the

submerged portion of the oil. Had that been deployed in Grays Harbor on

March 22, it could have warned us well in advance that this oil spill

was coming onto our shores.

I just want to make it very

clear that I have found the time to meet with people from these two

companies I have referred to. Members of the opposition have found the

time to do that, and members of the opposition would be delighted if

the government, instead of being so defensive all the time, would take

measures to make use of this splendid technology that's developing here

in British Columbia and, instead of just talking about private

enterprise, would show that they really have some sense of wanting to

promote private enterprise.

With regard to the Candel

technology, I would like to ask the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) if he has seen fit, on behalf of protecting the shoreline of

British Columbia, to send his representative up there, not to fly over

the site but to deploy the Candel technology, the Sea Rover, at the

mouth of Prince William Sound so that it picks up the oil when it

starts to come out of there so we'll know if it's going to be hitting

British Columbia beaches.

HON. MR. PARKER : Foreign waters.

MR. CASHORE : That should be a non-partisan thing, Mr. Speaker. It's a suggestion I give to the minister in good faith.

There is also another technology which was reported extensively in last weekend's edition of the Vancouver Province .

I will not go into it in detail, but it's Offshore Systems of North

Vancouver, and they are putting forward electronic navigation aids

which could have sent an audible warning to the crew of the Exxon Valdez that danger was approaching. That, again, is a British Columbia technology.

There

are four kinds of technology. They are environmentally friendly, and

they are the kinds of things we should be looking at very seriously.

With

regard to the oil spill on British Columbia beaches, I want to say that

PEP at the present time comes under the Solicitor-General. That is a

mistake, Mr. Speaker. We have to do something about having systems that

are more direct. PEP should come under the Ministry of Environment, and

that should be brought about very soon.

I've talked to a

number of people in this province who participated in the cleanup, and

in many cases they're having a difficult time being reimbursed for

their expenses. Compared to some of the government spending we see, I

don't think it would be too much to expect that those fine volunteers

who went out there on behalf of the people of British Columbia — and did a better job than the government — should be reimbursed for the hours they put in.

The

minister, during the throne speech debate, at the conclusion of his

speech said these words. How he could get such a double whammy into one

sentence is beyond imagination. This is what he said: "The site is

clean now...." The Minister of Environment; do you believe it? Then he

said — this is in Hansard

on page 5611: "...I think the media hysteria was the most outstanding

feature of that spill...." With friends like this! My goodness, Mr.

Speaker. I had the Page send some photographs over to the minister's

desk — he's not here to receive them — which were taken at

Cape Scott just one month ago, between March 10 and 11. They were taken

by people who had gone out there. During that period they picked up 835

pounds of oil and 38 dead birds, and this was in an area declared clean

by the Coast Guard. They pointed out that fresh oil was coming in at

Nissen Bight, Sauna Bay, Ogden Point and Cape Scott. At the conclusion

of his speech — I will repeat — the Minister of Environment

said: "The site is clean now." Anybody watching television news on

Sunday night would have seen new evidence that there is oil on those

beaches. It is most unfortunate that the political will did not exist

to have foreseen this situation and have enabled the people of British

Columbia to be represented appropriately.

To sum up, Mr.

Speaker, let's remember that there are two procedures that must be in

place when it comes to dealing with this type of disaster: prevention

and crisis intervention. This government could only get that committee

to meet two weekends ago; that's far too late. That does not take

seriously either prevention or crisis intervention, and it does not

bode well for the people of British Columbia whom this government wants

to believe them because of the mighty words contained in their budget.

It's not the words that are going to do the job; it's the action. The

people of British Columbia are waiting to see some tacit sign that this

government has the political will.

Again, I will repeat my

call for the Minister of Environment to be promoted. He should be in

the inner cabinet, but he isn't, and that shows how this government

really feels about the environment. The environment is not represented

at the highest level of

[ Page 5858 ]

decision-making

in this province. That, Mr. Speaker, is sheer hypocrisy when you look

at it in the light of the Brundtland report, which this government says

it believes in — a report which upholds public participation as one of its founding principles.

MR. CHALMERS :

It's indeed a pleasure for me to rise in my place today and participate

in the budget debate. Since this is the first opportunity I've had to

speak in the assembly since the beginning of this session, I'd like to

offer my sincere congratulations to the three most recent members of

this body. In welcoming them, I'd like to say that I, along with my

colleagues on this side of the Legislature, will do all that I can to

see that their stay is most enjoyable and as brief as possible.

The

budget is what we're here to talk about today. It's our Finance

minister's third budget and, many have said, his best; that is

understandable. As he said when he stood in his place to deliver his

speech, each of the two previous budgets, as well as this most recent

one, was indeed just a building block, one upon the other. By setting

the stage with the first and second budgets, he has been able to

deliver the '89 budget, which will set the stage for the economy of the

1990s in British Columbia.

I would like to congratulate the

Minister of Finance on this fine document. He has been receiving many

accolades from throughout the province and, for that matter, throughout

this country. He has set an example that many should follow, and

perhaps now will.

As a member of the government's budget

review committee, I'd like to express my appreciation to the minister

for including me in that process. We reviewed the expenditure side of

the budget. He was most patient with us, and obviously took many of the

recommendations to heart, because many of them are evident in the

document.

There is much to talk about in this budget, Mr.

Speaker, and much that's worthy of comment, but I intend to keep my

comments very brief and leave some for my colleagues who are much more

eloquent and articulate than I.

The budget has stressed three major issues: the three Es, as some have described them —

education, environment and the economy. I would like to touch on these

areas as well as a few others, and speak to them as they relate to my

riding of Okanagan South.

[4:00]

Okanagan South is a unique riding. I know that every member present

and past who has ever sat in this Legislature has considered their

riding to be unique. In my case, I know it to be true. There are many

reasons for that, Mr. Speaker, some apart from the fact that without a

doubt it's the finest place in the world to live. We are unique in that

we are considered to be a rural riding because we are located

upcountry, or in the interior. We have, however, one major

municipality, with approximately 70 percent of our total population

residing there. We have a very diverse economy, and that makes Okanagan

South the envy of many other interior and northern constituencies.

have many strengths, and at the same time we face a number of

challenges. Most of these challenges stem from the fact that we are

located in the interior and at quite a distance from a lot of

facilities, such as universities. This problem has been addressed

recently by the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen). He did

that through the "Access to Education" report, the recommendations that

were brought forward to him and, of course, the action that followed.

In our case, the action that followed was the announcement of

degree-granting status for Okanagan College. I thank the minister for

that great announcement, and I can tell you that the people of Okanagan

South thank him for that announcement.

That initiative was

made possible by the Minister of Finance, through his providing the

necessary funding required to offer those degree-granting programs,

over and above the existing programs and courses offered through

Okanagan College. This is going to have a tremendous impact on the

riding of Okanagan South. Not only will it allow for young people to

obtain a university education while continuing to live at home —

up to this point this is a luxury afforded only to those who live in

the lower mainland and on the southern tip of Vancouver Island —

but it will also help us to attract new industry with long-term, higher

paying jobs. This will mean that our bright young citizens will not

only be able to obtain an education in the Okanagan, but they will be

able to remain, to live, and to work in the Okanagan.

Much

has been said here in recent days about the environment. Everybody is

talking about the environment, not just in British Columbia but I guess

throughout the world. It's sort of the flavour of the month. This is

welcome news. This government is not only talking about protecting or

improving the environment but doing something about it. We have backed

up our words with the resources for the minister to do his job properly.

Again,

Okanagan South is an environmentally sensitive area. We have a great

deal to protect, and all of us welcome with enthusiasm — and to a certain extent, I would admit, with some surprise —

the generous increase in the budget of the Minister of Environment. The

minister is most responsive to the concerns of the people of Okanagan

South and always has been, but he now has the tools to get on with a

very important job. The Minister of Finance is to be congratulated

again for answering the calls of many for increased funding for

environmental programs.

Housing is something that we read

about a great deal. Perhaps the greatest need for affordable housing is

in the lower mainland; at least that is the perception, and I think the

perception is created partly because the major media outlets have

focused attention on the more populated areas of this province. We in

the interior, though, have similar needs, and although our private

sector has done the superb job of providing accommodation, we will

continue to have a need for government programs to ensure that we have

an ample supply of affordable housing. This

[ Page 5859 ]

budget has many exciting and innovative programs to meet those needs, and I look forward to the details as they unfold.

Health

care. We in British Columbia enjoy one of the best health care systems,

if not the best, in North America. We in Okanagan South are no

different than the rest of British Columbia, with a couple of

exceptions. We happen to enjoy a greater than average growth rate and

have a larger than average number of seniors living in our area. This,

of course, goes back to my earlier comment that we have indeed the best

place in the world to live. But these factors have put a considerable

strain on our local hospital, so the increase of some $388 million to

the Ministry of Health's budget is again welcome news to the residents

of my riding. We have always received excellent cooperation from the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), and I hope that with the little

extra funding he has he will be able to assist the board of trustees of

our hospital with their expansion plans. We have need in the area of

intermediate care beds, we would like to see a cardiac surgery

facility, and many others, but I'll only name the two. I look forward

in the future to working with the minister and my colleague and

running-mate in Okanagan South to see that Okanagan South continues to

be well taken care of in matters relating to health.

Mr.

Speaker, nothing in this world exists today that couldn't be improved

upon. I guess that's the case even with this budget. I must say that as

a member representing a riding where fruit growing is so important, I

would have felt a little better if the agriculture industry had been

given a more prominent mention in the budget, and perhaps more funding.

know that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage)

is well aware of the state of the fruit industry today. I know that he

has always responded positively to the requests for assistance when

asked. I know also that he and his senior staff are constantly working

with the industry to help them through these difficult times. You can

rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that I will continue to press this

government for help as it is required, because it's required by an

industry with a long and proud history in our valley, an industry that

must survive and must thrive.

The British Columbia economy

has performed exceedingly well over the past few years. Once again

Okanagan South has enjoyed its share of that growth. I mentioned

earlier that we have a diverse economy. We feel fortunate about that

fact, but that has come about through careful planning and development

of a long-term strategy. This has been developing and evolving over the

years. To do so it has required the skill and tenacity of many

community leaders who have guided our cities and municipalities in

years past. That work continues today, and the policies and initiatives

of the provincial government are most important to those of us who live

in the interior of this great province.

Over the years,

successive Social Credit governments have always put into place

policies relating to the times. They have improved upon them whenever

necessary to ensure that all regions of the province receive their fair

share of economic development. The news of an expanded budget to assist

with seed capital loans, and the increasing of the loan limits to

$100,000, again is welcome news in Okanagan South, as I'm sure it will

be in other areas of the province.

MR. WILLIAMS : Good idea.

MR. CHALMERS : An excellent idea; I'm glad you agree.

The

creation of the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation is also

most welcome. The Minister of International Business and Immigration

(Hon. J. Jansen) is doing a superb job in his new role, Mr. Speaker. I

have the pleasure of observing the minister from my position as

parliamentary secretary, and quite apart from enjoying and valuing his

friendship, I respect and admire the effort he is putting forward on

the part of this government and on behalf of the people of British

Columbia. I think we should be proud of the results he is obtaining in

the short time that he has been a minister.

The Trade

Development Corporation is an exciting and innovative vehicle that will

be created to assist British Columbia businesses to increase exports of

goods and services. Much more will be said about the corporation and

its mandate during the debate of the bill. This bill was recently

placed before the House by the minister and will enable the creation of

the corporation. I look forward to the discussion that will take place

at that time.

I will continue to urge the minister to

ensure that the special needs of small businesses, especially small

businesses located in the interior and northern regions of this

province, are recognized and addressed in the development of the

programs by the new corporation and by his ministry.

have a growing manufacturing sector in our riding of Okanagan South,

Mr. Speaker, as well as an impressive number of people providing a wide

array of consulting and professional services that they are eager to

employ in the international market. We have many companies exporting

products as diverse as children's clothing to component parts for

photocopiers. We have assembling plants that assemble products ranging

from high-tech navigational equipment to heavy-duty trucks — not to mention, of course, our superb wines and fruit products.

Yes,

we in Okanagan South are pleased indeed that this budget will allow for

the funding necessary for the new Minister of International Business

and Immigration to develop these programs. These programs will assist

the business community to reach its full potential in the new economy

of the 1990s. This budget will also assist them to take full advantage

of the opportunities that will now exist as a result of freer trade

with the United States and expanding markets in the Pacific Rim

countries.

The transportation policy and adequate

transportation infrastructure are very important to the economic

well-being of this province. No one is more acutely aware than those of

us who live in the interior.

[ Page 5860 ]

am pleased indeed that the Minister of Finance has recognized that fact

and has provided the much needed increase in the transportation and

highways budget for the 1989-90 fiscal year.

We in the

Okanagan are delighted that phase 3 of the Coquihalla Highway will be

completed by 1990. That's the same highway, incidentally, that the

Leader of the Opposition said he would close down if he was

Premier — a fact that must not be forgotten by the members of the

Legislature or by the people of this province. That's a clear

indication of the socialists' lack of understanding of the needs of the

people of the Interior and of the role that transportation links play

in the development and retention of a strong economy. So much for a

sustainable economy.

The residents of Okanagan South who I

have talked to look forward to the enhanced highways budget. We hope to

see an early completion of the widening of Highway 97 through the

Okanagan Valley. We look forward to the continuing upgrading of the

West Side Road.

MR. WILLIAMS : You mean the Penticton-Kamloops bypass.

MR. CHALMERS : There we go again.

look forward to the early commencement of the construction of the

much-needed underpass at the intersection of Highway 97 and Glenrosa.

We look forward to the upgrading of repaving of parts of Highway 33.

For the many people who live in Okanagan South and the thousands of

people who visit to ski, we look forward with anticipation to the day

that the last 12 miles of Big White Road will be paved.

look forward to the early resolution of the outstanding commitment that

exists between the provincial government and the city of Kelowna

resulting from the amalgamation of the city and the proud community of

Rutland. That arrangement, incidentally, was forced upon the residents

of our area by the socialist government of Dave Barrett and of the

first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) during that period from

1972 to 1975. That was the period of 1200 days and nights of darkness

in the history of this province.

In closing I would like to

applaud our Premier and our Minister of Finance and their colleagues in

cabinet for a fine budget, a fair budget and a balanced budget.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Last week I discussed the relationship between Herb Doman, Doman

Industries and Social Credit. I detailed what I saw as a pattern of

privilege, and I made documents available. They showed that Doman

received privileges that other forest companies had not received. I

intend to cover some further examples today.

I said last

week that Mr. Doman was an active member of the Social Credit Party,

and that he was at the leadership convention at Whistler and has been

actively involved throughout the years. At the same time, Mr. Doman

deals in forest licences on the public lands of British Columbia. The

people he rubbed shoulders with at Whistler are the same people who set

the rules regarding those forest licences — rather, they are the same people who ignore the rules all too often when it comes to Mr. Doman.

When

I spoke about this last week, the Premier and the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Parker) were in the House; they said nothing. They've said

nothing in the intervening week. I say that Doman has been the

recipient of special treatment. I think it's interesting that the

minister says nothing regarding those questions of a different

treatment for Doman compared to all the other operators on the central

coast. I say that that silence is damning. I say it's time that this

administration provide all of the Doman files for independent review.

[4:15]

Last week I showed that Doman's cutting rights should have been

dramatically cut back, because the books had been doctored with respect

to his annual cut over the five years. That cut under the rules

traditionally is to be at 90 percent. Had it related to the actual

cutting that Mr. Doman had undertaken, 65 percent of his cutting rights

on the central coast would have reverted back to the Crown. That, of

course, did not occur, and nothing reverted back to the Crown at all.

Similarly

I have provided examples of felled and bucked trees staying in the bush

for three years on the Doman lands. Today I'd like to cover the Doman

performance in the silvicultural, reforestation and environmental areas

as well.

On silviculture, I'd like to refer to a memo of

November 13, 1984, from George Burns to Gerry Kennah, the silvicultural

officer in the area. Mr. Burns says: "I have coordinated the planting

program in this district since my arrival here in 1981. The performance

of Doman Industries...has been nothing short of pathetic." Nothing

short of pathetic — that is the performance of the Doman company in the central coast.

Then Mr. Burns chronicles it:

"In the spring of '82, Doman Industries had 548,000

seedlings ordered and due to be planted in the Milton and Kimsquit drainages." Yet they used only 70,000 seedlings. Then he states: "In the fall of '82, Doman Industries planted 60,000

seedlings in the Kimsquit...." Burns says of that planting: "Doman has committed an atrocious trespass in their logging

operations in the Kimsquit, and I would speculate that the willingness to plant

had a lot to do with the trespass, as it's the trespass area that was replanted."

An atrocious trespass — and that's the area that got the replanting treatment.

Again

referring to Mr. Burns's memo of November 13, 1984: "In the spring of

'83, Doman Industries had 349,000 seedlings ordered and due to arrive

for planting in both the Kimsquit and Milton drainages. Yet there was

room for only 51,000 seedlings...." That was the pattern with Mr.

Doman: ordering excessive seedlings — or reasonable amounts of seedlings, rather — to be planted and then not being ready to handle the planting at all.

Further, Mr. Burns says: "Logging has recommenced in'84 in both Milton River and Kimsquit, and

[ Page 5861 ]

neither

operation has any seedlings available for '85 or '86. Many of these

sites...will quickly develop a brush problem and therefore require

immediate reforestation" — reforestation that would not be available.

Then

Mr. Burns says: "I believe we cannot afford to stand idly by and watch

this Kimsquit become another silvicultural slum like the Dean." That's

their experience in this region. They and the people of British

Columbia end up with silvicultural slums: that is, land not properly

forested, land that could have been properly forested and was not,

because of incompetence, mismanagement and, indeed, influence.

Let's

remember what Mr. Doman got on a promise of a pulp mill. He received

cutting rights in a pristine, untouched valley in the central coast. He

received really a magnificent empire, and he never built the pulp mill.

But Mr. Burns carries on — he is the coordinator for replanting

for the Vancouver forest district at that stage: "In addition to their

poor performance with regard to the planting, Doman is also several

years in arrears on their surveys."

Finally he says:

"Perhaps pressure can be brought to bear to influence Doman Industries

to hire a competent consultant to conduct these important surveys under

section 88." What does he say? "Let's hire a competent consultant

because Doman won't do it. Don't count on Doman to do what he is

supposed to do; we know better than that." Then he says: "Let's pay for

it under

section 88." He's saying that the government itself will have

to pay to carry out the surveys.

Another example is in

terms of environment and wildlife and the impact on Doman lands. This

is a May 5, 1987, memo from Mr. M.L. Beets — maybe the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is interested —

who is the head of habitat protection and a biologist with the

provincial government. He said in that letter to Rai Thomas, district

manager for the central coast that he was objecting to an increase in

the annual cut in the Kimsquit in '87. They were going to approve

increasing the cut from 140,000 cubic metres a year to 200,000 cubic

metres a year.

As Mr. Beets says, that was not in keeping with the Kimsquit plan that he'd

been involved with. The people in wildlife had already thought that 140,000

cubic metres was excessive. He states: "We feel even more justified now....

We strongly suspect that Doman is not addressing upper-elevation wood."

What he's saying there is that there is high-grading. They're taking

the lower wood out and not the upper wood and, as a result, a valley they thought

originally would be available for logging for 20 years, they state now seems

doubtful because of that high grading. Mr. Beets carries on: "Approval

of cut increases...in the case of the Kimsquit...is most reprehensible."

Bureaucrats' words.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Good stuff.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Yes indeed, good stuff, Mr. Minister. If you were doing your job, you'd

be monitoring this material and this information and seeing to it that

the kind of devastation that has occurred on the Doman lands never

occurs again. But you are not doing that.

Mr. Beets says as follows: "In addition to its fisheries capabilities,

the Kimsquit has amongst the highest grizzly bear values of any mid-coast watershed

and is one of only two coastal watersheds known to support moose." It is

a unique habitat. I'm not going to document the Fisheries files and others

that I have today, but clearly the Kimsquit, one of the important watersheds

of the coast, was allowed to be mismanaged on some considerable scale by this

Minister of Environment, the Minister of Forests and this government.

Mr. Beets carries on: "...it was our understanding that the Kimsquit was

to be a model of good forest management practices." It turned out to be

anything but. "Our difficulty in understanding how this increase can be

justified is based in part on Doman's performance to date in the Kimsquit.

Doman is a source of ongoing problems, not only with respect to habitat protection

but also in terms of their ability to plan and manage their overall harvesting

operations." Mr. Beets then says: "For example, during our most recent

visit to their operations, the following problems were encountered: (1) inadequate

preparation of preharvest silvicultural preparation; (2) large trespass involving

highly sensitive riparian habitat" — streambanks, trespasses in the streambanks,

impacting wildlife and the fisheries; "(3) blatant disregard for protection

of secondary watercourses." He talks about the girdling of trees within

important riparian leaf strips: that is, binding cables around trees and they

die.

Finally,

Mr. Beets, the head of habitat protection for the region, says:

"Considering the fact that these problems were evident when the cut was

140,000 cubic metres a year, how can we expect improved performance

with 200,000 cubic metres a year being cut?" How indeed? Mr. Doman

violates the rules. He wrecks important chunks of the environment and

landscape of British Columbia, and he gets a bonus under Social Credit

environmental policy. I suggest that he gets a bonus because he is a

Social Crediter through and through. He attends all those conventions

and rubs shoulders with cabinet ministers and has access.

surveys there's the same problem in terms of surveying their own work.

That's the way you handle the forests now in British Columbia: you let

the fox look after the henhouse. Mr. Burns says again in a memo of

January 25, 1985, regarding the survey work by Doman:

"There

is no survival

summary report which should compare numbers of planted

seedlings per hectare from the planting report to the number of planted

seedlings now present. A review of the FS659 regeneration survey

summary cards...submitted has found the following shortcomings: no

ecological classification information given; no cost data provided; no

target stocking standard specified; no calculation of species

composition; no localized minimum stocking standard specified; no

breakdown as to whether the site is SR, NSR or NC; no recommendation

[ Page 5862 ]

for future treatment in terms of spacing and brushing, etc."

Further, "a review of the FS657 regeneration survey standards has proved

it to be equally incomplete as with the other standards in FS659."

After

listing even further examples, he concludes, talking to Doman: "The

surveys you have conducted this year are not completed to an acceptable

standard."

Do you want another example of environmental degradation? November 4, 1986 —

Mr. D.E. Whidden, district silvicultural officer in the mid-coast

district, to Ed Neclokus and Ian Hamann of the ministry. In this case,

Doman wanted to change an approved logging plan which already had Fish

and Wildlife input and approval. The new methods that Doman wanted to

use would have been more destructive of the site — so destructive

in some parts of the site that trees or forests would not grow again.

The new proposal would have required more road, which would have meant

unproductive growing sites in the future. In fact, some seven

kilometres would have been built as a result of changing the method of

logging.

Mr. Whidden then looks at the worst-case scenario as a result of this proposal,

with Mr. Doman getting his way as usual, and states: "This would result

in a loss of future economic activity for the next rotation in the staggering

amount of $6,940,423...." The officer tries to put a price on the environmental

damage as a result of not logging according to plan, and he does so in the memo.

What it means is a few dollars for Mr. Doman and staggering losses for the environment

and the public in the long run. That's Social Credit policy; that's

business as usual in Social Credit terms.

Mr. Whidden then quotes what is supposed to be the stated policy of the ministry — all-approved stated policy of the ministry. It's as follows:

"All

logging operations and related road construction over which the

ministry has jurisdiction will be planned and carried out in such a

manner and using such equipment as to ensure that site disturbance

leading to permanent loss of productive area or to site degradation is

to be kept to a minimum."

That's what the silvicultural officer was arguing about. That's what the wildlife officer was arguing about.

Mr. Whidden concludes: 'We have nothing to gain and everything to lose

in this situation. I respectfully request your support...." Did he win?

Of course not. Did the public win? Of course not. Did the environment win? Of

course not. They were up against Herb Doman, a man with influence in Victoria.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Let's

remember that this very site we're talking about right now was in an

area called the Washwash area. It was a site that almost became an

ecological reserve, it was so magnificent. Imagine that. It almost

became an ecological reserve, but Mr. Doman wanted it included in his

cutting rights, so it was included in those cutting rights. Now much of

it is permanently damaged in terms of growing timber. It's a high

price, indeed, that Mr. Doman extracts from his Social Credit friends.

[4:30]

More? Yes, there's more and more: a memo, dated October 27, 1986,

from Mr. D.E. Whidden, district silviculturalist, to Ken Dunsworth, RA,

Timber, regarding Doman cutting permit 401 in the Washwash area again.

He chronicles Doman's poor performance, or non-performance, in yet

another case. On page 3 of the memo he says: "In respect of this type

of performance, I would like to recommend we not issue this cutting

permit. However, given the political ramifications of such a move, we

would likely stir up quite a hornets' nest." The political

ramifications of such a move. And he says: "...the bottom line is that

we would be forced to let Doman log, and the areas would not be planted

in 1988 to suitable species and stock types." What he's saying is that

he has been this route before, and there's political interference when

he tries to do his job. That's what he saying in that memo. He refers

again, in another

section of the memo, to "political ramifications of

proceeding."

These are civil servants trained to do a

decent job, to prevent environmental abuse and to get the companies to

follow the rules. In Doman's case the rules are either softer or they

don't exist at all, and the trained professionals are simply not

allowed to do their job. Mr. Whidden concludes in that memo: "This type

of performance regarding planning is simply not acceptable. Should we

proceed with this application in its present form, we are condoning

this type of performance, and the people of British Columbia are not

being adequately served." Amen, Mr. Speaker.

It's clear

now, from the files, that there's undue political influence when it

comes to Mr. Doman and his company. It really represents a cheap

investment in Social Credit, and it pays a handsome dividend for Doman

Industries. In my view it violates a public trust to manage the public

lands properly for all and to give equal treatment to all in the

managing of those lands.

Let's summarize.

(1) Mr. Doman

promised to build a pulp mill in exchange for timber rights in the

mid-coast; the mill was never built.

(2) Mr. Doman was to maintain a 90

percent cut over a five-year period, and the amount was closer to 25

percent.

(3) Mr. Doman should have been penalized in terms of his cut

and had it reduced, but that never happened. Yet it happened to others

with only modest violations.

(4) The silviculturalists refer to some of

the Doman lands as "silvicultural slums."

(5) The wildlife officers

claim Mr. Doman gets excessive privileges while ignoring their concerns

about fisheries and wildlife habitat.

(6) Mr. Doman carries out surveys

that are incomplete and not to an acceptable standard.

(7) Mr. Doman

carries out atrocious trespasses, according to the biologists.

(8) Millions in future forests are lost, according to the

silviculturalists, because of Mr. Doman's logging methods and their

impact on the environment.

That's a quick

summary. What

more can one say? We've listened to the hollow promises about the

environment on the government side of the House, hollow indeed when you

see the truth in government

[ Page 5863 ]

files, in terms of how you handle these questions when your friends are involved.

think the record speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker. The files speak

volumes about influence, about Social Credit and about environmental

abuse. I repeat, as I said last week: these matters should be reviewed

independently, so we see all of the files on how Mr. Doman has been

handled and compare that with how others are handled.

Last week I said that W.A.C. Bennett used to say: "Special treatment for none; equal treatment for all, my friends" —

or words to that effect. Special privilege is the pattern of the day

under this administration, and special privilege has certainly been

shown today in terms of this operator on the coast of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The opposition House Leader requests leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Government Management Services, I won't

take long with this. I know we're all interested in