1990 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 1990

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8985 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Fruit growers' problems in the Okanagan. Mr. Barlee –– 8985

Hon. Mr. Savage

B.C. public sector wage levels. Mr. Chalmers –– 8987

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Smallwood

Toxic waste in British Columbia. Ms. Cull –– 8989

Hon. Mr. Reynolds

The public interest and fairness. Mr. Vant –– 8992

Mr. Lovick

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 8994

Mr. Loenen –– 8998

Ms. Marzari –– 9002

Hon. Mr. Messmer –– 9004

Tabling Documents –– 9005

Statutes Repeal Act, 1990 (Bill 2). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 9005

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 4). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 9005

Foreign Money Claims Act (Bill 6). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 9005

International Sale of Goods Act (Bill 7). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 9006

Conflict of Laws Rules for Trusts Act (Bill 8). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 9006

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. S. HAGEN :

Mr. Speaker, on your behalf, I am pleased to welcome to the House this

morning two good friends from Vancouver who are great citizens of the

province: Mr. Ed Kisling and Ms. Lynn Upton. Would the House please

make them welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Mr. Speaker, I

would ask the House to join me in welcoming to the precincts this

morning the president of the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association, Mr.

Gerald Green, the vice-president, David Hobson, and from the office

staff, Martin Linder. Would the House please make them welcome.

MS. CULL :

I would like to welcome to the House today my very good friend Ms.

Marilyn Lawrence and her two daughters, Julie and Christie, who are

visiting here today from Nelson, British Columbia. Also with us in the

House today are some grade 9 students from Central Junior Secondary,

who have been doing research on a subject we're going to be discussing

later this morning.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, I

rise to give notice of motion of privilege In regard to remarks made

yesterday by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith). I say that for the

obvious fact that the Attorney-General was upset yesterday to the point

of calling a public inquiry into himself. But it has come to my

attention that in the legislative precinct, the Attorney-General called

me a liar for remarks that were made in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the record clearly shows otherwise. I have perused the Hansard

for yesterday. Until I've had an opportunity to examine the publication

of the Attorney-General's remarks, I reserve the right to proceed with

the privilege after I'm able to marshal all pertinent facts.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

If it will assist Mr. Speaker, I assume the Leader of the Opposition

has risen on the first occasion possible; secondly, the remarks

referred to were not made in this chamber. They were made outside the

legislative chamber.

MR. ROSE : Just to assist Mr. Speaker and the government House Leader, publication of those remarks — in terms of our traditions, precedents and jurisprudence — may well be grounds for a privilege motion.

MR. SPEAKER : The Chair appreciates all of this advice, which is warmly

received.

Private Members' Statements

FRUIT GROWERS' PROBLEMS

IN THE OKANAGAN

MR. BARLEE :

I'm pleased that Mr. Green, Mr. Hobson and the staff of the BCFGA are

here, because I am addressing a subject which is very close to their

hearts and to mine as well. I rise to address a very serious issue in

the House, an issue I addressed in 1988 when I first entered the House

and which I spoke about again at some length in 1989. I'll be quite

blunt about it. The century-old tree-fruits industry in the valleys of

the Okanagan and Similkameen is presently on the verge of collapse.

This is not an exaggeration.

The Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Savage) has presided over this industry for four years: 1986,

1987, 1988 and 1989. Before him, a succession of other Social Credit

Ministers of Agriculture presided over this ministry. All of them — there isn't one exception — failed

to address the problems facing the tree-fruits industry, and it's

presently in very bad shape. It's now 1990, and the situation in the

orchards is worse than it was four years ago, and it was brutal then.

It's worse than it was ten years ago, and it was bad then.

each week and each day pass, a desperate situation becomes even more

critical for the tree-fruit growers. There are literally hundreds of

orchards for sale or abandoned. The market is in disarray, and most of

the orchardists are either facing bankruptcy or are bankrupt. Some of

the orchards have been in the same family for two, three or even four

generations. This is family land, occasionally reaching back for 100

years. These farmers are a hardy lot. They don't give up easily, but

most of them have finally been driven to their knees by the repeated

failure of this government to implement measures to put the tree-fruits

industry back on its feet. There has been unbelievably poor management,

and the government must shoulder most of the responsibility. It's a

truly lamentable record.

How valuable is this industry, Mr.

Speaker? I'll briefly explain why it's valuable and why it's so

important to keep it healthy. First of all, 5,000 jobs are at stake,

and many of these jobs are in communities that are economically

depressed. Secondly, this industry provides a massive $120 million in

annual receipts to the Okanagan and Similkameen valleys. Thirdly, the

tourism business is largely affected by maintenance of the agricultural

greenbelts in both the Okanagan and Similkameen valleys.

Economic

factors aren't the only considerations; there are other factors as

well. One of those is quality of life, which affects everyone in those

valleys and everyone who passes through our areas.

The

fruit-growing region of our province is only one-tenth of one percent

of the land mass of British Columbia, and I believe it's worth

protecting. If this industry is allowed to collapse.... And surely it

will collapse if the decades-old situation is allowed to remain in

limbo as it presently is, because most of the

[ Page 8986 ]

criminal inaction of this government — their monumental disregard of the economic well-being of the orchardist — is

almost unbelievable. The costs in economic terms would be staggering if

this industry collapses, and the cost in human terms would be even more

staggering.

I see I haven't got the attention of the

Minister of Agriculture. I wish I did have the attention of that

minister. I think it's very important. You may not consider it

important; I do. I've lived in the Okanagan for many years. Many of

these individuals are not necessarily of my persuasion politically, but

they're worried. My job is to bring it to your attention. I think you

should be decent enough to listen to it.

Interjections.

MR. BARLEE :

As usual! Your usual attitude towards a very serious problem. There are

5,000 jobs on the line, and these are important jobs in an area that Is

economically depressed.

What the tree-fruits industry

requires I have listened to hundreds of orchardists of all political

persuasions, and I emphasize that they are of all political

persuasions. They're Social Crediters, they're Liberals and they're New

Democrats; and they're worried. They think there should be an immediate

grant, an extraordinary grant, of ten cents a pound for all fancy and

extra-fancy apples produced in 1989 This industry needs this

extraordinary grant because these are extraordinary times and

extraordinary circumstances in this very important industry.

I've lived through the good times and lived through the bad times, as the

song says. But I'll tell you that all through the 1940s the industry wasn't

in bad shape; in the 1950s It wasn't in bad shape; in the 1960s it wasn't

in bad shape; and in part of the 1970 it was in good shape. It's in poor

shape again in the 1980s. You know, this may be the last straw for some of these

orchardists. Even orchardists who have historically turned a profit for

decades are now in dire economic circumstances. The ad hoc and short-term measures

used for so long by this ministry and this government have to come to an end.

They simply haven't worked.

[10:15]

What is required is this immediate — and I stress immediate — extraordinary

grant that must be followed by a long-term plan. The grant is overdue,

and so is the long-term plan. The total cost of this extraordinary

grant will be somewhere between $29 million and $30 million. This may

sound like a considerable amount of money, and indeed it is. But when

it's placed in the right perspective, it's a very wise move. Most of

the orchardists I've talked with agree that this ten cents a pound will

give them the breathing space they so badly need.

I must

emphasize that this is the first important step towards putting this

industry back on its feet and making it economically viable again. I

must emphasize that this extraordinary grant is required now; it isn't

required in six months. The first member for Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa)

should be aware of that. It isn't required in three months; it isn't

required in three weeks. The government and the ministry have had ample

warning. These orchardists require immediate funding right now. I'm

tired of seeing

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member; the time is up.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

To the hon. second member for Boundary-Similkameen, I think I've heard

some of these words before. I'd like to remind the hon. member that in

the fiscal year 1989-90, this government put $12.1 million into the

fruit industry. If that wasn't to help, I'd like to know what It was

for. We have responded. We have had meetings galore with

representatives from the fruit industry. Today I am having meetings

with those same representatives.

The nature of the economy

dictates And you can blame it on lots of things, but I can tell you

that to continue to ad hoc year in and year out without taking a

strategic look at where the Industry Is going would be absolute folly.

The ad hockery is to help them through the tough times. We must look at

a longer-term policy for this industry.

I'd like to tell you also that, as you well know....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : The gentleman over there doesn't know what a golf course is.

I'd like to tell the member opposite that the industry has really been supported by this government.

I'll tell you another thing. The state of the current industry — or the

malaise of it as you like to call it — has not arisen due to financial neglect

by government. Indeed, it is disappointing to find that after almost two decades

of significant federal and provincial government support, the circumstances

of the average tree-fruit grower can best be described as difficult. We all

recognize that.

Ignoring the impact of inflation, the total direct federal and provincial

government support to the industry has exceeded $210 million since the mid

1970s. When adjusted for inflation and including both direct and indirect support,

this figure exceeds $354 million in 1988 dollars. Direct assistance has flowed

through a variety of channels, as you well know, and through several programs

during the eighties. Combined with the federal and provincial program, expenditures

to apple growers range from between $3.5 million and $24.9 million annually.

Farm income insurance has also been involved in giving out large disbursements.

If I can express it differently, direct government support to tree-fruit growers

over the 17-year period to 1988 has averaged $47 for every $100 of producer

sales; or, to take it in another form, $90,000 per tree-fruit farm, or $700

per acre annually.

take exception when you criticize that government has not responded. We

are continuing to respond; we will continue to do so. We are not

neglecting the fruit industry. We are conducting a

[ Page

8987 ]

commission of inquiry, which is looking into the

options that will be made available for government to respond to the

concerns the commissioner will produce in the way of a report at the

end of May. It would be premature for me to comment on any of the

aspects of that report, as there is another hearing in Vancouver on

April 27.

Hon. member opposite, I don't see how you can

stand over there and say that this government has not responded. This

government has responded very quickly. When needed, the fruit growers

know very well that they can come into my office and talk to me, and I

will then take forward to cabinet the issues that are required to be

addressed. But I cannot address some of the points you raise, as they

may well reflect on that commission of inquiry. I will not bias a

decision of a future hearing by making comment on it.

would also like to tell the hon. member that the fruit growers'

organization, which I have a great deal of respect for.... It is over a

century old. As you well know, there are a lot of problems throughout

the industry, but they are not unique to the fruit industry. We are

visualizing, from a conference I have just attended, the possibility of

8,000 to 10,000 farmers going broke in Saskatchewan this year. Not only

are farms for sale in the Okanagan Valley; there are thousands of farms

for sale across this country. When the socialist governments of Europe

quit subsidizing to the point where they are distorting a natural

marketplace, then it will be corrected.

MR. BARLEE :

Mr. Speaker, let's talk priorities. Let's really take a close look. We

have 5,000 jobs at stake; you say there are 5,000 to 10,000 jobs at

stake in Saskatchewan. The federal government gave those farmers in

Saskatchewan $1 billion. We are talking about ad hoc stuff here. We're

talking about the short-term stuff this government has recommended for

ten years, What about the short-term stuff? Where are the priorities? I

think it's time the minister got up and started to pound on the table

in cabinet; I really think that's long overdue.

It is

pretty obvious to me, as a member from the opposite side, that you are

not heard very effectively in the inner cabinet. They are not

listening. Agriculture has been given a low priority. It has had a low

priority for a decade, and it hasn't been helped by the present

minister.

Priorities? Well, I'll tell you something: there

was a $500 million overrun on the Coquihalla. Does it provide 5,000

jobs? Not by a long shot. A $700 million overrun on SkyTrain — does it

provide 5,000 jobs? I doubt it. What about your famous northeast coal,

for $900 million? It doesn't provide more than a fraction of those

jobs. So I think you've got your priorities a little mixed up.

I'll tell you what some of your brilliant ideas are. Your brilliant idea

a couple of months ago was to go to the major retailers in the province and

ask them to put a 5 cent surcharge on British Columbia apples to make it difficult

for us to compete with our competitors south of the line and in other parts

of the world.

What

a haywire idea that was! Whose brilliant idea was that? My God, you

could have gone to grade 5 and got a better idea than that. It's

astonishing.

I'll tell you, I do not think this government

has taken the broad view. Other jurisdictions in other parts of the

world have agreed that their agricultural industry is important — even

Hawaii has done that. We talk about the ALR. Well, Hawaii passed an ALR

in 1961, far before we did. They had the long view; you haven't had the

long view. That was almost 30 years ago, and they haven't tinkered with

it. It has worked. They essentially divided the islands of Hawaii into

four sections. They divided them into an agricultural land reserve, a

rural and conservation area, and an urban area, and it has worked very

well. They consider that act, Act 187, to be one of the most important

in Hawaiian history, second only to the constitution.

They've

done a good job in other parts of the world. They've done an excellent

job in the Napa Valley; they've done a good job in Oregon. We haven't

done a good job here, and I place the blame right on the ministry. You

talk about how well the ministry has done; I'll talk about other

things. I'll talk about how well the ministry hasn't done. The

percentage increase is deplorable. It's one-third of what it was ten

years ago. It's just absolutely astonishing to this side of the House,

and I think you're going to pay for it in the long run.

MR. SPEAKER :

The next order of business on the order paper is the item brought

forward by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce). It's my

understanding that the second member for Okanagan South is prepared to

address that on his behalf. Members may be confused, but if you refer

to the orders of the day you'll find the order and sequence clearly

typed and prepared for your benefit.

B.C. PUBLIC SECTOR WAGE LEVELS

MR. CHALMERS :

Today in British Columbia we're living in a period of prosperity such

as we've never seen since the late 1970s. Unemployment, although it's

still too high in some areas, is nevertheless at the lowest point in

about a decade in every region of this province.

We are the

only province with a balanced budget. Last year British Columbia

created nearly half of all the new jobs created in Canada. More people

are moving to British Columbia than any province in Canada, including

Ontario. In my own riding I was told by members of the moving industry

that for every family leaving the Kelowna area, eight families have

moved in — mostly from southern Ontario.

In 1989 capital

expenditures were up 21 percent over 1988. Housing starts rose by 30

percent. Again in my own community, last year in just the city of

Kelowna alone — not the district — some 2,306 building starts were a result of the work in that area. That's 300 more than the entire province of Saskatchewan.

[ Page 8988 ]

Government

has played a major role in this prosperity. Through our regionalization

initiative, we have encouraged regionally balanced, environmentally

sensitive economic growth all around the province. Our environmental

laws are now among the toughest in Canada, and government spending on

the environment has risen by 90 percent since 1988.

Per

capita education spending has increased by nearly 78 percent since

1986-87 when the present government came to power. This year's health

budget is some $4.3 billion. We are planning to spend some $3 billion

over the next ten years to improve our education system and implement

the royal commission's recommendations. That's in addition to the $3

billion we've already spent annually on education from kindergarten

through university.

We've improved our transportation

infrastructure, through highways such as the Coquihalla and the

Okanagan connector. We've dedicated some $890 million this year alone

to provide affordable housing. The list goes on.

However,

we've seen before what happens when government expenditures exceed

revenues: crippling debt. One has only to look at what's happening on

the federal scene where more than one-third of the total budget is

going to pay interest on the public debt. In contrast, B.C. spends only

4 percent of its budget on interest charges. The federal government

plans to pay $41.2 billion next year in interest charges alone. That's

$112.9 million a day, every day, for the year.

Nothing

threatens our prosperity like the federal government debt, which has

forced up interest rates to intolerable levels. But the other major

culprit is inflation. A major reason for inflation is disparity between

public and private sector wage levels. B.C. has the highest hourly wage

and the second-highest average weekly salary in Canada, but public

sector wage levels have been way out of whack with these high private

sector wage levels. We see a growing gap in wage levels between the

public and private sectors, such that in 1985 there was roughly parity,

but last year the public sector led the private sector by nearly 4

percent. It means that everyone in the private sector scrambles to

catch up because they, too, want increases of 15 to 20 percent. Who

wouldn't?

[10:30]

The trouble is that the taxpayers can't afford this any more than

the private sector can. B.C. doesn't want to have to raise taxes to pay

the public sector wage levels that are already high. The NDP doesn't

accept the concept of ability to pay. I must say that it frightens me,

and it frightens the taxpayers of British Columbia, when the NDP

clearly fails to share our commitment to equity between public and

private sector wage levels.

Their policies of public sector wage settlements appear to remain in the thrall

of special interests who see militancy and confrontation as a substitute for

sound and sensible economic analysis. I say "remain" because many

of us remember the turmoil of the last time the NDP had its hands on the strings

of the public purse. One only needs to recall the performance of the last NDP

government — a Premier, if we'll recall, who doubled his own salary; a payoff

contract settlement that provided for wage increases ranging from 16 percent

to 56 percent; a civil service payroll that jumped by 76 percent in just one

year, 1975, the year the NDP saw that the end was coming. The province cannot

afford a repeat performance of that cavalier attitude towards the people's

business and the taxpayers' pocketbook.

More

to the point of this discussion, in the long run such weakness in

negotiations is corrosive to the free collective bargaining process.

The public backlash to such public sector settlements would raise

serious questions about the process. I will do my utmost to defend free

collective bargaining from those who would abuse it through the

inability to distinguish political interest from public interest. For

that reason I applaud this government's commitment to show leadership

and common sense in the public sector bargaining we face in the year to

come.

To allay the fears of the taxpayers of British

Columbia about all the elected officials, I call upon the opposition to

clearly state today that it supports the equity of public and private

sector wage settlements. We reject the settlements beyond the ability

of the taxpayers to pay. Will you agree that the role of political

leadership is to forge the partnership of the private and public

sector, not to choose one side over the other? Will you support this

government in putting the interests of the taxpayer first? Are you

prepared to do the right thing?

MS. A. HAGEN : I

resisted the temptation to call a point of order, given the fact that

the speaker we just heard was a substitute speaker for the member for

Cowichan-Malahat. It was my understanding from your comment, Mr.

Speaker, that we were dealing with the same topic. Since it is the

right and privilege of members to advise this House of the topics they

will be discussing in members' statements period, I intend to address

my remarks to that theme, mindful of the comments of the member for

Okanagan South.

The topic for today was democratic rights,

and democratic rights in this particular society include rights that

are vested in us as a province and the rights that are vested in

various other elected bodies in this country — school boards, municipal councils and, in some instances, regional councils — to

act on behalf of their citizens. Some of those responsibilities involve

one of the topics this member seemed to consider to be his topic for

discussion today — collective bargaining. Our democratic rights do recognize the right to full collective bargaining.

would note to that member that those rights are rights that this

government exercises on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and

full collective bargaining involves two parties — the employer — in the

case of the public sector, this government, a school board, a municipal

council or a regional council; and it involves members of the organized

sector. It takes two parties to deal with the issues and to come to an

agreement on issues that come to the table and are of concern to the

employee and the employer. Those

[ Page 8989 ]

democratic

rights have been established by long tradition and many battles by the

people of this province, and we hold those rights dear. You can rest

assured that we on this side of the House will seek in every way to

ensure that they are well maintained in the interest of all parties,

those who are the employers of this province and those who are the

employees of the province.

In the pursuit of the issue the

member has talked about, I think he's tried to make a case that somehow

the prosperity of this province is threatened. Let me state my case.

The prosperity of this province rests on people who are well educated

and well trained, who bring the greatest possible skills to the

workplace, who are able to work in highly sophisticated areas, be they

in the fields of public service, nurses, teachers, technicians,

municipal garbage collectors, firefighters, policemen or in our very

widespread and diverse private sector. Indeed, the remuneration of

those people is going to be a part of that economy. We all have a role

to play in that regard — employers and employees. That's a part of our

democratic tradition, and we intend to work in continuation of that

tradition in this province.

I would note that the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley is going to continue comments on this speech.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I welcome the opportunity to talk about the pocket issues of the people in this province.

The

previous speaker introduced his statement by talking about employment

and increased employment in this province under your government. The

reality is that 57 percent of all jobs in British Columbia are

full-time year-round. That's disgraceful. As for creation of jobs under

this government, a total of 90 percent of all jobs in the lower

mainland have been service jobs at $6 to $8 an hour. The reality is

that the spread between rich and poor in this province is increasing.

The number....

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member.

The time available for members to speak is clearly laid out in our

standing orders. The Chair, having read the matter for discussion, is

having difficulty with any of the people speaking today in determining

the scope of the discussion. Perhaps if we can have the second member

for Okanagan South conclude with his remarks, we'll get on to the next

speaker.

MR. CHALMERS : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's

obvious that the opposition is not prepared to make it clear where they

stand in the discrepancy between private and public sector wages. But

their leader just a couple of years ago said that we on the government

side were under spending by some $3 billion. Of course, that sent shock

waves through the province, so the leader is not speaking about that so

much anymore.

One of their candidates up-Island is prepared

to be honest about where they stand on the NDP side He made a public

statement that said: "Let's be honest with the folks; if the NDP do

form the government, taxes will have to go up." He is the only one so

far who has been prepared to come forward from that side and say that

they're prepared to raise the taxes to make the settlements on behalf

of the taxpayers.

They talk about jobs being low-paid and

part-time. I know that in my constituency there are many young people

who welcome the opportunity to have those jobs at the entry level while

they're going to university or attending high school. They like to have

that opportunity to work in the tourism sector and other service areas

so that they can continue their education and go on to the

higher-paying jobs as a result of their higher education.

We're

quite proud of the fact that half the jobs in Canada were created here

in British Columbia. I'll admit that some of them are lower-paid jobs,

but the opportunity is there for those people to improve their lot in

life. It's obvious that the members opposite are not prepared to make a

statement now or probably before the next election as to where they

stand with respect to private and public sector wage levels.

TOXIC WASTE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

MS. CULL :

Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk about toxic waste and the problems

that this government's neglect of this very important issue is causing

in my community. I said the other day that people in my community are

very concerned about the pollution of their beaches, and much of this

concern tends to focus on that which we can see, such as human sewage.

But there is also growing concern about chemical contamination, which

is mostly invisible. That's part of the problem, because the use of

chemicals in our society has become so commonplace today that it is

invisible. We scarcely think about it.

Almost everyone is

aware of the debate were having in greater Victoria right now about the

need to treat our sewage, and most of us are familiar with the real

nasties like PCBs. People are only recently becoming aware of the

dangers posed to both human health and our environment by chemical

contamination from local industries, from commercial enterprises and

from our own households when we don't dispose of these chemicals

properly.

Greater Victoria is by no means industrialized,

so we don't tend to think of chemical pollution as a problem here.

However, when trace-metal concentrations and sediments were measured at

various B.C. marine sites between 1975 and 1985, the highest levels of

lead, zinc, mercury and copper in mollusks were reported around the

Victoria outfalls. Sediment samples taken in Victoria and Esquimalt

harbours between 1976 and 1983 show levels of PCB contamination that

are equal to those found in False Creek, Woodfibre or Alberni. There

are several sources of this contamination: local industry, particularly

the metal-finishing industry; commercial enterprises such as

pest-control companies, paint companies, dry cleaners, hospitals, labs,

photo-finishing firms; and also our own households.

[ Page 8990 ]

Toxic

waste was identified by the Capital Regional District's liquid waste

management plan as one of the major concerns. The CRD study says

governments at all levels have the opportunity — and I would add, the responsibility — to

exercise leadership on this matter. What's needed is education,

infrastructure and regulation. But that's the problem: this government

has failed to live up to its responsibility to reduce toxic waste in

this province. It has failed to educate the public, and it has failed

to provide for safe disposal of toxic waste.

I want to

focus a little bit on the matter of safe disposal. If we don't want to

see toxic wastes ending up on our beaches, we have to have a safe

alternative. The Ministry of Environment operates a toxic waste depot

in Victoria. It's open occasionally, usually about once a month, at

times that are totally inconvenient to the average working person — several

hours in the middle of a working day. Last fall the depot was closed

because it was full. No one knew when it would be open again. When a

local reporter started to publicize it, she was told not to, because if

people knew about it they'd get too much material.

There are eight toxic waste depots...

Interjections.

MS. CULL : Just give me the courtesy of listening for a minute, and you might learn something here.

...

in this province, and you have to phone ahead and make an appointment

to take in your material. There is a very limited number of staff — 12, I believe — who

are able to handle this. I'd just like to share with the members of

this House the results of a telephone survey that I did of some of the

toxic waste depots. I called the Kamloops depot on three separate

occasions. The technician who handled the waste was not there and no

one could book an appointment for me. No one could book an appointment

when I twice called Smithers. When I called Prince George, I discovered

it hadn't been set up yet and wouldn't even be open until the end of

April. The Surrey depot was under renovations and closed until May.

Penticton was open at least, but again there was no one who could make

an appointment. No one was at Nanaimo, no one was at Victoria, and the

Nelson depot was closed because it was full.

[10:45]

Mr. Speaker, this situation is totally unacceptable. The message I

obtained from this survey, and the message I think any member of the

public would obtain, is that this government doesn't care what we do

with toxic waste. They'd just as soon have us flush it down the drain

or throw it into the landfill than provide us with safe, convenient

storage facilities.

There have been a lot of calls over

there about "what will we do?" Well, there is no end of good ideas for

what we can do about toxic waste. We have to start with source control,

eliminating toxic waste at the source where it occurs, through public

education. We need to get the information out about what's harmful and

how to safely dispose of it. We could do this through the media,

through flyers, through inclusion with assessment notices, hydro bills — there is no end of good ideas here.

need to improve the system to collect and store toxic waste. What about

collection days? Curbside pickup? Or we could try some of the ideas

that have been used very successfully in Europe, such as a mobile unit.

At minimum we could at least ensure that the eight depots we do have

are adequately staffed, are open at convenient hours and are

advertised. It's simply a question of leadership, and that's something

we've yet to see from this government on this issue.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I am pleased to be here this morning and very pleased to have a chance

to answer some of the points put forth by the member for Oak Bay-Gordon

Head. I would first like to congratulate her on her election victory.

AN HON. MEMBER : You did a lot to help her.

HON. MR REYNOLDS :

After being so kind, I could turn around and say that I hope she enjoys

her short stay. I remember the '83-86 parliament, when the member for

Victoria used to talk about a member from the interior who won a

by-election, but I see he's not back here, either.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : But he was defeated in British Columbia. We send a lot of people to Ottawa that we like to get rid of.

would say to the member that she raised some very good points, and I

was pleased to see that she talked about a mobile unit for hazardous

wastes. I will assure her that the first place it goes will be Oak Bay,

and I hope she will be there with me so that when the people start

complaining, she will encourage them and not try to scare them to death

like other members of her party have done when we've talked about it.

would also appreciate it if the NDP, instead of just talking about a

hazardous waste site, would work with us and try to find a site in

British Columbia. Where were they when we wanted to put one in Cache

Creek and there were people opposed to it? Hiding. They have no

suggestions. They want to stand up and talk about hazardous wastes and

what we should be doing. Well, let me tell you, we've got the toughest

regulations in all of Canada.

You can sit there and talk

about it. The former mayor of Vancouver is there, a city just like

Victoria. You can talk about the Capital Regional District and the GVRD — those

communities can bring in bylaws on hazardous waste. Ask them where they

are. It's easy to blame the provincial government, but ask your own

community: where are your bylaws on hazardous waste? Why are they

allowing people to put them in the sewers? We don't put the bylaws in.

would hope that the member is around next Thursday when the budget is

here, Mr. Speaker, because I think she'll find some very interesting

[ Page 8991 ]

things

in that document. And I hope because of her speech today that she will

be fully supportive of the strong stands this government is going to

take on the environment and on hazardous waste.

I would also suggest that members on the other side — like

the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) when they were

scaring people across Surrey about a PCB storage site that had been

there for years and they made statements that we were hiding it — would

try and tell their constituents that the sites are safe and secure and

that the fire department in Surrey knew about it and visits it every

month, instead of trying to scare them.

These are the types

of things that we should work on together. The environment is not a

political issue where you should play games with people's lives. It

should be....

MS. SMALLWOOD : You've been there, and you approve it? Do you think that's okay?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Yes, I've been there. We have — I forget how many — about 554 PCB storage sites in this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I'm not proud of that. You shouldn't be proud of it either. We should

have a site to destroy them in this province, we should have it

quickly, and your party should be supporting us when we're trying to do

it.

Mr. Speaker, it's easy to be the environmentalist and

say we should eliminate the problems, but there's not a member on that

side who, if I went to visit their homes today, wouldn't have hazardous

wastes in their home. They all have them. They won't help solve the

problem. The minute we announce a site, they'll find some reason to

oppose it.

MR. PERRY : You've got millions of storage sites around B.C. now.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Well, it's interesting that the critic for the party the other day was

saying we have maybe 103, and it's actually 500 and something, and now

this member says we've got millions.

The sites we have in

this province are monitored by the people on my staff, who are some of

the hardest-working people in this province. They are dedicated

environmentalists, and it's sad to see the member stand up in the House

and criticize the staff of the Ministry of Environment, because they

are hard-working, dedicated people. I can assure you that as she spends

some more time here and gets some opportunity, instead of going out to

a depot where they are dropping off.... Drop into the ministry, visit

the staff and ask them what's going on. That's what you should be doing

as a member.

MR. SPEAKER : Just before I have

the member conclude, there are several members today who have neglected

to do their morning reading of Sir Erskine May, especially that

chapter dealing with the reading of newspapers and periodicals in the

House. If perhaps they'd like to refresh themselves with that, we would

be delighted to pass on the particular citation.

MR. HARCOURT : If what I am reading truly qualified as a newspaper, that would be true.

MR. SPEAKER : That matter has been raised before.

MR. HARCOURT : I understand, Mr. Speaker, and I will take your guidance on that.

MR. SPEAKER : Several people have raised the matter before — whether

the newspaper they were reading in fact qualified as a newspaper. We're

not interested in the dictionary definition; we're only interested in

what Sir Erskine May had to say. I'm sure in his day they were

generally newspapers. The intent is still there.

MS. CULL :

I wasn't talking about the Ministry of Environment staff failing to

live up to their responsibilities; I was talking about the Minister of

Environment and this government.

I thought the minister

would respond to this by talking about the budget. I certainly hope

there's more in it than was promised in the press release last

December, which was lottery grants. I thought that was really

indicative of the approach this government takes with our environment,

which is to gamble with it. I hope the toxic waste corporation that was

promised in the throne speech.... We haven't seen what it is yet, but I

hope it isn't what my colleague the environment critic mentioned the

other day: a technofix. I hope we can learn in this province from the

experience elsewhere that these kinds of solutions create more problems

than they solve.

While we're waiting for this action to be taken — for the budget and for this corporation to be formed — chemical

pollution is continuing in my community. Just look at one source:

paint. I called some of the companies in Victoria and asked them what

they did with their leftover paint. They told me they disposed of it in

the landfill because the toxic waste depot won't take it.

The

point I'm making is that while the government's working on this,

chemical pollution is continuing. I don't think it would take very much

in the meantime, while people are working on these solutions in the

ministry, to start a program of public education now and to open the

depots on a regularly advertised basis. There's certainly support for

that in this community.

I want to share with you the

results of a survey undertaken by some students from Central Junior

Secondary School. This is a class of students who are very concerned

about toxic waste. They talked to residents and found that over 30

percent of them just dispose of their toxic wastes down the drains; 40

percent didn't know there was a depot, but 70

[ Page 8992 ]

percent

would use it if they were aware of it. They don't use it because the

hours are so inconvenient. Eighty-three percent would use it if it were

open on a weekend, and 92 percent would use a mobile unit. Obviously

there's a need to do something in this community; there's a need to do

it now. There's public support for it. The real question is: will the

Minister of Environment rise to the occasion and do something about it

now?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND FAIRNESS

MR. VANT : Democracy is breaking out all over — from

Chile to Nepal, from Nicaragua to Mongolia, from Lithuania to Haiti.

People are filled with enthusiasm for change and for universal

recognition of human rights and democratic freedoms. Fundamental to any

democracy is the belief that all citizens are equally free and have

equal rights of access to opportunities; in particular, to

opportunities created by the state, which is the servant, not the

master, of the people.

Interjection.

MR. VANT :

Yes, indeed. It's true for all citizens, no matter what their gender.

In the words of W.A.C. Bennett: "Equal rights for all, special

privileges for none." Mr. Speaker, the King of France lost both his

kingdom and his head over that principle. The man sitting over there

who would be king in this Legislature, the Leader of the Opposition,

may lose his throne over this same elementary democratic principle. The

fundamental contradiction in socialist NDP philosophy is that while

they claim to speak for the public, they are, even in their party

constitution, a captive instrument of special interests.

corporation has the right to elect delegates to a Social Credit

convention, but organized labour does elect delegates, as a matter of

constitutional right, to NDP conventions. The right of workers to

determine whether or not to be certified as a trade union for the

purposes of collective bargaining is a basic democratic right. No one

has or should have the right to tell a group of workers on a job site

that they must or must not join a union. That is their free choice, as

is the determination of which union, if any, to choose to represent

them.

So far I believe that I have said things that the

opposition must agree with as a matter of fundamental principle, not

casual convenience. It is here that the basic contradiction emerges.

Once that democratic decision has been freely and fairly made, it is

the obligation of government to respect that decision whether it likes

it or not and whether it agrees with it or not.

Every

working person in this province is a taxpayer, whether union or

non-union, and as such is absolutely entitled to fair and equal

treatment by the government of this province. That elementary truth is

apparently offensive to the socialist NDP.

The most recent

example of the NDP double standard can be seen in a convention

resolution presented to their 1990 provincial convention. Indeed, it

was their Burnaby-Edmonds constituency resolution which was recommended

for approval by their convention policy committee. Under

section c(ii),

inappropriately entitled "Fair Labour Legislation, " the resolution

reads as follows:

"Whereas workers have an

obligation to share both the struggle and the benefit organization

brings to themselves, their families and society as a whole, and

whereas it is essential to the proper functioning of a democratic

socialist society that various interests be organized to properly and

in balance represent their interest; therefore

be it resolved that all

contracts of or for services, goods and construction that government

does not provide, procure or build through the use of directly employed

unionized employees be awarded to employers whose workers are

represented by bona fide trade unions."

This resolution

clearly indicates that an NDP government would systematically

discriminate against the 63 percent of the working men and women in

British Columbia who have democratically chosen not to join a trade

union, against their employers — many of whom are independent small business operators — and against their families, for these are breadwinners.

[11:00]

Make no mistake, I am not anti-union in the slightest, given my

personal background. I've been a proud member of one of the strongest

trade unions in this province for over 23 years, and that's more than a

lot of the members opposite can say. Trade unions, by the way, have

done exceptionally well in British Columbia as a result of nearly 40

years of good Social Credit government — good, dynamic, Social Credit

economic development policies, which have built this province,

particularly the interior. In fact, we have the highest hourly wages in

Canada.

What I'm against is discrimination in any form.

What I'm against, too, is the outrageous NDP double standard. Indeed, I

was shocked yesterday to hear what the Leader of the Opposition had to

say, and I'll refer to that in my windup remarks.

Some

unions are affiliated with the NDP. And thank goodness, some unions

aren't: those unions that are with the B.C. Council of Labour instead

of the B.C. Fed. What guarantee do union members have that a NDP

government wouldn't play favourites with firms based on that

affiliation? I say there is no guarantee, and that ought to be of

concern to every British Columbian.

MR. LOVICK : It's

my misfortune to have to rise and respond to that because I like, when

I respond, to provide some kind of coherent and thoughtful response.

But to do that, sadly, one must discover that there is a message amidst

all the puffery one hears. Sadly, in the previous speaker's remarks,

there is not much sound substance.

I listened in vain to find out what the theme was — the public interest and fairness. I thought: that's a

[ Page 8993 ]

perfectly

good issue and one we certainly all want to address. I discovered in

listening that I didn't find anything relevant to that particular

subject heading. I wonder why. I wonder if the member is simply

engaging in that old campaign of trying to take the heat off — the fact that that government is going down — by doing a little old-fashioned name-calling about this side of the House.

Sadly,

the evidence the member produces to try and justify his case is false.

If he wants to talk about existing New Democratic Party policy and

something being wrong with that policy, then for heaven's sake, he

ought to do his homework. The resolution he is talking about is not

party policy. It was brought forward to a convention by a group of

interested persons. It is not party policy.

The party's

policy on the matter of trade unions is what we call a fair-wage

policy. We say that if we were government, we would ensure that any

contracts issued by this government would be given to employers who

treat their employees fairly and decently. Any government that can't

endorse and can't support that kind of policy is inherently exploitive

and discriminatory. Face that fact, Mr. Member opposite.

am very tempted to fall into some of my old habits and begin lecturing,

because when I listen to people who are patently ill-equipped,

unqualified and undereducated, and who proceed to lecture me on the

nature of democracy, something bridles. I suspect the majority of those

members opposite can't spell "ideology," let alone tell us what it

means.

If you want to talk about democratic socialism and

what it means, let me suggest you see me privately, and I'll give you a

reading list. Clearly you need some help. The fundamental principle of

democratic socialism is now — and has been for a very long time — that

we believe the public interest takes precedence over the private

interest and the maximization of individual interests. That's a

defensible proposition; indeed it's a civilized response to government

that the majority of the world now accepts as legitimate and mainstream.

please don't suggest to us that we have some kind of nefarious plot in

mind to nationalize wives, spouses, children, chicken and TV dinners or

some such nonsense. Spare us that.

I would also like to

draw the member opposite's attention to one other brief point about

trade unions and their

part in our conventions. Trade union delegates

at our convention represent some 15 percent of the total vote on the

convention floor. I would also suggest to the member opposite that that

is a classic illustration of good, old-fashioned delegate democracy.

There

is no organization known to humankind that better exemplifies a

democratic, decision-making process than a trade union. A trade union,

by definition, is a voluntary association of members who combine

together to protect their mutual interests. The only way that any

particular trade union can become affiliated with the New Democratic

Party is if a majority of its members freely choose to do so. How then

can the member opposite have the temerity and the gall to suggest that

what is happening there is anything other than democratic? That is

simply nonsense, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the member

opposite.

If members opposite really believe in the concept

of democracy, then let me suggest that they might consider giving us

some things like an open and honest government that isn't clearly

responding to the needs of a select few. To hear that member talk about

the public interest and fairness sadly sounds to me like a

contradiction in terms.

MR. VANT : Mr. Speaker, while

I survive this outcry by the rather condescending member for

Nanaimo.... It seems that I really hit a sore point with him, seeing as

the NDP is in bed with the B.C. Fed.

But I would like to

say that that foghorn member for Point Grey keeps trying to refer to my

joke, the point of which was that we should not stereotype any racial

or ethnic group. If you want, I will give the member an

article from

the Toronto Globe and Mail which gives me very high marks in regard to the point of that particular joke.

All

joking aside, the member for Nanaimo cannot deny that.... And I don't

take him up on his offer; he said that I could talk to him in his

office. Well, I don't go for these backroom, behind-closed-door

discussions. I am quite prepared to discuss things right here on the

floor of the House. But I thank the member for his invitation.

Also,

I remind the member for Nanaimo that during those 1,200 dark days and

dark nights, the NDP socialist government would deal with union-only

contractors. Yes, talk about friends and insiders; you certainly know

how to look after them.

Indeed, I find it outrageous, odious — you might even say downright deceitful — that

the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, on page 13 of the Blues:

"I have a great deal of respect for open bidding, for fair tendering

and for members not misusing their office for their friends and

insiders to the detriment of the citizens of this province."

Given

that 63 percent of the working people in our province are non-union,

and who may not be your friends or your insiders, my heart is filled

with fear at just the prospect that the NDP could ever form the

government again and exclude all of those hardworking, tax-paying

citizens of British Columbia from providing services to the government.

So much for fairness and openness.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member's time has expired under standing orders.

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, considering that the first member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant)

is a learned man, a man of the cloth and obviously a man of great

integrity, I am sure that he wouldn't want to offend anybody by using

the word "deceitful, " when it is clearly considered unparliamentary.

There are many precedents to back this up. I wonder if he would care

[ Page 8994 ]

to withdraw that thoughtless and irresponsible remark. I don't think it does him any good at all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Would the member withdraw the remark.

MR. VANT : Mr. Speaker, I'm a little confused in that it was in my

very....

Interjections.

MR. VANT :

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely felt, in my humble opinion, and with all due

respect to parliamentary propriety, that the Leader of the Opposition's

statement was that unparliamentary thing.... If the hon. opposition

House Leader found that particular word....

MR-LOVICK : No, that's not the issue.

MR. VANT : If it violates the proprieties of parliamentary procedure,

then I withdraw that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Address in Reply, Mr. Speaker. I believe in the heat of debate

yesterday the House Leader adjourned debate on behalf of the member for

Langley (Mr. Peterson). In our arrangements with the Whip, the speaker

will now be the rookie from Cariboo.

AN HON. MEMBER : Member for Cariboo.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Oh, sorry — the

rookie member for Cariboo. I hope our members recall the standard

practice that in members' first speeches there is no heckling.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

MR. ZIRNHELT :

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your election as Deputy Speaker. At

this point I'd like to congratulate the election of the other member as

Speaker.

I begin my speech by paying tribute to Alex

Fraser, my predecessor. He served the Cariboo well from his election in

1969 until his unfortunate death in the spring of 1989. Before that he

served some 20 years on municipal and regional governments. Alex has

left a legacy for the Cariboo. His deep roots in the area and his

caring made him represent individuals no matter what their political

affiliation — even myself, who ran against him as a youngster when he was first elected to the Legislature.

Members

on both sides of the House remember, no doubt, that he had a strong

non-partisan streak. He had a partisan streak too, but he had a

non-partisan streak. When I was elected in this by-election, I received

a letter from a former executive assistant of his, Jess Ketchum. He

commented that at one time when the election writ was dropped, Alex

said: "I'm glad that campaign is over." The executive assistant said:

"What do you mean? It's just beginning." Fraser countered: "I do my

campaigning between elections, and when the election is called, I just

sit back and wait for the votes to come in."

[11:15]

Mr. Speaker, campaigning between elections means addressing every

concern that is brought to one's office, and I've been trying to honour

that part of the legacy by doing exactly that same thing.

Behind every good politician — and some not so good politicians — is

a supportive family. At this point I would ask the House to remember

Gertrude Fraser, who stood behind her good politician-husband. I know

that grieving goes on for a long time.

Early in my speech, I would like to thank the people of Cariboo for giving

me the honour of representing them in Victoria and thank them for the encouragement

that they continue to provide. When I was first elected, a friend passed a remark

to another supporter, saying: "I am not sure that we have done David a

favour." I feel pretty good about the work an MLA has to do; they needn't

worry about that. At the end of the stomach-churning first day in the

House, I had the overwhelming feeling that this chair here is nowhere near as

comfortable as a saddle after a long first day in the spring.

know that I'll settle in here sometime, and come up swinging in the

theatre of partisan battle where many of us are mere caricatures of our

former selves. More and more people in the Cariboo are feeling that we

are living in a deepening crisis. For some — aboriginal and non-aboriginal — there

is a feeling that somehow the industrial economy is infringing on and

destroying their way of life, which cannot be replaced because it has a

spiritual quality to it.

Most of the people ask for very

little from others, from the government, except protection of their

independence. I am talking about those who have a high-degree of

self-sufficiency and whose jobs or gainful employment cannot be

replaced easily. Many of the jobs that we are seeing created in the

Cariboo require an investment of somewhere between $1 million and $3

million per job of private investment, plus many dollars of government

investment.

Others have moved to the Cariboo for the

lifestyle with a good-paying job in town, a house and access to what

seemed like unlimited recreation potential in virtual wilderness and

good local services. Many having this lifestyle want to protect it too.

They have a growing feeling that the over cutting of the forests and

the technological change and wilderness preservation all threaten their

jobs, or their children's jobs. We must move rapidly into an era of

creative change, development and conservation, where a person's

activities are part of the solution and not part of the problem. We

must find ways, that are mutually acceptable for people who want to

live a conservative lifestyle and those who want to live almost totally

in the urbanized world. This requires a lot of design work and planning

which looks carefully at options of development and their impact and

not just simply

[ Page 8995 ]

evaluating a single project as it is proposed by developers or preservationists.

basic question we must ask is: are we going to preserve community

stability, or are we going to preserve a kind of growth at all costs?

the Cariboo we know we need to enhance the community-based economic

planning, which is being fostered at present by such organizations as

the municipal councils and regional districts in Quesnel, Williams

Lake, 100 Mile House and Clinton. But their mandate must be expanded to

include what I call economic conservation, because part of the health

of regional economies and subregional economies is that the diversity

represented by tourism, guiding, trapping, hunting, recreation,

fishing, gathering and ranching activities — and I could go on — represent a very important part of what's not recognized in regional economic planning.

I'd like to remind members of the House that a lot of people do not realize — but it was pointed out recently during pulpwood agreements — that

the Chilcotin plateau is one of the areas from which the glaciers

receded most recently, leaving behind only very thin soil. The cold,

dry climate has built very little soil in the thousands of years since

the glaciers were removed. The forest environment there is very

fragile, and we do not have sufficient knowledge to commit that land

base to large clearcuts and have any reasonable expectation about when

or how much productive timber can be produced in perpetuity. Nor do we

have an appreciation of what other resources based on the forest

contribute to this regional economy, both formal and informal.

sustainable economy has been built out there which combines traditional

native uses and neo-traditional uses such as small-scale logging,

trapping, guiding, ranching, etc., and that economy is not recognized

in forest planning. It must be.

Last month I had the opportunity to talk about this matter of sustainable development — whatever that means — to

a grade 12 geography class in Williams Lake. I was explaining that in

the eyes of government, to sustain a development was to nurture change

somehow, but what kind of change they never say. I think we have to

define the direction of development and conservation.

The

mood, in spite of growing cynicism by young people, was reasonably

optimistic. That's because they know there is a better way, but they

know it's going to take all their talent — talents they have yet to

develop. I'm pleased to say that some of those students are organizing

an environment day at Columneetza Senior Secondary School on May 17,

If there's one gift we can give to young people, it

is the knowledge that they can do something about problems they are

facing. They learn by doing, and we must let them.

When thinking about the environment, our resources and our children, we do well to remember — and I quote from a wise person — that "we do not inherit the earth from our forefathers and mothers, but we borrow it from our grandchildren."

Environmental

concerns have replaced the fear of nuclear holocaust in the conscious

and subconscious minds of young people. Society and government both

must address this underlying cause of teenage desperation which

increasingly leads to suicidal despair. For them, progress is halting

environmental destruction and hastening the healing of damaged

ecosystems.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I want

to go back a little way in history and quote from a history book which

is the diary of the postmaster of Soda Creek, and it's titled Dunlevy .

This is a gentleman who settled on a ranch which was to become a ranch

in my family. He makes reference to a diplomatic meeting held at Lac la

Hache in the late 1850s between the chiefs of the Chilcotin, the

Shuswap and the Carrier people.

The Chilcotin people wanted

war against the immigrant gold seekers and those who followed. The

Carriers were uncertain whether to join their traditional enemies, the

Chilcotin and Shuswap, to drive out the white man. The Shuswap chief,

who had himself received some European education by the missionaries,

saw advantages to reading and writing skills, so no coalition was

formed. A few years later the Chilcotin killed a road building crew in

the Homathko area who had apparently been spreading smallpox-tainted

blankets. That incident is known as the Chilcotin war.

What

ensued was a century of low-level conflict and begrudging cooperation

between the cultures. The lack of treaties has led to dissatisfaction

of the deepest sort. As we sit here today, the councils of native

people meet to decide their next move in the battle for resources.

The

native people in the Cariboo-Chilcotin are people of the forest, and

when the forest is altered or destroyed, so is the culture.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to have the members think a bit about a bulldozer

building a road into a wilderness that is considered home to a group of

people. It is as though we drove that bulldozer into a church during a

service. If that happened to any of us, we could do nothing about it,

and we too might turn to alcohol. Culture is fragile and depends upon a

healthy social and ecological environment. We are seeing the effects of

sexual and emotional abuse of native children in residential schools

which they were forced to attend, and which still has a profound impact

on native children today. Those people are having to pick up the pieces

and reconstruct a culture to meet today's needs. This cannot be done

quickly but must be hastened before more native people die.

Native

people are up against the wall, pushed back into distant watersheds,

and they are saying to us: "Enough." They will not stop asserting their

rights. Road blockades, other direct actions and court injunctions will

continue until settlements are negotiated or imposed by the. courts,

The latter would be most costly to us. I prefer negotiation. It will

take a long time to develop trust, so we'd better get at it.

[ Page 8996 ]

have recently written to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) to

send in mediators during this breakup season, when the logging is shut

down in the Chilcotin area, to start mediating between the bands and

people who don't feel their concerns are being addressed in the normal

forest planning processes.

I keep getting calls down here

from loggers who are concerned about their jobs, and sawmill workers

who say something should be done. I say: "Write to the government, I

have." I say that if we were the government we would be at the table

right now; we wouldn't wait for the Minister of Forests.

One

Minister of Forests can't go into each watershed and hope to solve the

problems, because in our riding there are probably 30 watersheds, and

there are hundreds around the province. It has to become a normal part

of government business to mediate conflicts and develop regional plans

that are proactive rather than reactive.

Time is running

out. There can be no social justice, as the throne speech calls for,

without economic justice, and no economic justice without a settlement

of the land question. The government hears about this from aboriginal

people, industry and local citizens, but chooses to ignore it. A

settlement which shares the resources of the province will be a benefit

economically since development will be able to proceed to the benefit

of both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. Both our party and the

aboriginal leaders say that private property won't be taken away from

landowners.

In the absence of government leadership it fell

upon me, through some of my previous work and in my present capacity,

to encourage both industry and the native people to keep talking in the

Quesnel area. They recognize that if you keep talking, maybe somehow

you can find a solution a lot sooner than if you stay in your offices

and don't. That's working fairly successfully, but it's going to

require that the government planning processes work in tandem with the

diplomatic initiatives that have been taken.

I'd like to

talk awhile about land use, which really got me into politics, Mr.

Speaker. The other member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant), in his reply to the

throne speech, talked about consultation that the Ministry of Forests

undertakes. I'd like to remind the House that if the government had

done such a good job of consultation, why would there be a community

meeting of 80 to 90 people in Anahim Lake recently — businessmen, ranchers, trappers and loggers — who

voted unanimously to establish their own natural resource board to

control land-use planning and timber harvesting and to support a

win-win idea put forth by the Ulkatcho band?

He spoke about

talks between Carrier Lumber and the Ulkatcho band. Those talks have

fallen flat because, as the people say, Carrier Lumber isn't doing what

it said it would do, and the government is standing back.

Because

of government incompetence, they haven't finished the so-called

resource management plan, a plan based on an options report that didn't

include a pulpwood agreement in its plan. The planning process which

developed the options had one lonely Fish and Wildlife representative,

of all the other resource interests on a committee of forest officials

and timber licence representatives. We've seen some of the

subcommittees opened up to ranching because somehow grazing, along with

recreation, is something that has to be planned, but none of the

recreation groups are involved. So much for integrated resource

management.

Another example of the government's style of

integrated resource management is the Blackwater local resource use

plan. It started out with a request for establishing a wilderness area,

and it proceeded with three forest districts and two forest regions. It

was a large area, but they couldn't address the size of the cut. They

couldn't affect the one major driver for land use conflicts, which was

the size of the cut. Upon constant pressure, the Ministry of Forests

finally relented and agreed to consider some of the other options that

might be taken and which would protect other resources.

all goes back to a lack of political will to level the playing field

for different resource interests. Instead of vague words in the throne

speech, let's see some teeth in the form of legislation which would

guarantee integrated resource management. Let the public hear what

other ministries have to say about the plans of the Forests ministry.

Let's see, for example, the Ministry of Environment's comments on PA

19. Let's remove the gag order on public servants in other departments

so they can present evidence at public hearings.

In the

Cariboo we used to have a fair process called coordinated resource

management planning and the folio system. Both these were yanked,

probably because they threatened the dominant forest user. Integrated

resource management, such as it was, has been neutered instead of

improved upon. But to listen to some people, everything is okay.

[11:30]

I'd like to point to the potential job loss that is a result of

mismanagement of the forests and over cutting. This government tells us

that there are 500 new jobs to be created in the Cariboo. Everything

announced during the Cariboo by-election was 500 jobs. What we weren't

told was that these were jobs needed to replace soon-to-be-extinct

jobs. The Socreds call it growth, but I call it job replacement for

community stability. They don't tell us about the 500 jobs lost in the

ten years due to technological change. There's been a 30 percent

reduction in jobs despite a doubling of the cut in recent years.

were talking about compensation to timber licence holders, but there's

no compensation for lost revenues to guides, trappers, fishing-resort

owners and others when a decision on resource management affects their

tenure and their allowable annual yield.

By failing to

properly plan and carry out industrial training programs, the

government is failing the local working people who are displaced by

technological change. I point to the imminent closure of the Williams

Lake office of the Ministry of Advanced

[ Page 8997 ]

Education,

Training and Technology. I raise the issue since the Cariboo has

undergone change to more and more technically complicated employment

opportunities. Service by counsellors is a must. This government has

chosen to lay off a counsellor in Williams Lake and move the position

to Prince George. We cannot accept this move, and I urgently request

the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) to reinstate that office so that we can have some transition

to some of the developments that are taking place, such as the proposed

Polley Lake mine, the wood-waste-generating station which has been

approved, the 100 Mile OSB plant and the Cariboo Fibreboard plants,

which he says will go forth. This office is an important part of the

industrial adjustment strategy for Williams Lake and area.

I'd

like to say a few words about literacy. When I mailed out my first

householder, the literacy group sent me an open letter commenting that

10 percent of the people would not be able to read it. They also

complimented me on it being well written. I know how they feel, because

I feel functionally illiterate in this House sometimes, with all the

nuances, innuendoes, barbs and pointed cross-examinations which have a

language of their own. I also know that well-educated people are also

functionally illiterate when it comes to formal, legal advertisements

in small print which pass as notices for public involvement in

forest-planning matters.

I only hope that the government

will implement the recommendations on literacy which will allow for

store-front peer-group literacy counselling for those who do not feel

comfortable in our institutions because they have had negative

experiences in the past.

A member for Cariboo can't really

speak on a throne speech without talking about highways. This winter

the Cariboo residents experienced what many feel was inadequate service

from the privatized road services. Because there is widespread concern,

I call upon the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs.

Johnston) to publicly review the performance of the highways

contractors and the contracts so that, when the time comes to renew or

retender, improvements can be made. I've also called upon the minister

to not delay until 1992 a change in the road in the Chilcotin where in

two separate accidents two people have been killed and two others

miraculously escaped when loaded logging trucks dumped their loads on

the corners.

A coroner's report clearly indicates that

inadequate policing and construction needs to be urgently remedied. The

former Minister of Transportation and Highways, the first member for

Cariboo (Mr. Vant), has admitted that privatization doesn't seem to be

working, at least in the Quesnel area. The present Minister of

Transportation and Highways agrees that the contractor could be fired

for not doing his job. But who was fired? It was the regional highways

manager, ostensibly because he put in too many non-compliance orders.

That's a great way to manage a contract.

I'd like to

compliment this House in its rare non-partisan effort in rejecting the

GST tax. I know this tax will be a headache for all the small operators

in my constituency.

A word, Mr. Speaker, about women, I

really feel that the deplorable action of the federal government in

closing women's centres while allowing corporate tax deferrals to go

uncollected is really an insult to women of the Cariboo. Family

violence, which occurs everywhere, requires women's centres to refer

people to. I think that women who want to re-enter the work force also

need these centres. I call upon this government to take action.

word on health care, which was a major issue during the Cariboo

by-election. I'd like to read from a brief put together by the

physicians. It reads in part: "We perceive in the present government a

cynical attitude towards caregivers, much like the attitude towards the

untouchable caste in India, who do the most menial yet essential tasks.

We are necessary, yet our needs are not acknowledged. We sense a

feeling of despair among our medical, nursing and technical

administrative colleagues." In the words of one of the doctors there,

Mr. Speaker: "The hospitals of the Cariboo are down on the floor

bleeding to death."

The Workers' Compensation Board is

probably the single biggest problem that I have in my constituency

after land use. This debate wouldn't be complete without a mention of

the hardships of people waiting to settle claims when they are injured.

Why are we having adjudicators making decisions about people's lives

based on medical reports when they have no medical training themselves?

This government's employers' compensation board is so bad that it makes

grown men weep. To assist the many workers in their struggle, my office

will be assisting a self-help disabled workers' group to get started in

the Cariboo.

A word on other economic development

initiatives that must be mentioned during this debate. I'll start in

Clinton where the school district, the village council and the chamber

of commerce have all agreed that the establishment of a forestry school

is needed to stabilize the school and village population. I have placed

this on the agenda of the regional development commission in the hope

that somehow a few dollars would trickle down to see that this became a

reality. This is the one project this community needs, and they have

been ignored by several ministries.

In 100 Mile House,

there is broad support for investment in the fish resource. Stocking

and management programs need to take explicit direction from local

users, lodge operators and local fishermen.

I have alluded

before to the need in Williams Lake for an industrial adjustment

strategy to plan the transition to the post-beetle-kill era in the

forest industry there. In Quesnel, there is need for further

diversification of the economy to do the same sort of planning to allow

a transition from an over cut to, hopefully, a more stable cut in the

next two years.

Of course, there is the enhancement of

Barkerville, a well-known world resource that is underutilized, and in

my view, poorly managed.

[ Page 8998 ]

could mention many other things: pulp mill pollution, dangerous

landfills, poaching, lumber leaving 100 Mile House for processing and

secondary manufacturing and, above all, the unhappiness the people of

150 Mile House, Horsefly, Likely and Big Lake area feel for being stuck

in the Cariboo North when their heart is in Cariboo South.

There

are a few things missing in the throne speech that I'd like to

emphasize. There's a lot of talk about policy changes to improve land

use. We already have policy to put 20-year plans on maps. That policy

isn't even being followed. Twenty years isn't enough. We need to have

the whole rotation of trees mapped — the harvest during the whole rotation period; that is, a sustained yield — so the people have the whole story and can assist in making decisions.

There

are no comprehensive regional planning initiatives which will move us

away from valley-by-valley, watershed-by-watershed fights. There's no

legislation to protect all resources and all management plans. There's

nothing to equalize access to hospital care for the people in the north

and the interior. There's nothing to retain the scarce supply of

general surgeons in the interior.

There is no proposed

government action to erase the transition to a stable sustainable

timber supply and stable employment. I see nothing to update the

20-year-old inventory of the forests and nothing for inventory of other

resources. What a wonderful job for summer students who are studying to

become stewards of carefully managed and carefully protected forests.

Make

no mistake, the provincewide Forest Resources Commission won't solve

the land-use problems. Only local people working together as equals can

do that.

I'd like to ask this House when the government was

given a mandate to commit virtually all the land base to provincial

forest when control of land use was under the Ministry of Forests.

There was no consultation with people, short of mere ads in the paper

indicating they were going to turn the land base into provincial

forests. The land base was committed because of the misplaced

assumption that all the trees were up for grabs.

I see

nothing in legislation that will protect the resources that many of the

tourism operators depend upon. I see nothing that will protect the

rancher from the negative effects of forest harvesting activities. If

there is a conflict between the rancher and a timber company, the

government says: "Go to court." What company really wants to prosecute

a rancher, most of whom are already having trouble making cost of

production? What rancher has the funds to sue a large timber company?

Mediation is all these parties ask for. What does the government do? It

washes its hands of the matter. That's not good government; that's no

government.

I'm glad the other member for Cariboo listened

to my election campaign, to some of my associates and supporters, as he

mentioned in his speech. I should remind this House that the last royal

commission, the Pearse royal commission on timber rights and forest

policy, was started by the NDP government. In 1976 they made

recommendations to turn more timber over to the small operator. I'd

like to remind this House that this government has been slow in

developing the small business program and the woodlot program.

While

I see many things wrong and many things that need changing, I am

optimistic that people made a choice to send me to the Legislative

Assembly for me to help make positive changes. I accept that challenge.

To everything there's a season. As there are seasons in political life,

for Alex Fraser, the season is late autumn; in my political life, it's

spring again.

MR. LOENEN : Mr. Speaker, first of all,

I wish to congratulate you on your appointment. I believe that already

your level-headed approach and evenhandedness have been appreciated by

all members of the House. I add my congratulations to your appointment.

rise to support the Speech from the Throne. I believe it sets the tone

for things to come. If we summarize the various initiatives and

programs that have been laid out, I think it's fair to say that the

government seeks to preserve the quality of life. The quality of life

that the citizens of this great province have come to enjoy must be

protected.

We have built a quality of life which is

absolutely second to none. People from all over this country, from all

over the world, flock here. In fact, we know that some 60,000 people

annually come to British Columbia to enjoy what we have. I believe that

is true, not only because of the climate we enjoy, not only because of

the natural beauty, not only because of the natural resources or the

people resources, but because we have been able to put it all together

and have been able to create a quality of life which, as I said, is the

envy of the world.

We enjoy labour peace, a buoyant

economy, excellent health care, first-rate educational opportunities,

and we have a transportation system and infrastructure that is

progressive and forward-looking. Indeed, we have much to be grateful

for, and as I said, it all adds up to a quality of life that is the

best anywhere.

[11:45]

With all of that, we ought to remember that excellence is never an

accident. It does not just happen by itself; it does not just happen

automatically; it does not just drop from the sky. The constructive,

progressive policies of this government are starting to pay off, and

thus the challenge that faces all of us is this: can we maintain,

preserve and enhance this quality of life? Those questions must be

addressed in light of the fact that there are uncertainties which lie

ahead. The question is: can we be good managers in order to face those

uncertainties?

We know that there are trends which indicate

a weakening economy. We know that our prosperity is fragile. If we look

at our own gross domestic product in British Columbia, we know that in

each of the past three years we've seen it decline. We know that in

Europe today, in Japan, and indeed in central Canada,

[ Page 8999 ]

economies

are weakening. We know that domestically our B.C. forest industry is

weakening and that the forest industry still accounts for almost 50

percent of our economic output. It's a very important and significant

element, and we ought to be aware of that.

We know that

public sector wage increases have outstripped those of the private

sector in the last while. Those are the challenges that face us. Those

are the challenges that we must seek to meet.

Social Credit

has always met such challenges in the past by showing the firm and fair

ability to make tough choices necessary to balance needed programs with

the taxpayers' ability to pay. This government is firmly committed to

resisting pressures to over spend, even on worthy programs. An

equitable balance between private and public sector wage settlements

remains a cornerstone of this government's policy.

At the

same time, new measures are needed to address structural changes in our

economy. These are being supplied through: an innovative B.C. pension

plan, transitional assistance and expanded economic initiatives

programs for the province's resource-dependent regions, northern

development initiatives, expansion of small business and value-added

forestry programs, added incentives for education and training

enhancement, new incentives for welfare recipients seeking employment,

and pay equity for women working in B.C.'s public service.

Those

are the elements that represent the vision of this government for the

years that lie ahead in order for us to face the uncertainties, to

build for the future and to maintain and enhance the quality of life

we've all come to enjoy. As we look to the future, the voters of this

province have a clear choice. They can support this government — a

government with a proven track record, the only government in Canada

with a balanced budget, the only government in Canada which, in

addition to that, was able to put away $1.3 billion for a rainy day,

the only government in Canada that was able to cut bureaucrats by some

41 percent between '83 and '89, the only government in Canada that was

able to reduce its debt as well as put away some $250 million in a

privatization fund, the principal of which will not be touched but will

be there in perpetuity for the benefit of the citizens of this great

province.

The choice is between that record of solid

performance and good government, and the free-spending socialists who

promise to double non-profit housing spending. We spent nearly $1

billion on that; they want to double it. They tell us they are going to

stop all waiting-lists in the health care field. They will settle

native land claims. They will double B.C. parkland. They will increase

welfare rates by 50 percent.

Will the people of B.C. entrust their fragile prosperity and quality of life to...?

AN HON. MEMBER : Never!

MR. LOENEN :

No, Mr. Speaker. Will they choose the party of everything for

everybody, paid for by nobody? No, the people of this province will

not. Certainly. the people I represent don't want another recession

with high interest rates, bankruptcies and double-digit unemployment.

MRS. BOONE : Who was in government in 1981?

MR. LOENEN :

Mr. Speaker, the member aught to remember what happened; it's still too

fresh in our memory. This government is committed to avoiding those

conditions, and we will not allow them to be repeated.

are committed to making difficult, but responsible, choices about

levels of taxation, education funding, health care funding and

sustainable development. The choices we make will result from

consultation, from democratic processes such as referenda, from royal

commissions and from task forces. Our choices will not be dictated by

rigid dogma rooted in the past.

That is what the socialists opposite would do. They continue to live in the past.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. We're getting close to the adjournment hour for the

weekend. Perhaps we could let this rather tumultuous week end quietly.

Perhaps we could hear the remaining speakers and quietly go away for

the Easter break.

MR. LOENEN : Thank you very much,

Mr. Speaker. I believe it's important for the voters of this province

to know that while the whole world has rejected left-wing, socialist

thinking, in B.C. there is still a loyal, faithful remnant. The voters

will have a clear choice, because we have a clear, proven record: a

record of solid performance and good government.

When I

think of that record, I want to illustrate it by turning briefly to

what has happened in our own community. You know, Mr. Speaker, we have

been able to listen to the concerns of the people in the community. We

have delivered and we have responded.

I think, for

instance, of what we have done for the community of Richmond in terms

of transportation. We have completed the Richmond east-west freeway. We

have committed some $5 million to the Dinsmore crossing, that

bottleneck which is such a frustrating experience for so many of our

residents every day, coming and going. We have been able to set the

tone and give some leadership in resolving that issue, which has

bothered that community for many long years.

We now are at

the point where pretty soon the Richmond municipal council will

undertake the construction of the much-needed Dinsmore crossing, which

will not only benefit the residents of my community but, because it

serves the Vancouver International Airport, will also be of assistance

to all the people of British Columbia, as well as to our tourists and

our many friends from south of the border who come and visit.

[ Page 9000 ]

Soon,

Mr. Speaker, this government will appoint an advisory council on the

selection of a rapid transit route to downtown Vancouver. Again, I am

so proud that this government is taking such decisive steps in

providing transportation that will be environmentally friendly and that

will get people out of their cars into public transit.

You

know, earlier this week I was listening to the speech of the Leader of

the Opposition, the former mayor of the city of Vancouver. He did not

mention public transit once. But we are committed to providing that

form of environmentally sound and environmentally friendly

transportation to the lower mainland, and we're doing that. The

extension to Surrey has met with so much good success, but we're going

to bring it to Richmond as well. Before long, we're going to see the

appointment of a special advisory council to advise the ministry on the

route that is best and that would serve the needs of the people in our

community.

The improvements to the George Massey Tunnel

have been immense. I want to point out again that there too the

government, through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, has

been able to respond to the needs of our community.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Health

care is a great concern to the people in our community. We are a

rapidly growing community. We have been able to obtain planning money

for some 100 extended-care beds at the Richmond General Hospital and

some 40 extended-care beds at the Lions Manor. That will be good news

for the frail elderly, who deserve those levels of care.

addition to that, we are committed to building a community health

services building on the hospital annex site. That will bring together

all of the various community-based health care services to provide

better care in the communities for our people.

In addition

to that, we also have a commitment for a 20-bed psychiatric unit at the

hospital. We have committed some $15,000 for a fetal alcohol program.

Recently we have committed an additional $330,000 to purchase some of

the badly needed instrumentation, tools and equipment for the Richmond

General Hospital.

When we talk about health care, I know

there are a lot of doctors in this province who feel badly done by.

They rightly say that over the past five years their increases have

been minimal, We know that. At the same time, it ought to be pointed

out that even with these minimal increases, their fee

schedule is still

one of the highest across Canada.

In addition to that, it

is so important for us to look forward to and to participate in the

Royal Commission on Health Care. The need for that is evident when we

look at the enormous sums of money spent on health care: some $4.3

billion last year. We increased spending on health by over $400,000.

That was merely the increase last year. This year, the request came in

at nearly $700,000.

Last year we spent $1,400 for every

man, woman and child in this province, and we're continuing to do that.

We must ask ourselves: "Are we getting value for money?" At the same

time, we have to ask ourselves if we are correct in focusing all our

attention on what happens in the acute-care-bed facilities. Are we

correct in focusing all our attention on what the doctors do? I know

from the comments I receive in my community that there is a great deal

of need for community-based services, community-based clinics, in-home

nursing care and care for the elderly. There is need for greater

homemaker services, respite care and day care for the elderly, and the

list goes on and on.

It's my conviction that we have to ask

ourselves whether we could do a better job of meeting those needs in

the communities and in the homes — right where the people live. It's

for that reason I welcome the initiatives of our Ministry of Health to

have a royal commission look into all of those questions of whether or

not we're really meeting the needs of the residents of our communities.

[12:00]

In that connection, I was pleased to note the ministry has okayed

some funding to institute a quick response team in our community. That

will provide, particularly for people who live alone, the opportunity

to have access to a wide variety of health care services as quickly as

you can order a pizza. That is the key. We have to be able to reach the

frail elderly and those who live alone in their homes, as quickly as

possible when a need arises. At the same time, it will allow us to free

up beds in the acute-care facilities, and it will prevent people from

clogging up our emergency wards.

Those are some of the very

good initiatives I'm pleased to report on, and that I want our people

to know that we as a government are committed to.

Social

services. We have seen a tremendous amount of additional funding, as a

result of the initiatives to strengthen families, go to a variety of

community-based social service agencies. It shows that we have a

commitment to single-parent families, to teenagers and to those who

suffer from substance abuse. It shows that we believe in families.

The

task force for seniors, the implementation of the mental health plan,

the program that was set up in our community to assist victims of

crime.... On and on it goes.

In the area of education, we're looking forward, after nearly 20 years, to finally starting the construction — probably this summer — of

a brand-new Kwantlen College campus. After 20 years of being in rented

facilities, we can look forward to a permanent home for Kwantlen

College in our community. Some $37 million has been committed to

construct that facility.

We have seen a dramatic increase

in the funding for new school construction in our riding. In fact, last

year some $16.5 million for capital construction was committed. To put

that in perspective, that is more than in all of the seven previous

years put together, in terms of school construction. Yes, we still have

[ Page 9001 ]

ment is committed to education and is solving some of those problems.

have heard a lot about lottery funds and GO B.C. funds. I want to tell

you some good-news stories. We were able to make available a $1 million

grant to the Richmond social services community centre project. That is

a great incentive to some.... This building, which is planned on a

municipally owned site, will house between 20 and 30 community-based

social service agencies, many of which draw on volunteers. If this

comes about — and I hope it will — it means that we'll have one

centrally located place which will house the administrative offices and

other facilities needed for many of the social service agencies that

are now scattered throughout our community. Through the use of these

lottery funds, we've been able to put before the community a challenge

that if they do a similar fund-raising job within the private sector,

we will in fact see the construction of that much-needed facility.

We've

been able to grant a lottery fund grant of $750,000 to the South Arm

Community Centre in order for them to carry on their much-needed

addition.

I could go on and on. I wanted the people of this

House to know that lottery grants do have a very positive effect on

many of the projects that are initiated by volunteers within our

community.

The Steveston downtown revitalization program

Steveston, as members well know, is that historic fishing village right

at the mouth of the Fraser River. We've been able to revive some of

that history and revitalize the downtown core. Why? Some $500,000 was

made available through the downtown revitalization program under our

Ministry of Municipal Affairs. That has been of great benefit to the

people of my community.

We do receive recognition for some

of these initiatives at times. I want to read into the record a letter

I received recently from an alderman, Greg Halsey-Brandt, who is a New

Democrat. The letter speaks for itself, but we were able to eliminate

some of the inequalities that existed in the community health funding

formula so that today our community receives an additional $1 million

annually, which it didn't receive before. This letter reads as follow:

"Dear Nick:

"Thank you very much for your letter confirming Richmond's

1989 share of the public health equalization grants. Although we received the

usual letters from ministers of the provincial government referring to grants

to Richmond, I want to express my personal thanks to you for the efforts that

you have put in since you have been elected our MLA in securing this equalization

grant.

know that when you were an alderman you were very aware of the

inequalities that exist in our health funding, and I am very pleased,

as I think all of us are in Richmond, that you were able to accomplish

the goal of rectifying this situation.

"Thank you again for your efforts on our behalf."

Mr.

Speaker, even our political opponents recognize that this government

listens to people and responds to people. We are indeed pleased to have

that kind of record.

MR. LOVICK : Careful, Nick. They'll get you to write a letter to the editor stating the facts.

MR. LOENEN :

I'm not afraid of the facts, Mr. Member. The facts are as they were

recorded. We have a strong record. There are many challenges which face

us, but we will continue to meet those challenges.

One of

the things we have to watch for is that we control costs and spending.

I know that the NDP opposite does not believe in this. In fact, on

Tuesday last the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), while we were

discussing the need to stop the GST, mocked the idea that somehow we

should ask the government to control spending. I want to quote from the

Blues what the member said: "It's Victorian morality written all over

again. It says: live within your means, cut your spending...."

MR. LOVICK : Said by the member from Shaughnessy with highest hypocrisy. Don't distort my words.

MR. LOENEN :

This is taken directly from the Blues, and those are the words

attributed to the first member for Nanaimo. I want the member to know

that if it's Victorian to be in favour of living within your means, I

am all for it. I notice that the member is trying to distance himself

from these remarks. If I were him, I would as well. I suppose that in

the heat of the moment he perhaps expressed his true feelings, and now

he is sorry.

I think it's a shame that at a time in this

country when we are near the brink of bankruptcy because of reckless

overspending at all levels, this member stands up and publicly

denounces and scoffs at and mocks those who call for living within our

means. There is nothing easier than to spend other people's money. Any

fool can do that.

In 1984 the Mulroney government took over

from Trudeau. They inherited a deficit of $150 billion. After six

years, we now have a deficit of some $350 billion. And the taxpayers

should know that this year the federal debt will consume $41 billion in

interest alone. Within that context, the taxpayers of this province

ought to know that those people who claim to be poised for power would

love to continue to spend their hard-earned dollars and that they scoff

and mock at the idea that somehow people ought to live within their

means.

These same people, when they meet with

representatives of the business community, claim to be

free-enterprisers. Well, I ask you: what kind of free-enterprisers are

they? They talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. Year after year — last year and the year before — their

finance critic stands up and advises our Minister of Finance to lay an

additional tax on the businesses of this province to the tune of $500

million. Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker: if we had followed that advice, if

this government had been foolish enough to follow that advice, do you

really think that today we would be leading our country in the creation

of jobs? Of course not. How

[ Page 9002 ]

can

you on the one hand expect to create jobs and on the other hand choke

and suffocate those people who create the jobs? And don't forget, that

job creation is the best form of social assistance.

As I

said earlier, the people opposite want to double spending on social

housing; they want to double B.C. parklands; they'll increase welfare

rates by 50 percent; they'll settle the native land claims. But at what

cost? If you don't really care about living within your means and you

go about publicly declaring that you are willing to mortgage the future

of generations yet unborn, I suppose, with such a philosophy, anything

goes, and it really doesn't matter how much it costs. It all fits into

a socialist philosophy. I constantly hear the former Premier of this

province, Dave Barrett, on speaking tours all over the country, telling

people: "Don't worry about the deficit." It's that philosophy that the

people of this great province ought to be aware of. They ought to be

warned of it. Let the voters know what they're in for.

As I

said, we have a choice to make. In the face of a fragile prosperity, in

the face of a weakening economy, we have to ask ourselves: can we

maintain and enhance the quality of life that we all enjoy? In our

throne speech we have laid out....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Sorry, hon. member, your time has expired under standing

orders.

MR. LOENEN : That's too bad, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to warn the people of this province about what the socialists really stand for.

MS. MARZARI :

In my response to the throne speech I would like to do something which

is perhaps not typical of a women's critic. I would like to build some

highways. I would like to build highways which are not necessarily

physical, which don't require the massive earthmoving machinery and

careful plotting and mapping of highway routes on draftsmen's boards. I

am more interested in the draftspeople of the women's movement as they

develop the social and economic infrastructure which will make the

highway for women a smoother one in our province.

We have often talked about roads diverging in the woods and choosing roads less travelled — these

are the words of a poet. Women have often been marginalized and pushed

off the road that we create in this province. They travel on a smaller

path, a path much less travelled, not necessarily by their choice.

[12:15]

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about choice, challenge and change,

the words that the government has used, in terms of what we on this

side of the House would like to see for women: their choices, their

challenges and the changes they see.

When we talk about the

highway of women's progress in our society and look at the government

record and the throne speech, where women are hardly mentioned, we see

a sad trail leading to virtually nothing — a great deal of conflict and

very little planning. It really is a trail of marginalization of

women's experience, a trail of ignorance of the concepts and the tools

which might be used to change it. This throne speech really does

reflect a lack of commitment and a serious lack of competence to build

the new roads that are required.

I cite the examples of

women's centres closing. Port Alberni, Fort St. John, Vernon, Williams

Lake and Quesnel have closed. The roads between them, those roads of

women's support for each other, have terminated. North Vancouver and

White Rock are now on the list. They'll be terminated, closed; their

doors will be shut. There will be no highways to their doors at the end

of this month.

I refer also to the road to pay equity,

which was put forward in the throne speech, a road which, when he was

asked about it by the media, the Premier had no knowledge of. I've

always suggested to my constituents that the Premier could not spell

"pay equity." He not only showed an ignorance of what pay equity was;

he had no idea of its shape. He had a preconception that it was equal

pay for equal work, and really did not know how to define the concept

itself to the people of the press immediately after the throne speech

was read. It's a road, Mr. Speaker, which can only be termed a

cul-de-sac, a blind alley, a road leading nowhere.

The

agenda of the NDP, which I have been privileged enough to help

construct over the last few years' is a road which has been well

travelled. It has been built out of the aspirations, motivation and

commitment of many thousands of women over the last 20 years. It is a

road which is not silent; it is a road which is consultative. It is a

road which has included hundreds of women, even in the last year as I

have travelled this province with the women's rights committee of our

party, consulting and pulling in new ideas, new policies, coordinating

them with existing policies and coming up with a White Paper which very

concisely and very basically looks at what roads need to be built, what

mechanisms need to be put into place and what programs we need to

develop in order to begin to address women's inequality in our

community. It is a package that builds connections and roads between

choice and child care, between justice and income security, between

education and housing — all these things being interconnected in a network of roads.

Yet

we've witnessed our women's centres, which very often are the hub of

the community for women, disappearing in our province. I've watched

that road with a great deal of interest. I have watched the minister — and I'm glad she's in the House today — reacting

to the federal budget. As she was told in Vernon that women's centres

were being cut back, I watched the minister, through the press,

reacting with some horror and legitimate distress, and I've watched her

saying yes, she would help.

I read her response on March 21, when she said that the provincial government did have a responsibility — although it shouldn't be picking up things that are dropped by the federal government — that she would in fact have a plan, that there would be funding and some assistance provided to centres. I

[ Page 9003 ]

have watched between the lines as the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) informed us all — her included — that

the market could handle women's centres. If the community truly wanted

a commodity, if the community really wanted the women's centres, the

community would come up with the bucks and there would be no trouble.

watched the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran)

meeting with the federal minister for women and coming out of that

meeting disappointed. I watched the federal minister for women taking

no responsibility whatsoever.

I watched women in Vancouver

pulling together and staging two demonstrations, as noisily as they

could, at the Secretary of State's office, to say we need the women's

centres. They are an investment in women; they are, for the $1.6

million that is spent on them across this whole country, saving us

hundreds of millions of dollars, because they build roads, because

they provide support, because they take women to services they need and

point out what services are required.

On our first day of

this session, directly after the throne speech, I suggested that we

have a special committee on the status of women. When I asked when we

were going to find the emergency funding the minister was forced,

ultimately, to remain silent. The road she has travelled has not led

her anywhere. The road she has travelled inside her own cabinet has not

come up with the funding these centres need.

Hence the

women of Vancouver and the province are reduced to holding on April 17,

Equality Day, a Wiener roast outside the Secretary of State's offices

on Burrard Street. How bizarre! How pathetic! Hopefully that will

arouse the attention of the public to the fact that they need the money

and that one-third of their total budget right now is being spent by

the federal government on security services for the buildings they will

be demonstrating in front of. How sad!

The roads that we must build — choice....

The minister has not included reproductive choice in her mandate. The

throne speech was silent on the issue of reproductive choice. We must,

and we do in the NDP White Paper, speak to women as people, not as

chattels; not as receptacles, not as slaves, not as animals, but as

individuals; and we give legitimacy to their experience — having it

considered legitimate. We see women as police and in the courts as

judges and lawyers. We see women in the workplace as executives,

professionals, business people and trades people, as well as clerical

people. We see women in the home as fulfilled human beings making the

choice to raise their children and tend to their home We see more women

in the House as elected representatives. Then who should tell women

when they should have their children? Who should have the authority to

prescribe the withholding of our tax dollars for medical services and

family planning? This government has attempted to tell us that.

The

second area that we must discuss is child care. It stands as a high

priority in the White Paper that we have brought forward. Not three new

centres, not ribbon-cuttings or perhaps an experimental centre with the

corporate sector, not ten new centres holding 25 children each. We have

to start thinking of day care as a system that is built in our province

and that parents can count on — safe, licensed spaces for as many as

200,000 children. An incredibly large job. An incredibly large highway.

An incredibly large new system, which has to bring together education,

health, welfare, labour and the federal government, with strong and

serious bargaining around the reduction and capping of Canada

Assistance Plan funding.

The throne speech does not lay out

this track. There has been no mandate given. Rather, we find that we

live with a pathetic 20,000 licensed spaces in this province when we

have ten times the need. We need to discuss the legal status of

unlicensed spaces. The former Minister of Social Services mentioned

this morning in the press that he was concerned about the platform in

the Carmanah being unsafe and therefore leaving the provincial

government in a state of legal liability. I would suggest to the

government that subsidizing hundreds and thousands of unlicensed spaces

in this province for child care is equally dangerous, not just for the

children involved but also for the legal liability of this province.

need a system. We need a highway. We need a path which is properly

funded and properly planned. Not all at once, but built incrementally

and properly, with wages for child care workers that are more than

those we pay to our zookeepers.

Justice. If ever there was

a cul-de-sac, justice for women is one of them. Child abuse has now

become epidemic. I've mentioned this repeatedly in speeches to this

House. It is epidemic and seemingly it has become systemic. If we

really fire up our efforts and firm up our commitments to deal with

child abuse and the abuse of women, including physical abuse, we will

in fact be coming to the very edge of massive change in our

communities. We have no system of reasonably tracking, or even

developing a database for, the numbers of children in our community who

are sexually abused. We have no reasonable methods of treatment. We

have no methods of evaluating. We have no really comprehensive path for

even beginning to develop services.

I understand an

interministerial committee has reported recently to the social services

committee on setting up a special centre for sexual abuse in Vancouver — not

relating to the province as a whole, but basically dealing with one

tiny piece of it. This is not good enough. We must build a track of

accountability that stretches from the school or the Children's

Hospital, where these instances first come to light. We must connect

that track to the police, to the RCMP. We must build that track through

to the courts and the mental health structures that actually deal in

retribution and then follow-up treatment. We must then follow the track

through to compensation for the children and the women that have been

abused. This is abuse so deep, as I said, that it is epidemic.

have to think of the 14 women who were killed in Montreal. We have to

understand that the 14 women in Montreal and the 18 female prostitutes

who have been killed in Vancouver over the last few

[ Page 9004 ]

years

are not instances of random activity. These come from a deep misogyny

in our society which we have to, deal with. We have to deal with it

through our justice system We have to deal with it through systems of

income security and choice.

Income security. As I said, in

its throne speech the provincial government has come in with a pay

equity program, which the Premier does not know how to define. I would

therefore suggest that the pay equity program is nothing but

window-dressing to disguise the fact — and it's not very well disguised — that

once again the provincial government is not building a track, a highway

or a path; it is simply dividing and conquering another group of people

and offending its own employees.

[12:30]

Pay equity — equal pay for work of equal value — is a very carefully

defined program which tries, and has tried in other provinces across

this country, to close the wage gap between men and women. One of the

most fundamental aspects of these programs is that the wages of men

involved in working for the public or private sector are compared with

women's wages.

We know that women get 60 cents on the male

dollar, but nowhere in any of the legislation is there a suggestion

that the males' salaries be capped, curtailed, slashed or red-circled.

Nowhere is there a suggestion that a pay equity program could work

compatibly with a wage freeze. The two concepts are incompatible; in

fact, they are so incompatible that I have to suggest that I see a

battleground being formed and chasms being developed here by a policy

which is intended to divide female and male workers and to create

conflict between them.

I happen to think that our BCGEU

workers, and the other unions with which the public sector bargains,

are above that. I happen to think that they will fight together for

women and for each other. But I have to decry the provincial

government's attempt to offend yet another group and to take a good

idea and turn it bad.

I would suggest once again, as I have

often suggested, that consultation is the key. We have to develop a pay

equity program in this province which is flexible enough to allow for

the bargaining of pay equity, yet which sets strong guidelines and

terms of reference so that if the wage gap is not properly closed

through bargaining or through bottom-loading, we bring in stronger

regulations. But that involves consultation.

Income

security. We must also build roads to the private sector. We must build

contract compliance programs so that people who do business with the

government are fair employers and treat their female employees fairly.

We must change the Employment Standards Act so that nannies, domestics

and farmworkers are included in benefits. We must upgrade minimum wages

to reflect the real needs of low-income workers, most of whom are women.

These

are just a few of the programs that are advocated, worked on and

developed in the White Paper I have spoken of. It was developed by the

women's rights committee of the New Democratic Party and will form the

foundation stone, the basis of our first term in government.

The

roads I have talked about between these programs are all connected.

They are connected to a central hub. It's a human-scale place, and it's

called community: a place where people gather and share their

experience and their responsibility. All these issues come together,

and they are connected. All of my colleagues share these goals, and if

they have not travelled the roads themselves in experiencing women's

lives, they have shared at the hub of our party, in our communities and

in our caucus, these commitments, goals and values as equal partners.

The

minister commented after the throne speech that I allowed myself, as

critic, to be upstaged by my leader. This statement itself reflects our

very basic differences. The differences between us are obviously in

goals, commitments and values, but in the party I sit in, I happen to

have the advantage of partners — 25 of them — to speak for women, and

18 of them are male. They have seen the track and they have helped to

mould it. They are as capable as I am to ask the questions and to help

form the answers. I see my strength as a woman in my ability to work

with that and to create that strength. It's not been an easy road.

There are always a lot of questions and sometimes criticisms from the

men about how the women's movement and women solve their problems. I

must say that we women on this side of the House are not isolated or

marginalized from our base, from the hub of our policies pulled

together across the wide expanse of experience and geography.

When

we create a ministry for women, you will see money within the budget.

You will see a mandate, a track of accountability and commitment, and

funding for women's centres, which we would regard as an investment.

You will see a thread of accountability stretching from the minister's

office into all ministries. We will be presenting a program of real

choice for women, real challenge and real change. This will be our

contribution, Mr. Speaker. There will hopefully be, in our government,

a strong working commitment by all parties on this side of the House to

see that those programs are properly implemented.

HON. MR. MESSMER : First of all, let me congratulate the Speaker on his appointment, and you on yours as the Deputy Speaker.

is a pleasure to rise today to applaud the initiatives outlined in the

throne speech. It looks like we have cause for optimism in

Boundary-Similkameen. Before I go any further, let me reiterate my

government's public thanks to the volunteers who made the B.C. Winter

Games in Penticton such a success — all 4,527 of them. I am proud of

the spirit that the communities in my constituency show when they

participate in special projects. They have an outstanding record of

participation and success.

I also want to pay tribut