1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th 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, MARCH 19, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 1, Number 4

[ Page 35 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, I would ask that members of the House recognize Dr. and Mrs. Okugawa, who are in the gallery. Dr. Okugawa has completed a two-year secondment at UBC from Ritsumeiken University in Kyoto, Japan. During his two years in our province he coordinated the building of a new Japan-British Columbia student residence at the UBC campus. Would the members of the House please join me in welcoming these two distinguished visitors this afternoon.

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, since it's my first chance to speak in the new parliament, I'd like to personally welcome you to your chair while I have the opportunity.

I'd like the House to recognize some former constituents of mine, from the great riding of Vancouver-Point Grey: Vicki Pasquill, a teacher who's completing her twenty-fifth year at Van Horne Elementary School; her father Mr. Harry Knott; and her children Jennifer and Andrea. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Simpson: I would like the House to join with me in welcoming José and Wendy Hinestrosa, who have been workers in my campaign, and their daughter Samantha. Also, please welcome Ken and Jana Abramson and their daughters Clare and Leah. Ken is a longtime activist in our party, and he is very active in the Vancouver Elementary School Teachers' Association. He is here to make sure that we are doing the right thing. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them.

Hon. L. Boone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce three guests seated in the gallery this afternoon. They are Mr. Pedro Cateriano and Ms. Lucila Shensato, members of the Peruvian parliament in Lima, Peru, who are attending the global parliamentary conference in Vancouver. The visitors are accompanied by Mr. Jaime Pomareda. Please join me in welcoming them to the House.

D. Mitchell: I would like to introduce to the House a visiting family who happen to be constituents from a "buddy" riding of mine, which is Kamloops. With us today are Dean and Wendy McLean and their son David. Dean's career has been as an elementary school teacher. Wendy works with the Ministry of Social Services. I know that we all appreciate the fact that they show an interest in coming to visit with us in the House today, and I ask you to join me in welcoming them.

Hon. A. Petter: It's my pleasure to introduce several visitors in the gallery this afternoon. Van Buchanan served very ably as my campaign manager and is largely to blame for my being here. Lorie Bennett is serving as my constituency assistant. Five of the dedicated volunteers working in the community office are: Beth Rutherford; Agnes Spensley; Margaret Brandon; and Penny and Ted Furnes, with their granddaughter Erin Carson. I would also like to introduce my administrative assistant's daughter, Kimberly Robson, and my executive assistant's mother and aunt, Grace Allam and Alma Powles, who are also in the gallery. I ask the House to make them welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have the pleasure today of introducing to the House two constituents from the Fort Langley-Aldergrove area: John and Fannie Schottens. John is a long-serving alderman for the township of Langley, and his contributions in other aspects of the community are well known. His wife Fanny is also very active in the community on the co-op board and various other community groups. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'd like the House to give a very warm welcome to a previous chief of staff in the Vancouver mayor's office and one of the people who founded the urban reform movement in Canada back in the late sixties and early seventies. She was one of the key people who helped stop the destruction of Gastown and Chinatown -- Ms. Shirley Chan, who is here with her family. Also with her is one of our successful women entrepreneurs in British Columbia, who was the partner of our successful entrepreneurial Minister of Tourism in the outfit of Kaboodles. I'd like you to meet Leona Sparrow and her family.

B. Copping: Hon. Speaker, I'm very proud and pleased to introduce my mother Betty Fitzgerald and my sister Maureen Tsantilas. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Reid: I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome Dianne Milsom, a colleague of mine from the Richmond riding, and her son Blaise Kennedy. Thank you for coming.

Hon. L. Boone: I'm glad that my colleague left some space in the gallery, because today I actually have some visitors from Prince George. It's not very often that they make it down here to this part of the country. I'd like the House to welcome my daughter Sonia and her friend Richard Martin.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ELECT THE SPEAKER

BY CLOSED BALLOT

D. Mitchell presented a bill intituled

An Act to Elect the Speaker by Closed Ballot.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, on the opening day of the session you were elected by the traditional practice of this assembly. This bill proposes the reform of that process to allow for an election of the Speaker of this assembly by free vote and closed ballot. While this would be a new procedure for our House, other legislatures have used this process for some time now. The House of Commons in Ottawa, the legislatures of

[ Page 36 ]

the provinces of Saskatchewan and Ontario and the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories elect their Speakers by closed ballot.

The advantages of this kind of reform are readily apparent. It is a more democratic process that invests the occupant of the chair with the direct authority of all members of the House. Hon. Speaker, this would not be a difficult reform to adopt, and it would send a signal to our fellow British Columbians that we are prepared to embrace the spirit of reform, starting right here in our House.

I hope that members of this assembly will support this bill, and I invite members of the government and members of the third party to join the official opposition in support of this proposal.

Hon. Speaker, with these few words, I am pleased to move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of this House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill M201 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

ABORIGINAL TITLE

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. In the throne speech delivered in this assembly two days ago, this government made an unequivocal statement: "We recognize aboriginal title...." Would the Premier please tell this House and, through this House, the people of British Columbia specifically what is meant by that term?

[2:15]

Hon. A. Petter: The position of this government -- and indeed it was the position of the New Democratic Party in the election -- is that we recognize that aboriginal peoples have certain inherent rights, rights that do not flow from our legal system but flow from their prior position in this land. Among those are rights with respect to land and resources, commonly referred to by aboriginal peoples themselves as aboriginal title, and rights with respect to self-determination, commonly referred to as rights of self-government. We have said that we recognize those inherent rights.

The challenge now is to find a way to give meaning to those inherent rights. We believe that should be done through the treaty negotiation process and not through litigation in the courts.

G. Wilson: A supplementary to the Premier. With respect, I think that the people of British Columbia, particularly the aboriginal people, would like to hear from the Premier on this question, because it is the Premier who has spoken on a number of occasions suggesting that his government recognizes aboriginal title. I am not referring to rights. Let us not confuse aboriginal rights and title. I'm specifically talking about title.

Could the question that I put to the Premier be answered by the Premier? Does the recognition of aboriginal title, and the question of self-government as a process for that administration, apply equally to aboriginal people with reserve status and those who are living off reserve?

Hon. A. Petter: With respect to part of the commentary, I have to respond that I think it's the Leader of the Opposition who is confused. Let me read from the judgment of Chief Justice McEachern in the Delgam Uukw case: "Indian title is commonly used interchangeably with aboriginal rights as I have attempted to define them." So I think if there is any confusion, it is with the Leader of the Opposition. Aboriginal title is a term that is used by aboriginal peoples to refer to their inherent rights.

Our challenge in this House -- and I hope we can do it cooperatively -- is to find a way to give legal definition to them. We believe very firmly that the way to do that is through negotiation, to establish a new relationship with aboriginal peoples, and that's what we're determined to do.

G. Wilson: A final supplementary to the Premier. It's interesting that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs would bring up the McEachern ruling, because we hear that there is a commitment to aboriginal rights in the province of British Columbia -- something that the Liberal caucus members on this side have no quarrel with. We are talking about the definitive statement in the Speech from the Throne which is the recognition of title, and we have not had an answer to that question.

The question, then, would be: if indeed there is this commitment, why is it that in the factum put to the appeal court on the McEachern case your government was arguing extinguishment while in your Speech from the Throne you recognize title? That is where the confusion lies.

Hon. A. Petter: I'd be very happy to clarify any confusion that may arise in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition. The situation is this: we have said we recognize that aboriginal peoples have inherent rights including the right of aboriginal title. The question now is: how do we give legal definition to that right? It is true that one way of doing that is through common-law recognition in the courts, but that is not the only way, nor is it the preferred way. The B.C.

Claims Task Force of this government and aboriginal peoples are united in believing that the appropriate way to give legal definition to those inherent rights of aboriginal title is through treaty negotiations, not through litigation in the courts.

FAIR WAGE POLICY

L. Fox: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Can the minister advise this House whether he has consulted with the Union of B.C Municipalities and/or local governments about this government's so-called fair wage policy, and can he assure the local governments that the higher costs this policy will create

[ Page 37 ]

for them will be picked up by the province and not placed on the backs of the local taxpayers?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member should realize that the issue he's speaking of is future policy, and any action in this area will be consulted on with those to be affected. The member asks a question that is obvious. This government does consult with stakeholders.

L. Fox: Has the minister or his staff done any research to determine what the cost impact of this policy would be on municipalities?

Hon. R. Blencoe: A number of information and impact studies have been done. This government makes decisions based on rational and intelligent information, and we will continue to do so. The member can expect, in due course, that the information we have gathered will be reflected in our policy changes. Again I remind the member, as a new member, this is future policy. But in time, in the process of open government, he will see the changes.

L. Fox: I would respectfully request, Madam Speaker, that the minister table these impact studies that he refers to, so that we might all see, prior to implementation of this policy, what those impacts would be.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Again, I have to tell the member that this is future policy. He may wish to discuss the issue with my colleague the Minister of Labour, in terms of this future policy. I can assure the member that this government is fully aware of the issue. We're fully aware that we want to represent the concerns of British Columbians, and future policy will be before you, and you will be able to see the impact.

PEAT MARWICK REVIEW

OF PROVINCIAL FINANCES

F. Gingell: As you all know, I am a new member, and I was very pleased with the gracious offer by the Premier yesterday to assist us as we struggle through these first few days. Yesterday my caucus colleague from Surrey-White Rock addressed a question to the Premier, but it was answered by the Minister of Finance. I now seek clarification of that answer, and wonder whether I should address my question to the minister or to the Premier.

The Speaker: I think the member can certainly address the question to whomever he chooses.

F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, yesterday on the question of the Peat Marwick untendered contract award, it was stated that they were chosen because they were the biggest. Is this based on the number of partners in the firm, the number of staff or the amount of their gross fees? All chartered accountant firms claim to be the largest. If it is the gross fees, was that before or after the people of British Columbia paid them a million dollars?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I'm a bit puzzled by the question, if you'll excuse me. I'm puzzled because I don't think anybody can question the reputation of Peat Marwick. Whether it's the largest or one of the largest firms in the country, I don't think is really germane, and perhaps I was waxing eloquent yesterday. I'm not wont to do that normally. But let me just say that I think Peat Marwick has done a service to British Columbians by exposing the financial mess we've inherited. I think by and large the quality of the reports has been very good.

There are lots of recommendations, some of which we will support, some of which we won't. I'm sure my colleague across the way who's the critic will hold us to that. I think that you'd be hard-pressed to really question whether Peat Marwick were in fact qualified to do the work. I think they clearly were -- clearly are. They are a very good firm. They are one of the largest firms in the country.

F. Gingell: Madam Speaker, I wouldn't in any way question that. But there was sufficient time for this contract to be tendered. A set of rules was set up and there was plenty of time. Are you saying, Mr. Minister, that Price Waterhouse, Ernst and Whinney, Coopers and Lybrand or Arthur Andersen were incapable of performing that work in a workmanlike manner?

Hon. G. Clark: They were quite right. Many firms could have done this work. Frankly, you're not right that we could have tendered it and got the results in time for it to help with this budget preparation. As all members appreciate.... I know members of the press were concerned about the delay in getting the results, because I set a deadline which they couldn't meet. To tender this rather comprehensive study would have taken weeks and simply would not have resulted in being able to bring in a budget for '92-93 before the end of the fiscal year. There are other firms. We did talk to some of them.

Peat Marwick did a smaller version of the study for the incoming Conservative administration in Manitoba, so they had a bit of a track record when we approached them in terms of doing the study.

F. Gingell: Did the government at any time consider using firms whose partners are resident in British Columbia? I'm sure that you, as the Minister of Finance, understand that all of us pay our taxes to the province. Had we used a B.C. firm -- and there are many that could have joined together -- we would have recovered a substantial portion of the million dollars through our provincial income tax system. My question is: was that considered? Also, was the decision to use an international firm a new British Columbia-funded interprovincial aid program for the less fortunate provinces, like Ontario and Saskatchewan?

Hon. G. Clark: It's a trick question, I think. Let me say that the magnitude of the project.... As they are a very large firm, I'll qualify it that way. Peat Marwick admitted that this was the largest task they had ever undertaken. It would have been difficult to have a combination of small B.C. firms; and frankly, it didn't enter our consideration, to be honest with you. There

[ Page 38 ]

were some 42 accountants working on it, and almost all of those -- a huge majority of them -- were British Columbian accountants. Mr. John Holdstock, a partner with Peat Marwick in Victoria, was coordinating a lot of that. Most of the work was done by British Columbians. Most of the money did stay here, and it would have been very difficult to try to design a program that would have meant B.C.-only firms and get the quality of work we needed within the time-frame we needed.

[2:30]

W. Hurd: I certainly appreciate those strong words of commendation for Peat Marwick Thorne. I have another question for the minister, however. I would remind the minister that the opposition requested yesterday that the resumés of 42 accountants who worked on the Peat Marwick Thorne report be tabled in this House, and his response at that time was less than clear.

Today I have a specific request. I would ask that the resumé of one of those accountants, Mr. Ron Hikel, be tabled in this House immediately and also referred to the Public Accounts Committee. Again I ask the minister: will he commit to providing this House with this important information prior to the introduction of his budget next week, and will he now tell this House what role Mr. Hikel had in the formulation of both the overall direction and the final version of the Peat Marwick Thorne report?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, the members will appreciate that I don't have Mr. Hikel's resumé here in the House with me, so it would be difficult to table it immediately. But certainly Mr. Hikel.... Just to explain, the principal from Peat Marwick who handled the independent financial review for British Columbia is a gentleman named James Cosh. Mr. Hikel is a senior partner out of Toronto and he did very valuable work on the report. The two of them did the presentations to the media and would do a presentation to the opposition. I make that offer here, assuming we can get them from Toronto and Calgary, respectively, at no cost to the taxpayer. We'd be delighted to make that available to you.

There were many accountants working on it, and I can ask Peat Marwick -- it is a private company -- to provide me with a list of the resumés of the principals who worked on it. I think you'll find, hon. Speaker, that these are in most cases outstanding British Columbia accountants who have done a service to British Columbia. I am a bit puzzled as to why they would be so intrigued by all the details of the people who worked on it, but I would be delighted to try.

Hon. G. Clark tabled a letter from Mr. Frank Rhodes, chief executive officer of the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

Hon. G. Clark: I notice that one of the critics from the opposition was questioning a discretionary sailing, so I asked Mr. Rhodes to clarify it for members of the House. If I could just give a

summary, it says:

"[This confirms] that no member of government, nor any member of staff representing government, requested any special sailing of the B.C. Ferry Corporation.... This additional sailing was undertaken at management's discretion...."

It's normal. In fact, there is an average of one discretionary sailing over the course of a day.

"The only request that the corporation has recently received for such a disposition relates to correspondence from the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has requested free passage for up to 24 floats to participate in the Miss Powell River pageant. The corporation cannot approve this request because of its financial implications."

D. Mitchell: I'm not sure if that was a ministerial statement or if it was a.... I'm not sure what it was. Yesterday the hon. government House Leader made a ministerial statement during introduction of bills, so I would request some clarification from you as to whether or not this is the appropriate place in the orders of the day for the House Leader to be doing this. I would like the right of response to this ministerial statement.

The Speaker: The hon. member has asked to respond. Could you make your response brief, please.

D. Mitchell: I'd be pleased to. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The government House Leader tabled a document today, which we will receive with interest. We look forward to seeing it. There were press reports this morning, of course, about some special, extra sailing that was put on by the B.C. Ferry Corporation for the opening of the House. We have no knowledge of who was on the special sailing or who requested it. It sounds like it may have been a special sailing of the SS Friends and Insiders. We don't know.

I can tell you that we raised no questions about this. This minister raises it in a manner criticizing the official opposition, and I would ask that the hon. government House Leader refrain from that practice. If he wishes to table a document in the House, that's fine. We accept that.

Ministerial Statement

COUNTERVAILING DUTY

ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Hon. D. Miller: I rise to make a ministerial statement -- I think both opposition parties have received a copy of the statement by now -- on a very grave and important issue, which is the impact of the preliminary ruling by the United States Department of Commerce, imposing a 14.48 percent countervailing duty against Canadian and British Columbian softwood lumber. This decision is an outrageous double standard. It is protectionism driven by political and, I should say, corporate self-interest. Above all, it's hypocritical.

British Columbia is a trading province. We have the people and the resources to remain competitive in tough international markets. But we can't do that with one arm tied behind our back. This action by the U.S. is simply unfair. Given the importance of this issue to

[ Page 39 ]

British Columbia, and our position that this is the acid test of the free trade agreement, I have to question the utility of Canada proceeding with negotiations on a North American free trade agreement.

Members will recall that the previous countervailing duty action in 1986 -- which was poorly handled, in my opinion, by the previous administration -- led to the imposition of a 15 percent export tax on softwood lumber shipped to the United States. It is important that the memorandum of understanding which implemented this tax allowed for the tax to be replaced by higher stumpage fees. In October 1987 the British Columbia government, with the agreement of the United States government, did replace the tax with increased stumpage and reforestation charges to industry.

These non-market stumpage fees remain in place and will remain in place. In fact, my first act as Minister of Forests was to personally advise the U.S. consul general, Mr. Johnson, that British Columbia had no intention of reducing stumpage charges below the level agreed to previously in that memorandum of understanding.

Leaving aside for the moment the circumstances surrounding the reasons for terminating the MOU, I want to stress that our current stumpage and reforestation charges were described by a senior U.S. Department of Commerce official as fully offsetting any alleged subsidy. Despite this, the U.S. Department of Commerce changed the basis for determining subsidy. They have gone to the bizarre extent of imposing a preliminary duty based on our historic log export rules, even though the U.S. has log export bans on their own lands and even though the free trade agreement recognized both countries' right to retain those restrictions.

We are determined to fight this action on every front. The British Columbia government is united with our industry and labour unions, the federal government and other Canadian provinces to see this challenge to a successful conclusion. The British Columbia government has put together a team of experts to assist in this defence, and we are coordinating our efforts with the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C. and with lawyers representing Canadian interests.

We are also working closely with the federal Departments of External Affairs and International Trade in challenging this new action before a GATT dispute-settlement panel in Geneva. That panel is meeting this week -- today, if I'm not mistaken -- and later in May.

We have been very active in challenging the U.S. actions before various agencies of the U.S. government. Because our policies did not change after the MOU was terminated, British Columbia sought a complete exemption in this case. We have filed briefs documenting how this U.S. action is illegal under U.S. law and runs counter to the U.S. government's international trade agreement obligations. We supported our producers, many of whom sought an exclusion from this action.

However, hon. Speaker, the treatment of the facts and legal reasoning displayed by the U.S. only confirms my earlier contention that this ruling is based solely on protectionism and the vested financial interests of some large American corporations, the chief one being Georgia-Pacific. The irony is that this ruling, which hurts our forest industry, also adds about $1,500 to the price of an average new home in the United States because of increased lumber prices. The U.S., by the way, does not have enough sawmill capacity or timber supplies to supply their own domestic market.

This issue transcends party politics. I would like to call on all members of this House to join me in condemning this U.S. action.

W. Hurd: I commend the government for its strong action on the softwood lumber case affecting this province, but I would also suggest that the minister should read the press reports from this morning's newspapers. One says that home-building is up 9.6 percent and lumber prices are up 30 percent in the United States. Under normal circumstances the industry in British Columbia would benefit from this upturn in its major trading partner. Unfortunately, with the imposition of this tariff, we won't.

I believe the government has not been strong enough in its response to this issue. We've seen the competitive position of this industry erode by a total of 29.9 percent since 1988, when the first memorandum of understanding was signed. The further imposition of a 14.4 percent tariff means that our lumber industry runs the risk of not being competitive. I would remind the hon. member from Prince Rupert and also the Forests minister that his riding may be affected as much as or more than any other riding in this province.

This tariff is bad news for the people of British Columbia. It's bad news for our competitive position, and I believe, as he does, that every member of this House should express their concern that this is one of the most punitive trading measures every imposed on the province and on Canada. I certainly support the idea that we should make our views known in the strongest possible way. With some qualifications the statement has the support of the opposition.

L. Fox: I rise to support the intent of this document. However, I feel rather confused that the minister should make such a partisan statement -- in paragraph 4 -- on an issue that's so important to this province and, in his own words, crosses the party lines. I would suggest that we all know the action of the U.S. government has everything to do with protectionism and nothing to do with subsidies. For that reason, I support this document.

Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave to make a substitution on the Special Committee on Constitutional Matters at the wishes of the official opposition.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: I move that the name of the member for West Vancouver-Capilano be substituted for that of the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi on the Special Committee on Constitutional Matters.

Motion approved.

[ Page 40 ]

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

C. Tanner: This morning I talked about my constituency. This afternoon I'd like to start by congratulating the last government. Believe it or not, they did two things right. The second one I'll tell you about in a minute. The first one was that for the first time in this century, through the work done by the last government, we were able to have an election where one member represented one constituency. For the first time B.C. joined with the rest of Canada and became a single-constituency-representative Legislature. Now it is time for the present government to take the next step.

This government should very seriously, and in its first year in this House, be bringing in limitations on election expenses, implementing funds and where they come from.

[2:45]

I had the fortunate circumstance of receiving the most votes of any member in the House, for which I thank my constituents. However, in spite of what I just said, I have a problem. I received so many votes that if I could have taken a few and sprinkled them around the province, this side of the House would have 32 more seats. While I don't recommend it as a change for the future, I do bring it to the attention of all members that the Liberals ran second in 32 seats. I would say to my constituents, in return for that show of faith, that they can faithfully look to me to serve them irrespective of how they voted.

Madam Speaker, there is another area of concern which I'd like to address this afternoon. Of the 13 provincial and six federal seats on this Island, only one is held by other than the NDP. That is mine. While I congratulate the members opposite, I am very much aware that my seat is the beachhead, and the first of many which the Liberals will hold in the next election. While I respect those members from the Island who represent the other side of the House, I will represent the free enterprise point of view on this Island, no matter where the voices are heard, and I'll be happy to give another point of view.

My leader selected me to criticize tourism. May I thank the leader for that appointment because that is an industry which enjoys the second-largest income generated in the province and employs the largest workforce. I appreciate that the Minister of Tourism, who couldn't find time to get here today to listen to her critic speak, is busy, and I will support her in those things which better the industry and the public. But I will be offering alternatives, and I will oppose her strongly when she is incorrect.

I'd like to turn to a subject dear to my heart: the pride that I feel in standing in my place in this House representing the Liberal Party behind the leadership of what I consider to be one of this country's finest leaders, Gordon Wilson. I think I speak for all members on this side of the House when I tell you that in our view, certainly mine, he is a visionary who's shown persistence and ability, and with whom everybody on this side of the House -- and eventually, when they see the light, on that side of the House -- will be proud to be in the same House as a companion and a member of this Legislature.

I'd also like to point out to the third party that in my view this House is an improved place with three points of view. Irrespective of the results of the next election

vis-�-vis our two parties, I personally think it is a healthy situation that we enjoy a third point of view in this House.

Now I come to the second reason I wanted to congratulate the last government and, in particular, the leader of the third party. The member for Peace River South was instrumental in changing attitudes and bringing to this House a different point of view concerning the native peoples of British Columbia. I for one was impressed by his attitude, and I hope he will continue in that vein of helping all parties resolve this very serious problem.

There was not enough attention paid in the throne speech to the situation Indian people find themselves in in this province. I have four reserves in my constituency, and the living conditions, the standard of living and the quality of life for those people are not good enough. We, the members of this Legislature, have a responsibility to do something about it in this term of the life of this House.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to address the least-spoken-of matter in the throne speech and, in my view, the most important of all, and that is the matter of British Columbia and Canada. I live in a very beautiful part of British Columbia. British Columbia is a very important and beautiful part of this country. It is essential that in the life of this House, this province, that government, this opposition and that third party do everything they can to keep this country together. I can assure the other members and you, Madam Speaker, that this member -- this Liberal, this Canadian -- will do everything in his power to bring that about.

Hon. A. Petter: It is indeed an honour to stand in this House today representing the people of Saanich South. As someone who has spent a number of hours -- too many hours over the past 20 years -- sitting in the galleries watching the proceedings of the House and more recently doing so in the comfort of my living-room through television, it is a privilege and, I must say, something of a thrill to take my place on the floor of this assembly.

I don't intend to dwell on issues relating to my ministry in the time that's available to me. There will be plenty of time for that in the coming weeks and months, I'm sure.

But I would be remiss if I did not say how pleased I am to have been afforded the opportunity and the responsibility to serve as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and to fulfil this government's commitment to develop a new relationship with aboriginal peoples -- a relationship that is based on mutual trust, respect and understanding and upon an understanding and acceptance that aboriginal peoples do have inherent rights that in the view of this government must be given legal definition through a process of accommodation across the negotiating table, not confrontation in the courts.

[ Page 41 ]

I'm also pleased to note throughout the throne speech the specific references that are made to aboriginal peoples in relation to provincewide initiatives, such as the public review of family and child services and the development of new heritage conservation legislation. I believe, hon. Speaker, that we are moving towards a new social order in our province in which aboriginal peoples can be full partners in provincial life. I'm pleased to see reflected in the throne speech the view that the participation of aboriginal peoples is now the norm, not the exception.

It is a deliberate and important aspect of any process to ensure that the interests and rights of aboriginal peoples are fully accommodated.

Before I share the perspective that I bring to this debate as the MLA for Saanich South, I want to first congratulate you, hon. Speaker, on your election to a very important office. I also want to extend similar congratulations to the Deputy Speaker, whom I've known for a number of years of service dating back to his time as MLA for Vancouver Centre. I think I even saw him play football once upon a time, but I'm not sure I should admit to that.

I also want to say how delighted I am to be bolstered in this House by 12 other representatives from Saanich South. I refer, of course, to the legislative pages from Reynolds Secondary School, a school which is located in my constituency. I invite them to provide any criticism or assistance that they consider I might require along the way. It's certainly pleasing to me to know that we have that additional support from the constituency right here in the legislative chamber for the next number of months.

Anyone who stands in this House cannot help but think of the contribution of those who have gone before. In my case, I think of those who have so ably represented the constituency now known as Saanich South and previously known by a number of different names and combinations. I think particularly of people like Hugh Curtis, Terry Huberts and Mel Couvelier, who represented the constituency recently. They were MLAs who were all noted for their commitment and hard work and their dedication to the community.

However, as someone who represents an area that hasn't exactly been identified with the New Democratic Party in recent times, I must say that on this particular day there is a special place in my thoughts for an MLA who did represent the constituency of Saanich, as it was then known, from June 12, 1952, to June 9, 1953. That's Frank Snowsell of the CCF.

Frank Snowsell, who many of you may know, was a teacher at Mount View High School when he was elected in that 1952 election, winning by just a few hundred votes over a Liberal opponent. That's a situation I can identify with and have some empathy for. He served for just less than one year; I hope that's not a precedent. But even in that short time Frank Snowsell gained a reputation in this House as a fighter for rights, and in particular for a provincial bill of rights to protect the interests of public servants to ensure that public servants could be full participants in the political process.

After his defeat in 1953 he remained active within the CCF and the NDP. He remains active to this day; he's 84 years young. I phoned him this morning in Kelowna. He's slowing down a little bit, but I want to warn some of the MLAs from the Kelowna area over on the other side, don't count Snowsell out just yet. He may come back. He's a very active guy. So Frank Snowsell is very much in my thoughts.

Today I also think of the many individuals who have over the years offered themselves as candidates, not only from my party but from other parties, and particularly in Saanich South and that area -- very often doing so with very little likelihood of success and frequently at high cost to their personal and professional lives. I think of people like John Mika and David Vickers and Carol Pickup.

I also think on this day of the very many volunteers, friends, family and supporters who encouraged me to run and helped to elect me. Unlike the member for Yale-Lillooet, I won't try to enumerate them by name, but I do want to acknowledge their hard work and support. They and the thousands like them who, without remuneration or reward, stand behind all of us as candidates when we run for public office are very much the backbone of our political system. It is their sacrifice that really makes our democratic process both possible and worthwhile, and I want to express my appreciation to them.

The throne speech is always awaited each year with a great deal of anticipation. It does provide to the government an opportunity to share with all British Columbians its vision of the future. But it also provides to MLAs on both sides of the House a chance to state their views and their commitments to the future. I wish today to share with you some of my perspectives and some of the perspectives of my constituents as I've gotten to know them over the last number of years.

I think previous speakers in this debate have spoken most eloquently, and I've been impressed by the commitment that has been expressed by members on all sides of the House to serving the interests of constituents and all British Columbians.

Other members have spoken about their constituencies, and I hope you'll forgive me if I speak a little about the warmth I have for mine, because Saanich South is very much a constituency that is distinctive in its diversity. It contains areas that are rural. It contains areas that are urban, suburban and semi-rural. Its boundaries encompass the Highlands, Mount Douglas Park and Prospect Lake -- areas noted for their pastoral beauty and their tranquillity. But it also contains some very bustling little hives of activity in communities like the Gorge, Royal Oak and Cordova Bay.

[3:00]

It's a community where residents really do value the quality of their lives, and regardless of where they live in the constituency, I think what they value most is that close proximity to the rural landscapes, the wilderness treasures that make Saanich South the special community that it is. It's also, as I have found out in the last number of years, a community in which residents take very seriously their responsibility as citizens. There are many active ratepayer groups and community

associa-

[ Page 42 ]

tions. The schools, particularly the secondary schools in Saanich South, are unusual in the extent to which they have managed to form linkages with the community and to become involved with the community.

People want desperately to believe that parliamentary democracy is a worthwhile institution, but their confidence has been shaken. They want to believe that governments can be made to serve their interests, but too often they have in recent years developed the feeling that, in fact, government is trying to use their interest rather than serve their interests. Let me rephrase that: it is they who've been made to serve government interests.

Hon. Speaker, these people are looking for a sign, a signal that parliamentary government can and does work, that politicians are capable of promoting the public good. They seek a government that will base decisions upon community interests rather than self-interest; a government that listens, that acts in an open and accountable fashion, that deals people into the process, rather than shutting people out of the process.

They want to see a government that looks beyond the present to the future, that gets its priorities right, that takes action not for its own short-term gain, but rather for the long-term benefit of our children and our province. They want to see a government that is fair and balanced, that puts people first, that doesn't play favourites, and that places the public interest ahead of special interests.

One of the reasons why I am as pleased as I am to respond to this Speech from the Throne is that it embraces and speaks to so many of these aspirations and values.

Not only does it speak to them, it sets out substantive proposals that members have been fighting for for years in this House, and outside this House as well -- proposals such as a freedom-of-information act to blow away the cobwebs and to provide public access to government information; legislative reform to enhance the role of the ombudsman; proposals to strengthen legislative committees and to establish an independent mechanism for reviewing MLAs' salaries and benefits; a Commission on Resources and Environment to replace the destructive valley-by-valley conflicts that have plagued this province over the last number of years and instead bring about a comprehensive land use strategy developed through an open planning process; and an agenda for women's equality, including a framework for pay equity, support for women's programs and greater gender balance on public boards and agencies.

Moreover, the values that are articulated in the throne speech of consultation, of forward thinking and of fairness are ones that I am convinced will have a corresponding influence on the way the provincial government conducts itself at the community level. And indeed, I want to share with you some examples of how that influence is already being felt in Saanich South.

One of the major issues in the last election in my constituency concerned the failure of the previous government to consult citizens concerning decisions that directly affected their lives. One of the most glaring examples of this was the decision to move the Victoria youth custody centre to a site near Glendale hospital. That decision was taken not only without consulting the community, but without even consulting the previous government MLA for the constituency.

During the election campaign I argued that people have a right to be involved in decisions that affect their communities. I argued that that right does not flow from the generosity of governments; rather, it flows from the demands of democracy. The throne speech, I'm happy to say, echoes those sentiments by stating that open government demands that people be included in decision-making.

That is the view of this government, and for that reason I'm happy to say that since being elected MLA, I have managed to secure a commitment for a public process concerning the relocation of the Victoria youth custody centre that will involve the community in determining not only where the centre is located, but the kinds of facilities that may be required. That kind of consultation at the community level is as important as consultation at the provincial level.

Another major issue that arose in Saanich South during the election campaign concerns the failure of the previous government to plan for the future in terms of accommodating rapid growth in the constituency and in particular the rapid growth of a school-age population. Claremont Senior Secondary School in my constituency is bulging at the seams. Nine portable classrooms have been installed. Strawberry Vale Elementary School has more portable space than it does regular school space.

In total, I think there are something like over 40 portable classrooms right now in the constituency, with virtually every school having to rely on portable, temporary and inadequate space to accommodate growing numbers of students each year.

This lack of planning is unacceptable, particularly in a world where adult opportunity is closely tied to the quality of education in teenage and pre-teenage years. Even cash-strapped governments must recognize that adequate educational facilities must remain a priority. In both word and deed, this government has shown to the people of Saanich South that it does indeed recognize this.

[ Page 43 ]

In a word, hon. Speaker, the throne speech makes a clear commitment to a healthy and secure future for our children and pledges additional funding for school districts experiencing rapid growth. Consistent with this commitment, the Ministry of Education recently approved long-awaited funds to acquire property and to plan an expansion that will increase Claremont Senior Secondary School's capacity from 650 to 1,000 students -- a decision the previous government had promised but sat on and failed to deliver.

There's still much to be done. There are still many schools that require attention. But at least the residents of Saanich South know they have a government that does look to the future, a government that views education as a priority for the future and recognizes that education is an investment in the future of our children and of our province.

The third local issue I want to talk about, by way of example -- in this case it's an example which really shows what happens when you have a government that doesn't consult, doesn't think forward and doesn't deal fairly with the residents of a constituency -- concerns Mount Douglas Park. Many members of this House are familiar with Mount Douglas Park. It's pretty hard not to be familiar with it if you've lived any length of time in this community. It's situated on the border between my constituency and the constituency of Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

The park was originally set aside by Sir James Douglas, and it was granted, by way of a Crown trust, to the city of Victoria more than 100 years ago. In 1988 the city of Victoria decided to transfer the land to the municipality of Saanich. It seemed like a fairly pro forma transfer. They agreed that they would transfer, but the transfer had to be subject to the trust. What they didn't think would happen was what did happen. In order to effect the transfer, the land had to be transferred to the province first and then to the district of Saanich.

When the previous government got its hands on the land, they ignored the direction from the city of Victoria -- to maintain the trust -- and used the opportunity to remove 17 acres of wide road and transmitter right-of-ways from the park by way of subdivision. This action did three things. First, it ignored the requirement for openness and consultation: even Saanich Council didn't find out about the subdivision until after it occurred. Second, it showed a dismal lack of forethought: it removed from park protection and thereby threatened one of the most beautiful tree canopies of any road in the province.

Third, it was fundamentally unfair, in that the action contradicted the explicit directions and terms by which the transfer was supposed to take place. It is this kind of action at the local level that reinforces the cynicism and undermines the confidence in governmental institutions we all recognize at the provincial level.

But I am pleased to report that the changes in attitudes we see reflected in the throne speech, in respect of consultation, forward thinking and fairness, are being reflected at the constituency level. Thanks to the cooperation of the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, Saanich Council and the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, there is a very good prospect we will be able to restore to the park the 17 acres which was removed by the previous government. I'm very optimistic that in the very near future the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and I will be able to make that announcement.

Through that announcement, I hope the people of my constituency and my colleague's will see that, once again, they have a government that is working for people, not against them. Of course, there is still much to be done in Saanich South, but I am confident, given the values espoused by this government, that my task at the local level will be made much easier.

There are many challenges that lie before us if we are to rebuild the public's confidence in the system of government and politicians. Moreover, it is a task that will require a new attitude and new resolve on both sides of this House. If together we can make this Legislature more a forum of constructive criticism and debate and less the circus it has sometimes been in the past, that too will go a long way to sending the public a positive signal and restoring faith in our democratic institutions.

The direction set by the throne speech represents a tremendous start, one which will serve the people of British Columbia well, not only in terms of provincewide policies and programs, but, as I've tried to demonstrate, in terms of local constituency needs and the hopes of local constituents. In closing, I would like to say that I am proud to be a part of this government, a government dedicated to a change and to making a difference, not only in the substance of its policies, but in the conduct of its actions and the worth of its government.

I look forward to this session of the Legislature and to working with members on all sides of the House. Together I hope we can make those changes that are needed, that we can harness the energy that is here to a positive and constructive result, and that we can seize with courage and conviction the opportunities that present themselves.

L. Reid: It is a great honour to be recognized in this chamber for the first time as the member for Richmond East. I feel genuinely privileged to represent this community, and I wish to preface my remarks today with a commitment to my constituents. I will work long and hard to be worthy of the trust that they have placed in me. I also wish to extend congratulations to you, hon. Speaker, on your election to this post. Last November His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor spoke quite eloquently of the need for healing in British Columbia politics.

I believe we must all heed this wise counsel, and accordingly, I wish to reaffirm my commitment to represent all my constituents to the best of my ability.

It is in this spirit that I would like to acknowledge the years of service to my community given by my predecessor Mr. Nick Loenen, and to thank him for his dedication. I would like to thank the many volunteers who supported me during my campaign. In particular, I am grateful for the continued assistance and encouragement provided by the Richmond East Provincial Liberal Association. All members, I am sure, recognize the

[ Page 44 ]

importance of their local supporters. Let me tell you that my organization is strong, and I am confident I can depend on these dedicated individuals in the coming years.

I would also like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Michael Stebner, Terry Cunningham and Christy Clark, who with me will serve the issues that arise in my constituency with diligence.

[3:15]

My ideas about the role of an MLA and of this chamber have been influenced by my past membership in the British Columbia Youth Parliament. I was privileged to serve over several years as Minister of Finance, Premier and, most recently, as Speaker, so I can appreciate the unique challenges you face, hon. Speaker. The late Sir Winston Churchill referred to democracy as the worst form of government in the world -- except for all the other forms of government. My years in the B.C.

Youth Parliament taught me that our parliamentary system can work as well if not better than any other system in the world -- but only if its members treat each other with mutual respect. It means that debate must be meaningful, and that members must be above the partisan banter that has dominated this chamber for too long to the great detriment of this province and to the credibility of its government. It means that all members must be parliamentarians in every respect. This great chamber represents more than the sum total of the 75 MLAs who currently occupy it.

It represents centuries of evolution and progressive government. It commands our respect, and we ought to abide by the traditions of decorum and debate. It means adherence to the representative principle that our constituent voices may be heard in this House. Accordingly, I will be addressing several local issues throughout my remarks today. But I would like to note one or two now, on behalf of the people I represent.

My constituents have a concern that would be of particular interest to the Minister of Agriculture. They have a commitment to the viability of farming in Richmond and to a sustainable future. Richmond, as I'm sure members know, is traditionally a farming community. As such, it has unfortunately attracted the inevitable land use disputes. There is a clear need for a community land use plan, and the province has a role to play as the trustee of our agricultural land base. A long-term plan is in the interests of both farmers and developers, given the uncertainty that highlights the future of Richmond's agricultural lands.

At present, the site-by-site disputes are leaving my community up for grabs, and that is absolutely unacceptable to my constituents. The Premier has often spoken of his ability to bring people together and resolve issues just like these. The province can no longer shirk its duty to my constituents. They expect results from this government.

The other issue is just as pressing. Given Richmond's situation as a growing community of 120,000 people, with a disproportionate number of seniors and young people, the transit system is nothing short of abysmal. Transit service in Richmond is virtually nonexistent, with the exception of major feeder lines at rush hour. This creates problems for my constituents, which I'd like to illustrate with a practical example. One of the projects which I am working on is the expansion of the Hamilton school community centre. Between No. 6 Road and No. 9 Road there are no community centres and no recreational facilities.

Richmond East is a distinct community within Richmond and desperately requires a community facility.

However, should this expansion occur -- and I certainly am lending my strongest support for this project -- the people who often make the greatest use of such facilities, seniors and children, would have tremendous difficulty accessing the centre, because the site is nowhere near a major traffic feeder line, and therefore not serviced by B.C. Transit. Enhanced transit service would allow greater enjoyment of community facilities by many of my constituents, and I urge the government to listen to the concerns of my constituents. They really do deserve better service.

Complicating Richmond's serious transportation problems is a hopelessly inadequate highway infrastructure. It was built for a community of 25,000 people. Clearly, this is no longer suitable for a city of Richmond's size and growth potential.

Speaker, when British Columbians went to the polls last October, I believe they did more than replace one government with another or one opposition caucus for another. The citizens of our province put its elected officials on notice. The old, cynical style of politics, with vote-buying, endless two-way bickering and backroom trade-offs, has got to end. I believe it is incumbent upon members on all sides of this house to turn their attention to the substantive policy issues that have been neglected during the past several years as old-line parties competed solely for political advantage.

This means new ideas and a fresh approach. As I look around this chamber, it becomes abundantly clear that the Liberal caucus, which I am proud to chair, is the freshest item on the menu.

British Columbians have issued a challenge to this House: that is, a challenge to reform. Liberals aren't encumbered by political baggage, and we intend to carry out our duties as MLAs -- first of all, by consulting with citizens throughout the province. It just isn't good enough to go through an exercise in democracy every four or five years. Secondly, we intend to use this House as it was intended: as a free forum for constructive debate.

Nowhere is the challenge to reform more pressing than in the field of health care. We've all heard from our constituents about waiting-lists for surgery, rising premiums and the increasing cost to taxpayers. Over the past 40 years, our health ministers have been telling us that British Columbia has the best health care system in the world. That may be so, but it is also consuming a greater proportion of the public's resources every year, and still it is unable to meet the needs of British Columbians who pay for it. In short, our health care system, as it exists today, is not sustainable.

While in opposition, the present government suggested various measures, such as allocating a certain percentage of lottery funds to health care. While I agree that redirecting dollars may ease the situation, we all have to recognize that it is only a temporary band-aid

[ Page 45 ]

solution. Our health care system is in critical condition, and it requires immediate action.

Last September and October the present Premier made lots of promises on the subject of health care. Some of them, I'm afraid, were impractical and purely political -- a cancer clinic in Kamloops, for instance. I've said publicly that his Minister of Health made the right decision in placing it in Kelowna, and I've commended her for it. But clearly, the Premier doesn't share her concern over allocating scarce resources to the greatest need. The Premier has to realize that our health care system needs more than his political tinkering; it needs a fresh attitude, a fresh approach.

This side of the House believes that the government must change its view on health care as a concept exclusively involving doctors and hospitals. Health involves much more than that. It also involves self-care and prevention. It requires support systems, including schools, volunteer organizations and employers, among others. All these are vital factors in the development of a community-based health care system.

British Columbians are beginning to view health as a much larger issue than merely the presence or absence of disease. They understand that health is a dynamic concept, which assists citizens to better identify, control and choose health-promoting options for themselves and their communities. That's why the government must give more emphasis to preventive health care. The government also has to understand that this care is most effective when delivered at the community level.

Unfortunately the goverment's words in the throne speech about the priority given to reforming health care ring just a little hollow. If we judge the government by its actions, we must conclude that community-based health care will be a long time coming. It will probably require a government genuinely committed to reform, for if this government were truly committed to a sustainable health care system, the last thing it would be doing, for example, would be closing down one of the innovative wellness centres on Vancouver Island.

Wellness centres really are a step in the right direction in reforming our health care system. Not only are they oriented towards preventing illness as well as treating it, but wellness centres are cost efficient.

Speaker, I challenge the Minister of Health to restore and enhance funding for wellness centres. I believe she will find that by involving the community in such initiatives, it will result in a healthier population, and that is ultimately the only result that will save the already overburdened taxpayer from shovelling yet more money into a centralized, Victoria-based health care bureaucracy.

The government ought to know that members on this side of the House are not alone in their concern over the need to change attitudes about the role of health care. The recent Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs has echoed the challenge to reform. This report -- and I recommend it -- recognizes the larger, dare I say liberal, view of health -- one that encompasses holistic considerations, such as environmental and social factors. Adoption of this report's recommendations, Speaker, could prevent the needless and repeated hospitalization of individuals.

Community-based health is the key to meeting the challenge of reform in the health care system. I must conclude by expressing disappointment that the throne speech holds so little promise. I hope the budget will offer more substantial measures.

On a more positive note, I am pleased that the government continues to identify a Minister Responsible for Seniors. It is important that our seniors have a voice at the cabinet table. However, it is also important to realize that seniors issues actually involve a variety of government ministries. Besides Health, for example, Housing and Social Services need to be considered. The growing numbers of seniors in British Columbia constitute both a challenge and an opportunity in all these areas.

This side of the House believes that seniors should be given the tools they need to remain healthy, active members of society. Seniors want to live in their own homes as long as possible, and this government must ensure that necessary support services are made available to them.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing should seriously consider encouraging housing developments that meet the changing needs of our seniors. There are lots of creative possibilities. Seniors have suggested to our caucus, for example, that the government assist construction of self-funding mediflats for those couples who wish to remain together despite the disability of one spouse. In fact, I am hoping to visit Salmon Arm in the coming months in order to visit their funded, multi-level mediflat facility, which includes independent living suites. It's called Bastion Place.

Seniors in Salmon Arm have really been well served by Bastion Place, Speaker, and this government really ought to consider supporting more such facilities throughout the province. As I said, I intend to have a look at Bastion Place, because I think this is a great idea that could be used in my community. Again -- and I hope the Minister of Finance is listening wherever he is -- such measures can be cost efficient, saving hospital beds and involving only those costs associated with long-term care.

This issue is of particular importance to me, as my riding is quickly becoming one of British Columbia's most important retirement communities. I have been privileged to speak with hundreds of seniors since my election last fall, and if there is one thing they tell me over and over again, it's that they want to remain at home and independent as long as possible. And why shouldn't they? They've earned that right. What's more, they've been led to expect it from this government, which, while in opposition in 1988, spoke of "an unholy war unleashed on seniors by the government of the day."

I realize that the budget may not fulfil my wildest expectation. As I just hinted, I also sense that it may not meet the expectations of seniors either. But I truly hope the Minister Responsible for Seniors has spoken with her cabinet colleagues about increasing the maximum rental ceiling of the SAFER program. As it stands, Speaker, the assistance this program provides to seniors does not even reflect last year's cost of rental accommodation. Creative solutions, combined with common sense measures such as enhancing the SAFER program,

[ Page 46 ]

can help our seniors enjoy a productive and comfortable life. They bring experience and resources to our communities, and we owe them the opportunity to contribute.

When the government makes a significant gesture, I believe it ought to be recognized and commended. The appointment of a Minister of Women's Equality with a full ministry is clearly a milestone, and I congratulate the minister on her appointment. A great deal of work lies ahead, and I'm sure the minister realizes that. Concerns of women's equality pervade all policy areas and represent issues which have for too long been marginalized. Systemic norms exist in our society which prevent women from enjoying full and equal participation, and this must change.

The throne speech contains some promising words, and I truly hope this government is going to carry through on the pledge it has made to British Columbia women to empower them to become equal and equally paid partners in our society. We expect significant legislative change in the process. Numerous statutory and regulatory barriers exist which would slow the process of reaching our goals. As well, this government must improve upon the all too hesitantly introduced public sector pay equity program, and must vigorously promote the concept of employment and pay equity throughout this province.

While this government may have inherited cooked ledgers, it has also inherited a stronger economy than Ontario. There's absolutely no excuse for delay on pay equity. Women have had the right to vote in British Columbia since the First World War. Women have held cabinet portfolios in British Columbia since 1952. Women have already had to wait an additional half year since this government was elected. Surely all members agree on this issue. Enough already; let's get on with the job.

This government has also had to improve on the previous government's timid efforts in addressing the tragedy of family violence -- specifically violence against women and children. As our province experiences increased economic uncertainty, stress at the family level is on the increase. The reality for thousands of women and children in our province is that they become victims of violence.

[3:30]

Progress has been made, Speaker, and I recognize that. Only seven years ago, a man could not be charged with sexually assaulting his spouse. But we have an obligation to our constituents to do far more for the victims of family violence. I commend the government's initial steps to expand the availability of emergency shelters. The next step is to ensure that emergency shelters are available in each and every community for these people during times of family crises. That's because family violence isn't restricted to our large urban communities. It happens everywhere, including our small communities.

It's also high time that abuse and neglect in the family resulted in mandatory counselling and support services.

Finally, the government must assess its own staffing levels to ensure that trained personnel are available to deal with the increasing disclosures of sexually abused children. Sadly, many instances of violence and abuse require more than counselling, more than support systems. They require the force of law and prosecution.

Last year the previous government released media advertisements with an important message: family violence is inexcusable, and it is a crime. We as legislators have to be willing to back up that statement. Crown prosecutors are doing a tremendous job, but they need the help of this government on two counts: first, they must be assured that the judges before whom they appear will recognize the seriousness of the offence of violence against women and children; second, this government must approach the federal Minister of Justice to ensure that stiffer sentencing options are made available to prosecutors and judges under the Criminal Code.

Take, for instance, the current practice in Duluth, Minnesota. The courts, police and school system are all working towards zero tolerance for violence against women. That must be our goal in British Columbia.

Finally, we have to recognize the stresses in those families and in our communities across the province that result in increased incidents of family violence. Our resource-based communities are not as secure as they were 15 or 20 years ago. All members know of those communities, and many other members could speak of them with an intimacy greater than mine. But it is plain that the problems of family violence will never be fully addressed until families have the stability of a secure economic future. That is one of the greatest tragedies of increasing unemployment.

That is a situation which a growing number of families are facing, and that is why this government must get to work and put British Columbians back to work.

Again it's obvious that family violence is another issue requiring the attention of several ministers, from the Attorney General and the Minister of Women's Equality to the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Finance. I recognize the challenge is not an easy one. The federal government's recent decision to abandon its draft child-care legislation places even greater responsibility on this government, and I understand that. Issues like child care are important to British Columbians, and I know the Minister of Women's Equality takes those concerns seriously.

But there are still options available to this government on issues like child care. In my community, for example, the group Richmond Asks for Better Child Care has made representations to the province in order to provide better access to child care for the women and families in Richmond. It is clearly time for government to work through local community-based agencies like this one. They can assess the needs far more effectively than we can. But the ultimate consideration has to be for ensuring a safe and secure future for the women and children of our province, because they want to contribute.

They want to be part of the tremendous potential of British Columbia, and they deserve that chance without the fear of abuse hanging over their heads. We and our children must live in a secure environment in order to contribute to our society. This government has an opportunity to make that security a reality for so many people, and I hope that one year from now they won't

[ Page 47 ]

have cause to say that this government has let them down.

I spoke earlier of my disappointment that this government has taken nearly half a year, fully 10 percent of its mandate, to find its feet while British Columbians are waiting for some indication of the future direction of their province. This government, while in opposition, spent two years demanding an election. Members on this side agree that when the election came it was long overdue. That's why British Columbians are baffled. They believed that the new government had a lot of work to do, and they were right.

But instead of getting down to work and calling this House to its duties, the government has let valuable time pass without giving a thought to the important business requiring the consideration of this House. British Columbians expect full and thoughtful policy debate, and they're right to demand that, because policy debate has its place, and its place is in this House.

British Columbians and Canadians are among the most fortunate people in the world to be governed by our parliamentary system. However, the old-line parties have relegated it to a rubber-stamp forum. In the interests of our constituents and in the interests of passing the best possible legislation for our people, this has got to change. I have addressed several local issues here today, and as this session progresses through estimates, I plan to join my colleagues in calling this government into account for its efforts in numerous other fields.

Whether it's the unacceptable high levels of pollution in our Fraser River or the availability of services at Richmond General Hospital, these topics are all worthy of the time, attention and debate of this house.

This House has been polarized in rigid, uncompromising prattle for far too long. For the sake of my constituents, I want to work constructively with this government on all the issues. As the government knows full well, the opposition has a vital role to play in formulating policy. Those British Columbians who supported us last October deserve a voice. The late Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker once described the role of opposition as the detergent of democracy. This government has created high hopes among British Columbians for an open and responsible administration.

Time may prove these hopes justified, but if we have to, my colleagues and I are ready to exercise our proper role in opposition -- and scrub mightily.

I'm looking forward to the budget and more details on this government's agenda. In concluding my remarks today, hon. Speaker, I would like to thank you for your indulgence and express my hope for a productive and meaningful session.

J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to be back in the Legislature once again. I'm not a new member, as you know, but I have a new riding like so many people here. I'm pleased to be back as the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith this time. I'm also pleased to have the opportunity to respond to our first throne speech as government. Before I do that, I would like to offer you my congratulations. You put up a marvellous struggle a couple of days ago, but I'm pleased that you look very comfortable there now and seem to have accepted being dragged to the chair rather well. I'm sure you will do the office great justice.

I would like to mention, as so many others have -- given that I have partly an old riding and partly a new one -- some of my predecessors, in the new part of my riding particularly.

I think a number of the members here appreciated Graham Bruce, who was the member for Cowichan-Malahat before the split of the riding; Lake Cowichan, Duncan and north are now part of Cowichan-Ladysmith, which I'm pleased to represent. Graham Bruce certainly worked very hard, and in my opinion ably represented the people of Cowichan-Malahat. I understand he's off to Spain with his family from April to September for the world's fair, and I hope he enjoys his stay there. I'm sure he will.

I think it's fascinating that one of the first women to be elected to this Legislature from my area was Barbara Wallace. When she first ran in 1975, it was at that time Cowichan-Ladysmith. So in a way my riding and the situation have been recycled, which is appropriate for 1990.

A lot of notable people have represented my area of Cowichan-Ladysmith. It was said widely and strongly prior to the election, and proved true in the election, that Cowichan-Ladysmith is a New Democrat stronghold. People like Barbara Wallace have represented that area; Colin Cameron; Sam Guthrie, one of the real early CCFers; Bob Strachan, leader of the party at one time, represented my area; in fact, that very notable Canadian who, I think we would all acknowledge, has made a great contribution to Canadian and British Columbia society, Tommy Douglas. I feel very proud to stand here, the most recent in a long chain of strong representatives and very strong CCF-New Democrats in this area.

With the change of riding, I must say that I'm sorry to leave behind the people of Lantzville, Nanaimo and Gabriola Island. The last few years have been interesting and rewarding. I have been very honoured to represent those areas. I am very pleased to continue to represent the people of Yellow Point, Cedar, Ladysmith and Saltair. I'm grateful for the opportunity to represent the people in Crofton, Chemainus, Duncan, North Cowichan and the Lake Cowichan communities.

I very much enjoyed my old riding, and in the short time that I've been in Cowichan-Ladysmith, I am certainly enjoying my new riding. It's a marvellous riding. We have nine small communities there, and as a result the political process is a much more personal one than it is in many. It's not hard to get to know all the people in an area, in the very small communities like Mesachie Lake or Honeymoon Bay. It was really interesting, during the election, a couple of canvasses.... You pretty well know what to expect and who to expect at the door of every house. I'm thoroughly enjoying the new riding.

I've been out in the riding a lot over the last six months. My first task, it seems to me, is to get to know all those people as best I can, and the community groups. Certainly there have been a lot of people knocking on my door. We have had a lot of interaction

[ Page 48 ]

in the last little while. I think that we're developing a very positive rapport, and I will be bringing all those voices to this Legislature during the next few years.

There's a wide diversity of people in my riding. As I say, we've got nine small communities, and they go from fairly condensed urban centres to very rural areas. It's a very interesting riding. I'm very pleased to say that we have four native bands in my area: the Chemainus band, the Halalt band, Penelakut, and the Cowichan, which is the largest native band in British Columbia. Native people play a very significant role in the Cowichan-Ladysmith area, and I look forward to continuing to work with them and everyone in my riding for a long time.

Forest issues were central in my area during the election. Lake Cowichan communities, and in fact all of my riding, depend very heavily on the forest industry. As a result, they have been very hard hit, particularly over the last decade. As we all know, we've had years and years of mismanagement, overcutting and neglect that was not at all benign. People in my area have paid and paid heavily, and continue to pay, for the mismanagement on the part of government, primarily.

There have been a lot of difficult times. Fletcher Challenge has recently announced yet another 150 people being laid off, this time as a result primarily of their own internal economic problems. I look forward to watching the things we've already set in motion begin to bear fruit over the next few years so we can stabilize the industry, make it as productive as it can be and stabilize those communities and small businesses which depend so very much on the forest industry for their livelihood.

I was very pleased to note in the throne speech that forestry is a priority. We've already done a number of things, as I mentioned. We've set Stephen Owen's commission -- the Commission on Resources and Environment -- in place. That's beginning to move ahead. Within 18 months the valley-by-valley disputes which were so destructive should no longer occur on Vancouver Island, which has been the hot spot for forestry disputes, as people in the Lake Cowichan area know better than anybody, because they have worked in the Walbran and the Carmanah, where the front line, if you like, of the battle has been.

I'm really very pleased we moved so quickly to put together such a big task for the Commission on Resources and Environment and the log-around strategy.

I remember very clearly standing on my feet during the election and making a commitment. After consultation with environmental people in the area who were concerned, with the forest company and the IWA, I discovered it was indeed possible to log around in that area, and we've followed through with that promise so the majority of the area will be held in abeyance until we discover how best to use it and to log it, or not log parts of it. A tremendous amount of work on that done has been already with the Walbran committee. I'm sure that that work will be recognized and included in Stephen Owen's commission.

I was also very pleased to note at the time that Sandy Peel's Forest Resources Commission was given another task. They certainly carried out their last one admirably, and I look forward to them coming back to this Legislature and to the ministry with a new forest practices code. It's certainly long overdue in British Columbia, and I'm pleased our government has taken the initiative and is acting on those very important issues.

[3:45]

The opposition today commended us on our strong action and position on the softwood lumber deal, and that's obviously critical to ridings like mine and to many communities around British Columbia. I know we will continue to fight against that very unfair deal and try to counter the effects of the American protectionist action and to make it a fair deal for British Columbia, not a great deal for the United States.

All of these things we've set in motion will bear fruit down the road. We also heard in the throne speech a commitment to legislation that will get a better return for our resources. Sandy Peel's commission identified $6 billion of revenue from our forest industry that somehow fell through the cracks under previous administrations because of sloppy enforcement and management techniques and poor management of our resources. I am pleased to see there will be controls over marking, scaling and movement of logs that are designed to capture some of the revenue British Columbians are not realizing from their important forest resources.

I'm also pleased to see there will be amendments to the Forest Act. We certainly said a lot about that in opposition. The enforcement of reforestation is something we all have a vested interest in, although it's not a major problem in my riding; most of the lands are restocked. But a fair determination of harvesting levels ought to be legislated and very clearly set out in the Forest Act. I think all of us would be a little more comfortable knowing that the stability and predictability was there in legislation.

I'm very pleased to see that forestry has been prioritized. Although we still suffer some problems that hit families and individuals in our communities, I have been meeting with the minister, the IWA and the company, and everyone is committed to a cooperative process to put everything on the table and to discover all possible ways to minimize that impact. I look forward to continuing that dialogue and to working with the communities and all of the stakeholders in that area to ensure that we deal with this latest crisis as best we can and move forward to a more stable industry for the future.

I think it's fair to say that in areas like mine and many others that depend on the forest industry, jobs are very high on the agenda. Certainly they are in my riding. It's obviously difficult to embark on great job-creation programs when you're faced with the kind of deficit that we have inherited from the previous administration. However, I am pleased to say that we have again taken some of those steps that in the long run will certainly benefit all of us and start to develop that second layer of industry that we need so much in British Columbia. After 120-odd years, we continue to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, because we have never had a deliberate strategy to create the

[ Page 49 ]

secondary manufacturing that we need to protect us from the world markets. Every time there is a blip in the world, we're shaken in British Columbia. It's about time we did take steps to develop that secondary manufacturing, to make sure that our resources produce jobs for our people. Those are precisely the kinds of steps that were set in motion with the Working Opportunity Fund and venture capital programs and partnerships to diversify local economies. I am very pleased to see that.

It's also good to see that we've got consultation happening with B.C. labour and business to implement labour-market and labour-force adjustment programs. In areas such as mine, when people are thrown out of work, one of the questions asked -- and I just met with all the shop stewards a few days ago -- is: we can understand that these jobs have to go, but where do we go now? Obviously, there's a need for training and retraining in British Columbia to close the gap between what's required in the industry and the kinds of skills that people have. There is a significant gap, and a lot of people are dislocated.

So I'm pleased that the consultation process is happening, so that we can start to align our education and retraining programs with the actual market needs and get on with the job of working as quickly as we can towards retraining people so they can find appropriate jobs.

It's important, too, to note that the job protection commission has been strengthened. I think that workers have been ignored for too long in this province. The job protection commission and complementary programs will help communities, like those in my area, that are facing major adjustments. I'm pleased to see that some of those supports are being put in place, although it's so early in our mandate -- having not yet been five months in government -- that they obviously haven't borne fruit yet.

Forestry is a major issue, as is health care. If I was to say what the two major issues in the election were, they would be forestry and health care. There has been a great deal of concern, particularly in the Ladysmith area, about the future and management of the hospital and just how it ought to be and will be run, for the people who live there now and also down the road for future generations.

Similarly, there's been a lot of confusion for the last eight or ten months over the building of a new hospital in Chemainus. The 75-bed, multilevel care home is going to replace what was an acute hospital. It's being used for a multilevel care home now. I am pleased that our government is very committed to building that hospital. I've been working with the board, the administrator and the ministry, and I think we've got everybody singing the same tune now. Hopefully we'll be able to get on with the building of that hospital as quickly as possible. I think we're all eager to see it happen. There will, of course, be a diagnostic and treatment centre or emergency centre attached to it.

There is controversy, however. The residents of Chemainus feel very strongly that there ought to be 24-hour emergency care, and there's some question about whether or not there ought to be a day surgery in that hospital.

Given all the questions hanging over health care in our area -- primarily focused on those two hospital but also in the community generally -- I worked with the Minister of Health, and I'm very pleased that we have been able to have a unique and front-edge study happen in the Cowichan-Ladysmith area. We had $150,000 granted to us so we can work as a community, in an innovative and consensual way, to identify what we have coming into our community in terms of health dollars -- not just institutional dollars but all of those dollars coming into our community.

Through a public process of collaboration with stakeholders in identifying needs and looking at what we have and what we ought to have, we should be able to come up with a consensus of our priorities in the area. From that consensus we can look at how we work to reach those goals. I look forward to working with and in my community for those kinds of things.

Cowichan-Ladysmith has demonstrated again and again that the people have the ability to be creative and innovative and work together for positive, collective change. Public participation is absolutely key in that process. I feel quite confident that the people in my area will jump into the fray and make the process a very positive one that we can all be proud of -- a model for health care delivery in our rural communities around the province.

I think everyone is very pleased to see that our government.... Of course our party, the CCF, and Tommy Douglas, who once represented our area, brought medicare to this country, beginning in Saskatchewan, and therefore we can be very proud of the fact that we have one of the best health care systems in the world. We New Democrats have a very strong interest in making sure that this system is maintained, strengthened and workable.

As the Seaton commission showed very clearly, there hasn't been much in the way of planning, goal-setting or checks to see that we're doing what we need to do and getting the best use of our health care dollars. I'm pleased to see that the Minister of Health is beginning to look very seriously at how we can better and more effectively use our health care dollars.

I'm sure many communities will welcome an independent audit of hospital waiting-lists and the increased resources for those community services, such as community care and mental health, that were announced in the throne speech.

I was particularly pleased to hear that the ambulance service previously known as Gran Air is going to be rationalized, pulled together and made far more effective and efficient. It will cost the people of British Columbia less while providing better ambulance service. I'm pleased to see that it is in fact happening.

There are a couple of other issues in my riding. The economy is primarily based on forestry, and the other two are tourism and agriculture. So there are three parts to the economy, although there are many other things, of course. They are the three major players in the economy. I am pleased to see in the throne speech that we are not just talking about buy B.C. or B.C. business, but that we're taking very clear, solid steps towards supporting B.C. business by making it a government

[ Page 50 ]

policy to buy from B.C. business wherever possible. In the last administration, we saw programs such as Music '91. There was $30 million, and lots of it was going across the border into the States. Wherever possible we need to buy from British Columbia businesses, because those are the people who pay taxes here and are certainly good corporate citizens for the most part. I am pleased to see that we're taking very positive steps in that direction.

I was also pleased to see that there's going to be a new tourism act. Tourism has been underrecognized in this province. It's one of the largest job producers in the provinces, and it's the second-largest revenue generator. It's certainly a player in my area. We have a very active and innovative tourism community in all parts of my riding. I think everybody here knows Chemainus, "the little town that did," and it's still doing -- and doing a tremendous job. Ladysmith is the light-up capital of Vancouver Island, and they're doing a tremendous job in moving ahead.

Duncan, the city of totems, is capitalizing on the community there and the many natural benefits in that area. Lake Cowichan also is beginning to develop its tourism potential around the lake. I look forward to working with all those groups -- and I have already -- to make sure that this tourism potential is developed. There's lots of it there. A new tourism act, I am sure, will recognize the importance of that industry.

Of course, we have a unique situation in my riding where the tourism and forest industries are working very closely together. There's no question in anybody's mind how important a well-managed forest sector is for the forest industry, and how important well-managed and healthy forests are for the tourism industry. There's also no question how important those good union paycheques are for small business and tourism in my area. I think all of that will be happily recognized.

I'm very pleased to see that our government has put into action those things that we were saying during the election and before -- policies that clearly put people first. The member for Richmond East a little while ago gave a very eloquent statement on women's equality, and I congratulate her on her first speech; it was very well done. We have begun to take some real steps. With the last government we saw the nine-month road show that gave birth to three medals and a logo contest, but already we've seen some very concrete action from this government.

In this legislature, for the first time in British Columbia history, women have a real voice in government. We have seven women in cabinet. I'm the Chair of caucus. We have a woman Speaker, and women play a very significant role on all the cabinet and other committees in our caucus and in our government. I'm very proud of that. Certainly women's presence has made a difference to the Legislature and to the system, and I think it's a very positive one. I look forward to more of it.

[4:00]

I was also delighted that we were able to move so quickly, in spite of the financial constraints we face, to give core funding operating funds to women's centres. Women have struggled for years. I don't have a women's centre in my riding yet; I hope to have one before too long. I know that in Nanaimo, where I was the MLA prior to the election, the women were in tears when they heard the announcement. They were just overwhelmed with the fact that a government finally recognized the role they play in the community and recognized it not with platitudes and words but with hard, cold cash so that they can carry on to do that good work, do it more and do it better.

Of course, we all remember the great battle of the Nanaimo hospital, when the board decided to shut down all abortions for women. I was very pleased that my colleague, who remains the member for Nanaimo, and I were able to be part of overturning that decision within a month. We shouldn't have to put up that struggle, hon. Speaker, and I am pleased that this government has reaffirmed its commitment to reproductive choice for women.

I'm also pleased to see that we have articulated again our desire to see better human rights legislation and in fact have committed ourselves to bringing in a human rights code that prohibits discrimination on the basis of marital status, age, sexual orientation or family status. It's about time. As one who has been a single mother for years, I know what the family status discrimination is about. I've been refused housing, for instance, on lots of occasions for the sin of being a single parent. I look forward to seeing all of those things entrenched in the human rights code.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Similarly, our government has made a commitment to fair and balanced labour legislation. I don't think I need to talk very much about that, because it has been a major issue for the last five years. We've committed ourselves to it again and again, and the commitment is clear in this throne speech. We can look forward to labour legislation developed in consultation -- legislation that will be non-confrontational, will facilitate better labour relations in this province and will be fair to all.

Again, I am pleased to see the recognition of native people's inherent right to self-government and of aboriginal title. I know that there's a tremendous amount of work going on to start the negotiation process.

All these issues are important to people in my area, specifically the first few that I mentioned. I'm glad that we're taking the first steps toward making British Columbia the kind of place that we all want to live in and be in, and toward turning the direction of government around to be more amenable to the reality of British Columbia society and British Columbia communities.

There's one other issue that people are extremely concerned about, and I think this is provincewide. I certainly have very active groups in my constituency on environmental issues. It is interesting; my riding was where the south Island accord was developed. I think that's an indication of the fact that although people are at odds on the issues in one sense, in fact we all want the same thing. We want a clean environment, and we want our resources better managed. We want them

responsi-

[ Page 51 ]

bly managed so that our future generations -- our children and our children's children -- have the same kind of opportunities that our parents and grandparents had. I'm pleased that some sweeping reforms are coming in environmental legislation, the renewal of B.C.'s environmental legislation and the introduction of new wildlife, fisheries, water management and environmental protection legislation. That's certainly long overdue.

The one that I really appreciate is the new environmental assessment act. When I was elected in the by-election in 1989, I woke up the next morning to deal with the infamous ferrochromium plant that started in Bamberton and ended up.... I don't know where it is now, but it sort of slid off Port Hardy somewhere. Through that process, which was certainly baptism by fire for me, I discovered that we -- in terms of society through the government -- have in the past been investing huge amounts of money in projects such as the ferrochromium plant.

I think it was $10 million that was already committed to that plant -- and that they in fact could build it. Then once we had paid all that money and they had invested a total of $40 million, and the thing was sitting there, then there would be an environmental review of some sort. Well, it seemed pretty easy to me. I didn't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that that's not the way we should do it. If we're concerned about environmental protection, you've got to put the horse before the cart, not the cart before the horse.

I did manage to gain an admission from the government of the day that that was the wrong way around, and they promised to look at it. I suppose that's what they did, but we didn't see much else happen. So I'm pleased to see that an environmental assessment act will be coming down.

Similarly a clean-up of contaminated sites. That's been an issue in the northern part of my riding, and we all look forward to legislation that will encourage waste reduction, recycling and reuse, and also a clean air strategy. I think those are some very positive steps in a direction that we all want to go in this province.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I must advise you that the allotted time has passed.

L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, I stand before you here this afternoon as a very proud individual, an individual who is extremely pleased to be representing the very beautiful constituency of Prince George-Omineca here in this Legislature. I bring you greetings from our constituents.

Our constituency, like others, was formed by the Fisher commission, amalgamating the western portion of Prince George South with the eastern portion of Omineca. The reason I mention these two ridings is that I would like to recognize the contribution that the two previous members made throughout their many years of service to their constituents and to this province. Both Mr. Jack Kempf, the MLA for Omineca, and Mr. Bruce Strachan, the MLA for Prince George South, were extremely hard-working and dedicated individuals. It is my commitment to my constituents, and to this assembly, to be the same, and that I will uphold the trust placed in me by my constituents.

I would like to congratulate the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker upon obtaining your very honourable and respected positions in this House. I look forward, under your direction, to a very productive legislative session.

At this time, hon. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the other 74 members for their success at the polls. Each of us, I am sure, had a team of industrious and devoted individuals who gave willingly many hours and many days, perhaps even months in the last case. Because of the faith and trust that they placed in us as individuals and in our respective parties, it is to their credit that we are all here, successful, today.

As well, I would like to recognize those who put their names forward as candidates but were not successful in the last election, and their contribution to the process. There are many sacrifices that we, as politicians, must make in order to serve our communities, province or country, but none any greater than giving up the time we spend with our families. It is therefore extremely important that I recognize the support I have had from my wife and family over the last 14 years while I served in local politics and now during what I hope will be a long and successful career in this Legislature. Hon.

Speaker, at this time I would ask special leave to introduce my wife who is now in the gallery. Accompanying her is a longtime friend of the family. Some of the members may recognize the author of the Williams report on health care done a little over a year ago for the greater Victoria hospital district, Dr. Ken Williams.

The Prince George-Omineca riding is located in the heart of this great province. In fact, Vanderhoof, the community I live in, is recognized as the geographical centre of British Columbia. In this riding we have four incorporated communities -- Prince George, Vanderhoof, Fort St. James and Fraser Lake -- as well as one unincorporated community, which is Fort Fraser. It is not my intent to talk extensively on the history of these communities. However, it's important to note that three of these -- Fort Fraser, Fort St.

James and a portion of Prince George -- played an important role in our history and the development of northern B.C., and that Fraser Lake is one of the youngest communities in B.C., incorporated only in 1966. Prince George is the true economic hub of northern B.C. It is known internationally as the spruce capital of the world, and it is an important centre for the delivery of government and industrial services.

On his quest to establish trading posts at the headwaters of the Fraser River for the Hudson's Bay Co., Simon Fraser created the townsites of Fort St. James, Fort George and Fort Fraser during the time when B.C. was known as New Caledonia. In fact, Fort St. James was the first capital of New Caledonia and therefore, I suppose, the first capital of British

Colum

[ Page 52 ]

bia. I sometimes wonder: if our forefathers had left the capital in that community, what would our province be like today? Perhaps I'd be Municipal Affairs minister, as the member for Victoria is.

I'd like to speak of some of the expectations my constituents and I have of this government, some of which were promises made by the Premier and his colleagues during and before the election, and some of which have been expressed over the last several years.

Our constituency's economy, not unlike many others in the north and the rural areas of this province, is largely based on a healthy climate for forestry and mining. Although the agriculture and tourism industries have developed into a substantial part of our economic base in the last 20 years, they cannot support the infrastructure required to provide the employment needed to sustain and deliver the quality of life we desire in the interior. In these resource-based communities, we understand the need to have a sustainable forest. We understand the need to be sensitive to the environment.

But unlike many of the environmental pressure groups of today, we also know it's important to our existence that this government recognizes it must come forward with policies that will allow the extraction of resources to continue in a planned and shared manner.

[4:15]

Hon. Speaker, this government has allowed five months to drift by without addressing any crucial issues. During this time they have spent countless tax dollars and staff time attempting to build their platform for future elections instead of dealing with the slumping economy, largely due to a lack of confidence in this government by business and industry, in my view.

If there's one message that I received during the last election, it was that the people of British Columbia are tired of political rhetoric. They want their elected representatives to do what's right for British Columbia and not necessarily what's right for their respective parties. So the challenge for this government is to get on with the job of creating a positive climate in this great province for industry and business. This will enable them to continue, in some comfort, to make long-term investments that will benefit British Columbians through job creation and thereby contribute to our badly needed revenues.

To the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, I need more encouragement. Would you please speak up?

During the last five months we've seen this government renege on several of the promises that they have made. Some were done in the name of restraint; others were obviously only a ploy to gain votes. I speak now of the commitment to northern B.C. to establish a cancer clinic in Prince George. As I understand, the Prince George cancer clinic has not yet gone the way of the Kamloops clinic. However, now that the election is over, it has become less of a priority to this government, the member for Prince George North and the hon. member for Prince George-Mount Robson.

I wish to go on record as establishing that while sitting in this House, it is my intent to continually remind the government of the promise that it made to northern B.C. to establish a cancer clinic in Prince George.

Another promise made during the campaign was that this government would not raise taxes. However, the Finance minister has hinted on numerous occasions that he's considering imposing some new taxes, as well as raising some existing ones. My constituency is extremely concerned about any tax hikes. Many small businesses are presently hanging on by a shoestring. Increased taxation would, without a doubt, cause more businesses to go into receivership and thereby create more unemployment.

As I mentioned earlier, the economy of the Prince George-Omineca constituency is heavily dependent on a healthy forest industry. In the last few years, we have seen many jobs lost because of environmental concerns, economic problems caused by low lumber prices, a high Canadian dollar and the present stumpage formula.

The stumpage formula was created in an attempt to satisfy the U.S. Congress so that it would not place a tariff on our softwood exports. However, in spite of the efforts of British Columbia and its government, as well as the federal government, it would appear that American protectionism is winning the political battle. It doesn't seem to matter how much proof we provide the United States, our softwood industry is not subsidized.

I therefore suggest that the Forests minister give serious consideration to amending the stumpage formula to reflect some of the anomalies that exist and that place undue hardship on independent sawmills in northern B.C. In many cases these sawmills have been the innovators of the industry.

Hon. Speaker, another issue which has been the focus of much discussion within our riding over the last 14 years is the Kemano completion project. During the last ten years there has been growing concern among the people of the Nechako Valley that this project should proceed through a major project review process. The valley must have the opportunity to review the impact from both an environmental and socioeconomic perspective. I have written the hon. Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks and requested this review. As well, I have asked the members for Prince George through to North Coast to join with me.

It is imperative that we resolve this issue so that the communities in the Nechako Valley can with some certainty plan their economic futures.

Indeed, the economic future of northern British Columbia was very bright the day the previous government passed the University of Northern British Columbia Act. In July 1990 it became a reality. Northerners would be able to obtain a university degree from a full, free-standing university built in Prince George. Education was a priority.

But now it looks as if the NDP is reneging on the commitment that they made in voting yes to the Social Credit legislation establishing UNBC. I'm very concerned with the recent announcement that the opening of UNBC will be delayed for a year and with the throne speech hint that the university could probably be downgraded.

This action would be uncalled for. Northerners were promised a full-fledged university, not a university college or a degree-granting institution that is a branch plant of a current university. We were promised UNBC,

[ Page 53 ]

a university that would provide affordable post-secondary education to the people living in northern B.C. Without a doubt, UNBC as a true university would lead the economic diversification of our north. I and the constituents of Prince George-Omineca ask that the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology reassure us that the University of Northern British Columbia will remain a university as it was originally planned and promised.

Another issue addressed in the throne speech which has serious ramifications for northern British Columbia is the so-called fair wage policy. In fact, it appears that the proposed policy would lead to hiring of workers out of the Vancouver union halls at the expense of local people who would have otherwise been hired. This wage-fixing policy would cost the taxpayers about $200 million more in higher wage costs for public construction projects. We all heard the Minister of Municipal Affairs today refuse to answer the concerns that I had with respect to the extra costs on the municipal project.

It will also widen the wage gap between the male-dominated construction jobs and the female-dominated clerical positions in those same companies. It is totally unacceptable from a government which espouses the virtues of pay equity. We won't look to the Liberals to help, because they support this policy.

I would also like to comment briefly on the statement in the throne speech referring to open government. Prince George-Omineca constituents have not to this point been the benefactors of any open doors. In fact, the opposite is true. Let me provide a few examples.

In January I wrote the Minister of Forests on behalf of a small independent sawmill requesting a meeting. This sawmill survives primarily on what's known as opportunity wood, which I referred to earlier as one of the anomalies in the stumpage formula. A shutdown would have cost the community of Vanderhoof 125 jobs. However, after waiting two weeks in anticipation of a reply, the Forests minister replied by refusing to meet the small business.

Also, on February 11 of this year -- five weeks ago -- I wrote the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks requesting a meeting on behalf of the mayor of Vanderhoof. At this point, hon. Speaker, I have not yet received a reply.

Two weeks ago the village of Fort St. James, at great expense, brought a delegation to Victoria to discuss issues of significance to that community. They arrived to talk to several ministers but found those doors closed. I will read from a copy of a letter sent to the Premier from Her Worship Mayor Sandra Kovacs of Fort St. James: "It's a source of great concern to the council that not one cabinet minister was able to meet with us." I suggest to you, hon. Speaker, that it is not a good example of open government.

Finally, I would like to address the throne speech, which announced conflict-of-interest legislation. If this does become a reality, we can only hope it will address the current conflict of the cabinet ministers who are presently on leave from their jobs in order to serve in the provincial government and in cabinet. They will be making decisions which, I am sure, will affect their salaries and their paycheques when they return to working for the public service.

Hon. Speaker, it has been a privilege for me to stand before you today and give you the thoughts from the great constituency of Prince George-Omineca. I look forward to working with you and this government in the best interests of the people of British Columbia and the people of my constituency.

L. Krog: Firstly, hon. Speaker, might I extend my congratulations to the Speaker of the House and to yourself on your selection as Speaker and Deputy Speaker. I might add, in reference to yesterday's remarks by the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet, that in fact I was well beyond elementary school when you were first elected in 1972.

I am pleased to be sitting here; we all are. But I feel it only appropriate to pass on to the members of the assembly remarks made to me by Mark Rose yesterday, when he noted my particular position in the Legislature. He indicated to me that if I had been moved only slightly leftward I would have been a Page and not an MLA.

I want to extend my compliments also to the hon. member for Okanagan West -- I believe it is Mr. Serwa -- who, when I introduced myself to him, indicated to me that my name was not unknown in this House already. He said, "You are an honest man, I understand," or words to that effect. I hope that I will never fail him in that kind appellation he extended to me.

I must say that the absence of the former Premier from this assembly gives me some distress. I had hoped to be able to address him directly on some occasion, but unfortunately that learned gentleman suffered a fate at the polls which has become known as being Krogged.

I wish to extend my compliments to all members who have spoken so far. I think that this province is going to be well served by the individuals who have been selected to govern British Columbia for this coming term. I do not say that simply about the members of government but about the members of the opposition party and the third party as well. We are probably the most educated, best educated and, I hope, most competent Legislature that has ever been assembled in the province of British Columbia. If we are not, we are indeed in great trouble, because the problems that face us are equally enormous and will be daunting tasks, to say the least.

I represent the constituency of Parksville-Qualicum. Parksville-Qualicum is one of those new creations of the Fisher commission, and I pay my compliments as well to the former government in instituting, without reservation, the recommendations of the Fisher commission on electoral boundaries, which created an opportunity for me to run in a constituency that contains my home town, Coombs, B.C. The constituency is a wonderful mix of urban and rural. It includes the northern third of the city of Nanaimo, the city of Parksville, the town of Qualicum Beach and many other smaller communities, such as Hilliers and Bowser and Errington and Little Qualicum.

[4:30]

[ Page 54 ]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Those areas are well represented by municipal officials, and I would be unfair if I did not name them here in this House today: in particular, Mayor Joy Leach of Nanaimo, who is well known to many members in this House; Mayor Jack Collins of Qualicum Beach; Mayor Paul Reitsma of Parksville. Anton Kruyt, who is chairman of the Regional District of Nanaimo, provides leadership to that body, which is coming to grips very quickly with what is the major problem facing my area -- as well as its major blessing -- and that is its enormous growth.

The retirement community in Parksville-Qualicum now represents a greater portion of the society demographically than it does in the city of Victoria. The city of Victoria, which was once referred to unkindly as the city of the newly wed and the nearly dead, has probably lost that position to my area, unfortunately, in terms of the nearly dead. There is a demand for hospitals, a demand for all kinds of facilities, and I serve notice on the government of which I am a member that I'll be looking for and seeking support for all those institutions that my area so desperately requires.

The constituency of Parksville-Qualicum has amalgamated a number of old constituencies and a number of old federal ridings in the past. At a federal level it is represented now by Dave Stupich in the south end and Bob Skelly in the north end -- two British Columbians who served in this House for many years, and served the people of this province very ably. Predecessors in the federal level have included Tom Barnett and Ted Miller and Ted Schellenberg, and two individuals whose names are well known: Colin Cameron and no less a figure than Tommy Douglas himself.

It is a great curse to represent an area that had Tommy Douglas as its federal member at one point, because I'm afraid that all political figures in my area will always be judged by that standard, and it is a standard which I never expect to exceed. Provincially, it has been represented by Dale Lovick, the hon. sitting member for Nanaimo; Jan Pullinger, the hon. sitting member for Cowichan-Ladysmith; and formally, on a provincial level as well, David Stupich, Stan Hagen and Karen Sanford. In deference to the third party, I must pay particular tribute to Mr. Hagen, who worked very hard for his constituents.

I can point to a number of public projects that have been the worthy recipients of numerous GO B.C. grants that have allowed the creation of numerous halls and public facilities. I would be unfair if I did not compliment Mr. Hagen on his hard efforts in that area.

As I said, growth in that area is a pressing and major problem. In the town of Qualicum Beach itself, the record year for construction was $13 million in 1990. In 1991 that record was exceeded: it was $26 million worth of new construction. And I think the members assembled here will understand what that means in terms of problems for a municipal and regional government. The school enrolment alone in District 69, which is the Qualicum-Parksville area itself not including Nanaimo, is some 20 percent. That presents enormous problems for my constituents, and those are the problems that I hope to address in my term in office as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for Parksville-Qualicum.

I might add that we are a hardy, self-reliant bunch in my constituency. We exceed the provincial average of private home ownership. Seventy-eight percent of homes are privately owned; that is well above the provincial average of 62 percent