1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

21 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Meat-processing plant. Mr. Rose –– 21

Sale of B.C. prefab houses to South Africa. Mr. Barnes –– 22

Unemployment. Mr. Clark –– 23

B.C. Ferries deck structure. Mr. Huberts –– 23

Price of beer. Mr. Lovick –– 23

Throne speech debate

Mr. Skelly –– 23

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 30

Ms. Edwards –– 32

Mrs. Gran –– 34

Mr. Sihota –– 36

Mr. Dirks –– 38

Mr. Guno –– 41

Mr. Mercier –– 44

Tabling Documents –– 46

The House met at 2 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to

welcome to the Legislature Mr. John Leech, who is the executive

director with the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of

British Columbia. John's group of about 5,000 members was granted

separate legislation in 1985 to regulate training and practice of

technologists and technicians, graduates of the British Columbia

Institute of Technology and community colleges. John is also serving as

president of the BCIT Alumni Association and put in a term on the board

of governors of BCIT. He is joined by Mr. Jim Bennett, who is well

known to many members of the House and served as the ministerial

assistant to a very distinguished former member of this House, Dr.

McGeer. I wish the House to bid them welcome.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome,

from the great constituency of Port Alberni, my campaign manager during

the last election campaign, Marlene Dietrich, who is here with another

campaign worker, Karen Johnston. They are here today to observe the

response to the throne speech. With them is another campaign worker

over many years, my wife, Alexandra Skelly.

HON. MR. DAVIS: In the gallery this afternoon, Mr. Speaker,

we have Mr. and Mrs. Larry Page of West Vancouver and Mr. and Mrs. Art

Clemiss of North Vancouver. I'm sure members of the House would like to

bid them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to join

with me in welcoming our new Pages with us today. The Pages are from

Shoreline Junior High School in View Royal, which is located in the

fine riding of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

HON. MR. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure this afternoon

to welcome from the great riding of Comox two friends of mine, Mr. and

Mrs. Stan Rowe.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to welcome a

visitor to the House from Alberta, the MLA for Vegreville, Mr. Derek

Fox, who happens to be in a huge loyal opposition in Alberta.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a horoscope here:

"If March 10 is your birthday, current cycle

highlights cooperative efforts, possible partnership, marriage. There

could be an addition to the family; married or single, you could go

into business for yourself. You'll have success in dealings with

public, especially women."

And with that said I would ask the House to join with me in offering

many happy returns to the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms.

Campbell).

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a friend

of mine from Creston who is currently a student at the University of

Victoria, Troy Lanigan. Welcome to the House.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to make welcome

two people from my constituency, as well as another guest in the House: first

of all, Ivy Ford, a very hard-working member of my constituency association;

also, Jim Morrison, who is a resident of the Falkland community. He's accompanied

today by his father, Bill Morrison. I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for

me to welcome an old friend, a good supporter and hard worker from that

great constituency of Kamloops. Would the House please make welcome Mr.

Ed Sawatzky.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in the House today we have a former

member of the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff who served our House well for so

many years, Mr. Bill Roach. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. BARNES: On behalf of the former second member for

Vancouver-Point Grey, I would like to ask the House to join me in

making welcome all those people who have not yet been made welcome.

With that, will we please welcome everybody else in the galleries.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome a very special friend of mine: my husband, John Gran, from Langley.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I

introduce to this House two very fine ladies who work very hard for the

great constituency of Langley as constituency secretaries. Would the

House please extend a very warm welcome to Marjorie Allen and Ida

Fallowfield.

Oral Questions

MEAT-PROCESSING PLANT

MR. ROSE: As his former Member of Parliament, I have the

honour of lobbing the first marshmallow question to the Premier. I

would like to ask the Premier: since he returned from his recent

vacation in Europe, one of his announcements was made for a $50 million

processing plant in the Prince George-Vanderhoof area to be constructed

as early as this summer. I wonder if the Premier can give the people of

B.C. some more details of this souvenir from Europe and if he can name

the company that will undertake this project.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Initial discussions with respect to

this meat-processing plant in the Prince George-Vanderhoof area

commenced just before our conference with municipal leaders on

decentralization, and I had a further meeting and discussed in detail

the prospects for this plant with the mayor of Vanderhoof and others

attending the conference. Following that meeting, because I was

traveling to Europe, it was agreed that I would meet with one of the

proponents in Germany, and one of the proponents — the gentleman is

resident in Vanderhoof for a good part of the year, although he also

has a residence in West Germany — took me to a meat processing plant

which is similar to or would be similar to that which is proposed to be

established in Prince George.

The name of the plant that I saw in Munster, Germany, was

Westfleisch, and it's a model from which the plant in Prince George or

Vanderhoof will be copied. The proposal, too, is to provide for a feed

mill in Vanderhoof and possibly

[ Page 22 ]

Williams Lake, and the plans are being worked on

right now. The gentleman is returning to Canada. I guess perhaps this

week is when he was planning to return, so I'm hoping to hear from him

almost any day, at which time we'll commence further discussions as to

what it is that we perhaps can do immediately to encourage this

proceeding forthwith.

It's a facility that will employ a considerable number of people,

but it's also very complementary to what's being proposed or worked on

for Dawson Creek. It's in keeping, too, with another proposal —

potentially, at least — for a tannery in the Quesnel area.

[2:15]

MR. ROSE: I'd just like to respond that the name of the plant, Westfleisch, bristles with imagery.

I would like to ask whether, since the minister claims that this

plant will employ 600 workers to process 2,000 head of cattle and 5,000

hogs a week, the Premier is aware that there was recently a shutdown by

B.C. Packers of a similar dual-purpose plant that's hogs and cattle and

that happened in Winnipeg. One company spokesman said that there was to

be awarded this Westfleisch plant substantial government assistance.

Would you, as the Premier, be prepared to tell the House, since the

minister has said he intends to get the government off the backs of the

people, how much this plant is going to cost the people of British

Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, Mr. Speaker, whatever the

proposal put forth, the initial consideration or the immediate

consideration is what is the investment by the proponents? In this

particular proposal what may be asked, and certainly it hasn't been

discussed as yet but what I expect will be asked of us, is that we

assist the farmers, because we have to get a number of beef and hogs

available fairly quickly. You can't have a plant sitting waiting too

long. So we need to perhaps be involved in somehow assisting the

farmers of the region. Now we've not discussed that, but I expect that

is the approach they might be taking.

What is very attractive, however, about a German company

establishing in British Columbia is that not only do they build the

facility, and not only do they bring with them a particular expertise,

but also they are bringing with them markets. The proposal again is to

market the product, a good part of which will be fancy sausages, in the

U.S.A. as well as in Germany and other markets they already know to be

available to them.

MR. ROSE: As a supplementary, the people of British Columbia

would want to be assured that the plant is for real and is not just

another headline. Since the minister mentioned it himself, I'd like to

ask the minister, since B.C. produces only 60,000 finished cattle per

year and the plant, to be economically efficient, will need 100,000,

how will this increased production of cattle and hogs be accomplished?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Speaker, there's no shortage of

land and there's no shortage of people in the north country who are well

able to raise cattle and hogs once they know or are reasonably assured there's

a good market available for the product. So I have every faith and every belief

that the people of the north will respond to this new industry and the potential

for it and not only provide for themselves an income in establishing a business,

but hire a lot of people in the process. So I'm very enthusiastic about

that aspect of it.

Now as far as the headlines are concerned, I don't write the

headlines but I think this good, positive publicity that we're getting

for British Columbia is most encouraging and will obviously lead to

others wanting to invest or look at B.C. as a place to invest.

MR. ROSE: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, all of us want B.C. to grow

and flourish industrially, in terms of secondary manufacturing of

various kinds. One of the markets mentioned was Europe. The Europeans,

through the EEC, take special pains to protect their markets. I wonder

if the minister has received any assurances from the EEC that they

won't just invoke protective tariffs on B.C. products emanating from

this plant, to protect their own industries. As I understand it, the

world may be waiting for a sunrise, but it's definitely not waiting for

another sausage.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, that's a very good

observation. I agree that marketing in the European Economic Community

countries could certainly be a problem. That very question was raised

during the meetings that I attended in Germany. They provided me with

verbal information to indicate that they in fact had already made some

approach to the appropriate authorities to ensure that they could in

fact market the product in Europe.

SALE OF B.C. PREFAB

HOUSES TO SOUTH AFRICA

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier

concerning the export of houses to South Africa. Last year the Premier

made a rather bizarre suggestion that there was a potential market in

South Africa for British Columbia prefabricated houses. Which companies

has the Premier contacted with respect to marketing such houses, and to

what extent have feasibility studies been conducted in regard to this

proposal?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm still of the opinion

that if in fact there's a way that we can assist the people of South

Africa by providing them with materials that we have plenty of and

which they need for housing, and particularly for housing poor people,

because the proposal, as I recall, was for small, relatively

inexpensive homes....

I'm still of the opinion that this would be good for all sides and

would hopefully go some way to addressing some of the problems that

exist in South Africa. So I am not averse to this proposal, as I said

then and say again. However, it is something for the private sector.

We're not, as a government, in the business of selling or manufacturing

houses. This is something that the private sector can pick up on and

proceed with, if they wish it, and it's not for us to be involved with.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, a brief supplementary. Is the

minister suggesting that he has consulted with no firms in the province

with respect to the possibilities of conducting trade of prefabricated

houses? That was a specific question, naming the companies. If so, to

what extent have feasibility studies been carried out in terms of

economic potential for the province?

[ Page

23 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I was not consulted, nor have I consulted

with any private firms in the province regarding this. I was sent a letter,

perhaps two or three weeks back, indicating that someone was in fact interested

in manufacturing these homes. But my response has been: "Pursue it yourself."

We're not in that business. This is something for the private sector, and

if they wish to pursue it, whether they are here or in Alberta or Quebec or

Ontario, that's their business, but not for the government.

UNEMPLOYMENT

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, job creation is being ignored by this

government. I would like to ask a question to the Premier about his

real priorities when it comes to this issue. Given the fact that over

24 percent of young people between the ages of 15 and 24 are unemployed

in this province, it was shocking to note that the throne speech

contained nothing at all to deal with this problem. Will the Premier

please tell the House now what he has decided to do about this very

serious problem?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether I can

properly answer this in a question period or whether I should better

address it in my response to the Speech from the Throne. I obviously

will have the opportunity then to really elaborate on this, and maybe

that is what I should do. Rather than get into it now, perhaps I

should, if the questioner agrees — I am sure he must — I will defer

until we respond to the Speech from the Throne. I will certainly detail

much more then as to what we intend to do in order to provide

employment opportunity, job opportunity and prosperity in the province.

B.C. FERRIES DECK STRUCTURE

MR. HUBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to

the Minister of Transportation and Highways. In terms of structural

comparisons, the vehicle deck on the British vessel Herald of Free Enterprise is similar to the vehicle decks on the British Columbia Ferry Corporation vessels Queen of Prince Rupert and Queen of the North . What steps have we taken or are we taking to prevent a similar accident occurring on our coastal waters?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for

the question. In terms of structural comparison, the vehicle deck on

the British vessel the Herald of Free Enterprise is similar to the vehicle decks on the British Columbia Ferry Corporation's vessels the Queen of Prince Rupert and the Queen of the North . Both the Queen of Prince Rupert and the Queen of the North

have a closed vehicle deck with sealed watertight doors at both ends.

The forward door is covered by an external door that provides wave

protection. The sealed watertight doors are in the secure position when

the ship leaves the dock. I thank the member again for his question.

PRICE OF BEER

MR. LOVICK: My question is for the Premier of the province and it concerns

promises made. We all know that, as Service said, a promise made is a debt unpaid.

Specifically my question concerns the price of beer. You'll recall....

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: Well, champagne tastes notwithstanding, the price

of beer is the question. The Premier made a parking lot promise during

the election that he would reduce the price of beer. Subsequently,

however, the price has gone up. The question then is whether the

Premier can inform this House, and those ordinary working people who

consume beer, those to whom he made the promise, whether, first, he

will indeed reduce the price of beer, and second, by how much?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't what the price of

beer is today; I'm not a beer drinker, but I've tried to check.

Obviously perhaps the questioner isn't either, because I understand it

is down somewhat, although only on specific brands. That is what I'm

told, but I can't name them.

But, Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to see that the market definitely

is responding. Fortunately some competition is taking place out there,

and there are pressures on the prices, and it has in fact created a

sufficient downward trend that those who enjoy consuming a bottle of

beer are perhaps paying at least, I understand, a fraction less, if

they select the right brands, than they did previously. But also, this

whole matter will no doubt be looked at by the committee or the

ministry looking at the liquor pricing policies and such like, so

hopefully we'll be enlightened a little more after that. But in the

meantime the market appears to be taking care of things reasonably

well, thank you.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. SPEAKER: The opposition leader. [Applause.]

MR. SKELLY: I wish I had that kind of support when I had some

future in this position. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, I think that this is

going to be the last opportunity I'll have to lead off in the throne

speech debate, unless of course I decide to run for leader at the next

convention [laughter], but I'm still thinking about that.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity during

the first part of my speech to congratulate you on your election as

Speaker, and also to congratulate my friend from Dewdney on his

election as Deputy Speaker. All sides of the House, I think, have

respect for the member for Dewdney. I think that you'll both do a fine

job in this position, and we look forward to working with you to make

this Legislature work over the next several years.

[2:30]

I also want to congratulate the mover and the seconder of this

resolution, who in making their maiden speeches in the House were very

eloquent indeed — not that I agreed with everything they had to say,

but then I don't agree with a good percentage of what was in the throne

speech as well.

However, Mr. Speaker, I do think that there are some fundamental

changes that are apparent in some of the wording of the throne speech,

and I'd like to congratulate the Premier to this extent: that he does

recognize the value of the opposition in the Legislature. Years and

years ago — I don't know how far back, but probably 1066 or something

like that — those people who set up this institution in the first place

established an institutionalized opposition in the Legislature.

[ Page 24 ]

It was a wise idea on their part, Mr. Speaker, because the

fundamental advantage of an institutionalized opposition in the

Legislature is that it takes the opposition off the street and brings

it into the Legislature, and allows the government to take advantage of

the wisdom and the knowledge and the representation that members of the

Legislature who are on the opposition side have to offer to the debate

in this Legislative Assembly.

We all saw what happened during the last term of government and over

the last ten years, when it appeared that the government did not

respect the opposition in the Legislature, and in fact at times

appeared to have contempt for the views of the opposition.

At that time the opposition removed itself from the Legislature and

went back into the streets and became sullen and frustrated, and in

fact a very dangerous situation resulted in the province of British

Columbia. I am pleased to see that the first minister of the new

government has taken cognizance of the problem that developed as a

result of that lack of respect for the opposition, and has indicated in

the throne speech that he is now more willing to work with the

opposition and more willing to take advantage of those mechanisms

within the Legislature that help the government members and opposition

members sit down together in a problem solving approach to help deal

with the problems that face us here in the province of British Columbia

today.

When I first came into this Legislative Assembly 14 or 15 years ago,

legislative committees were working at that time, Mr. Speaker. We had

several committees that traveled around the province; that listened to

the people of British Columbia; that heard briefs from all sectors of

society: from community groups, from local governments, from industrial

groups, from trade unions; from all of those people who want

legislators to understand what they have to say; who want legislators

to understand what their position is; and who want legislators from all

political parties to distil that information down, bring it on the

floor of the House, turn it into legislation, and turn it into

administrative and government practice that reflects the views of all

of the people in British Columbia.

Legislative committees have been the eyes and the ears of the

Legislature. They are the opportunity that people have to communicate

with members of the Legislature on a nonpartisan basis. So I'm very

pleased to see that the Premier has indicated in the throne speech that

he is willing now to use those select standing committees of the

Legislature to help make this a much more informed place, to help bring

members of all political parties together to resolve the problems that

we're experiencing here in the province of British Columbia.

I do have one concern, however, Mr. Speaker. That concern is the

test that we administered to the Premier and to the government

yesterday on throne speech day. We gave the minister an opportunity to

test his promise and to test his good faith. That opportunity was an

opportunity to receive an amendment to a motion setting up the select

standing committees of the House, which would have given this House

another opportunity to set up a committee that could deal directly and

in a comprehensive way with some of the problems that face us as a

Legislature. It's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, and it's not a good sign,

that that gesture on the part of the opposition was rebuffed by the

Premier.

Hopefully, sometime within the next few days, before this

Legislature proceeds on for very long, this Premier will present to a

select standing committee of the House terms of reference that will

reflect the concerns that we enunciated and that my colleague from

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley enunciated during the debate on that

amendment. I think it would be very important if the Premier took into

consideration the concerns that we brought to the floor of this House

and gave one of the committees of the Legislature an opportunity to

take those concerns out, to consult with the public, and to see if we

can solve those serious problems that still present themselves in the

province of British Columbia. Even after the efforts over the last few

years, those problems still present themselves: the problem of

unemployment, the problem of poverty, the problem as it affects people

in the region, the problem as it specifically affects groups like

women, visible minorities and native Indians, and as my colleague from

Vancouver East today indicated, especially the 24 percent of people

between the ages of 15 and 24 who find themselves out of work through

no fault of their own simply because the economy in British Columbia is

not growing sufficiently to generate the kinds of jobs that they need

and that they are looking for.

I know that the Premier wants to have this throne speech direct

itself towards the future, to look towards the future. As a result, we

didn't see some of the things that were in previous throne speeches

that looked toward the past and reflected on the past. But I think it's

often important, Mr. Speaker, to do that kind of reflection.

I was very pleased to see this morning the Provincial Secretary draw

our attention to the fact that some of our pioneering members in this

Legislature have passed away during the interregnum, between the last

Legislature and this. I would particularly — also recognizing the loss

of Gordon Gibson — recognize the loss of a member who we consider very

important, Ernie Hall. I just want to draw specifically.... I know that

the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is aware of

this. I want to particularly draw attention to one of Ernie Hall's

better known abilities — one of the abilities that is often sorely

missing in the Legislature. Ernie Hall was a member of our caucus for

many years. He was Provincial Secretary and he was Minister of Tourism.

He had a way, when debate was deadlocked in our caucus or in the party,

often when it was deadlocked in the Legislature and members were taking

very rigid positions on both sides.... Ernie Hall had a technique of

poking fun at both sides, loosening people from their positions a

little bit and getting them to think about how they might come

together, come to some consensus and some conclusion that could be

accepted by all sides.

I think that's a talent, an ability and a perceptiveness that Ernie

Hall had that's sorely missed in this Legislature. Hopefully out of

some of the new talent that's come into the Legislature over the last

election, we'll see some of those talents come to the fore and we'll

see some of that technique that Ernie used with wit and talent being

used on the floor of this Legislature to bring people together to help

them reach consensus, and to help us all in this House to come together

in agreement on serious issues that face the province.

We seriously regret on this side, and I know on the other side of

the House, the loss of our friend and colleague Ernie Hall. I'm very

pleased that the Provincial Secretary has drawn the House's attention

to that this morning.

We also regret the loss of one of our members, Al Passarell, who was of course a member

of both caucuses in this Legislature. It was a very tragic death that Al experienced.

[ Page 25 ]

Public life exerts some difficult demands on people

of this province who commit themselves to public life. It involves a

lot of travel and separation from your family. It involves travel

sometimes under dangerous conditions. I know my colleague from Alberta

will know this with respect to Grant Notley, who lost his life in an

airplane crash in northern Alberta. But it was a serious loss and a

difficult loss for all of us when Al Passarell lost his life in an

airplane crash in the north, serving his constituents to the best of

his ability.

So I'm very pleased that the Provincial Secretary drew the attention

of the Legislature to the loss of those pioneering members. I do hope,

as I say, that the Speaker will convey our regrets to their families

and that the contributions of those members will be recorded in the

history and the journals of this Legislature.

I probably hate to do this, but I want to congratulate the Premier

on his election, and his caucus on their election as well. It's no

secret that I would have preferred a different outcome and that I would

have preferred to have seen the New Democratic Party sitting on the

other side of this House. But I'm very proud of the fact that the NDP

in the last election achieved the highest number of votes that it's

ever achieved in the history of this province. Over 823,000 people

voted for the New Democratic Party. That represents roughly 43 percent,

Mr. Speaker, of all of the electors of the province of British

Columbia. It is a very substantial minority.

When I draw the Premier's attention to the fact that the opposition

is a very important institution in the Legislature, I think it's

important to know that the opposition in this Legislature represents

the wishes and the support of 43 percent of the people of the province

of British Columbia. Because they elected us I think it's very

important for the Premier and the government to take our views into

account, and for the government to take our views into account, and to

use those mechanisms that are available to the Legislative Assembly,

such as standing committees, to make sure that the wisdom, the views

and the intelligence of the members of the opposition and of the

823,000 people they represent are incorporated into the legislation and

into the debate that takes place in this assembly. I am pleased, as I

said before, that the Premier has indicated he is willing to use those

mechanisms that bring the opposition and the government together.

I would like to take this opportunity to introduce some of the fine

new members that we have elected on the New Democratic side of the

Legislature. I am having a little difficulty as a veteran in the

Legislature, Mr. Speaker and fellow members, attaching the faces to the

names. I know it is difficult for members on the other side to tell the

players without the program, and I would like to introduce some of our

members of the Legislature. I hope they can get together with the

members from the other side and work on a problem solving basis in the

Legislature.

First of all, I'd like to start in northern British Columbia. As the

seconder of the throne speech indicated, he doesn't like the Cariboo

being pushed around by a bunch of city slickers. We in Alberni feel the

same way, and we feel we've been pushed around long enough. We've got

several members from northern British Columbia who feel the same way,

and I think they'd find common cause with that second member for

Cariboo (Mr. Vant) in making sure that the voice of northern and

central British Columbia is heard loud and clear in the Legislative

Assembly of British Columbia.

Although I can't mention him by name because of the traditions and

the rules of this House, I would like to introduce the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), a member who has been very active in his

trade union, active and knowledgeable in the pulp and paper industry in

British Columbia. He has worked in a mill that was at one time in the

private sector, then went into the public sector, and is now back in

the private sector again with some public sector support. It's hard to

tell when the private sector isn't the public sector and when the

public sector isn't the private sector. This member has been a good,

solid, hard-working leader in his trade union and a hard worker in the

pulp and paper industry, which generates a good part of the revenue and

a good part of the employment in British Columbia. I am very proud of

this member.

He has also been elected three times to the city council in Prince

Rupert. He has been very active at the local government level, seeking

support for programs to help the people of Prince Rupert and the people

of northwestern British Columbia. I am very proud to introduce the

member for Prince Rupert, who now sits on the opposition side of the

Legislature and will in the future — positive thinking — be sitting on

the government side of the Legislature as NDP member for Prince Rupert.

[2:45]

Second is another northern member of the Legislature, representing the people of Prince

George North — a New Democratic Party member and, I believe, the first woman member

to represent a northern constituency in the history of this Legislative Assembly. She is

active in community affairs, in health issues, in social services issues, and active as a

school trustee in the community of Prince George — active in educational issues.

She is the very popular member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), a member who is going

to be in this Legislature for a long time to come and play an active and important role as

an NDP member in this Legislature, both in opposition and in government when the times comes in a very few years.

Atlin has had a chequered history, Mr. Speaker, but this one is a keeper. A member of the

Nishga Tribal Council, bilingual, his relatives have lived in this province for many, many years.

He's a lawyer. We try to keep the number of lawyers in this House down — for good

reason — but this person is a lawyer skilled in constitutional affairs, and I believe

his advice and his information and his experiences will be helpful to the government as well

as to the opposition in discussing matters related to native land claims. It's a very difficult

issue that we all have to deal with here in the Legislature. I think that this member is going

to provide valued advice to the Premier and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations when

it comes time to deal with those issues in first ministers' conferences.

I hope that the minister and the Premier are prepared to go beyond

the statements made in the throne speech and start to deal with those

issues that native people in this province are concerned about — that

is, the issue of aboriginal claims in this province and the settlement

of those aboriginal claims — so that we as non-Indians and Indian

people in this province can get together as equals and work to the best

benefit of all British Columbians, Indians and non-Indians alike.

From eastern British Columbia we have the member for Kootenay (Ms.

Edwards), and I am pleased that that member has been actively involved

with the communities in her region, with the mining companies and the

mining unions, to

[ Page 26 ]

persuade Ottawa and the government of Ontario to

begin purchasing coal from the Rocky Mountain area of British Columbia,

so that we can expand the market for our thermal coal to get Ontario

Hydro and electricity corporations back east to start burning British

Columbia thermal coal, low sulphur coal. At the same time, she has been

dealing with the problem of acid rain in eastern Canada and dealing

with the problem of unemployment in the coal industry and in the mining

industry in British Columbia.

I have been very proud of that member from the day of her election.

Before she was even down here to get sworn in as a member of the

Legislature, she was working on behalf of her constituents. She was

back in Ottawa, back in Ontario, trying to persuade those eastern

Canadians to buy our coal, metallurgical coal as well as thermal coal,

and to have that coal used in those hydroelectric plants and in the

metallurgical industry in Ontario, so that we could expand and

diversify our markets for our coal and create employment here in

British Columbia. She's an excellent member, Mr. Speaker.

Now there's one thing I think this member didn't consider, and I was

looking at one of the passages in the throne speech here, where this

government plans to use coal to generate hydroelectric power. Now I've

heard of people turning water into wine, but my understanding was that

hydroelectric power was generated by water, and I'm wondering.... I

didn't put this in question period today because we had more important

issues to deal with, but I'm wondering what plans the Premier has to

turn coal into water in order to generate hydroelectric power. I think

the Premier doesn't have the answer to this question, and I think the

member for Kootenay has the right approach. Let's try to sell our coal

to Ontario instead of trying to turn it into water. What kind of

political alchemy is this?

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Well, I don't want to see him make water out of anything.

I'd also like to introduce our members from Vancouver, Mr. Speaker.

We do have some city slickers, because this party represents every

single region of British Columbia. Every single sector of the province,

every single social strata and economic strata and occupation is

represented in this fine group that we have here in the Legislative

Assembly of British Columbia.

I'd like to introduce our new and youthful second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Clark). I understand that when he was elected he

was 28 years old. I was 29, and I'm about to retire. This guy has a

long future ahead of him.

I'd like to congratulate him also for the very courageous and

informed stand he has taken on the issue of West Kootenay Power and

Light. I believe it's an absolute shame that this government has not

taken a firm stand with respect to the sale of West Kootenay Power and

Light to UtiliCorp in the United States.

I think that W.A. C. Bennett today would be turning over in his

grave, because that man realized that the one way the government and

the people of British Columbia have to control their local economy is

to make sure that they have control over the energy resources of this

province, and that control resides within the province and preferably

within the region where those energy resources are located. That was

the principle of the W.A.C. Bennett government; it was a principle of

the Dave Barrett government; and I'm ashamed of the fact that this

government has not taken a firm stand in making sure, as this member

from Vancouver East has requested, that the control and the ownership

of West Kootenay Power and Light remain within the province of British

Columbia, so that the people in the interior of the province can use

that utility as the keystone, as the fundamental basis for their

control over the development proposals for the economy in that region.

It's unfortunate that the Premier and this government have allowed that

utility to slip out of our control and to slip into the hands of a

United States utility. I think that the people of the interior and the

people of this province are going to pay the price for that error

somewhere down the line, and I'm very pleased that our youthful member

for Vancouver East has taken a very strong stand on that issue. I'm

convinced that you're going to hear more from that member in this

Legislature as time goes on, and I'm very proud of that member.

We just made it, Mr. Speaker, in Vancouver-Point Grey like about

that; it was very close. But what a bargain! The Legislature is that

much further ahead on both sides. I enjoyed all the ideas about digging

a tunnel under Georgia Strait, but we want somebody in this Legislature

who is concerned about the day-to-day problems that face workers,

people in the business community, people in local government — people

in every region of the province. This member's experience, Mr. Speaker,

is going to serve this Legislature well. A successful business person,

a director of the largest community-based financial institution in

Canada, a director of a corporation, active in community affairs, has

served many terms as an alderman in the city of Vancouver — a breadth

of experience that is going to serve this Legislature and the people of

this province very well. I'm very proud of the people of

Vancouver-Point Grey for electing this member, and I know that when the

next election rolls around, what was a landslide this time is going to

be a greater landslide next time.

We also have a new member for Vancouver Centre, not without some

experience himself in these matters, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure he's

going to find even more experience when we have the opportunity to

change chairs in this Legislature. Mayor of Vancouver for three terms,

he managed to deal effectively with the Premier in one of those

election campaigns. A lawyer. Now somebody said that he was a

city-slicker, but I'll tell you, this Mayor of Vancouver traveled

throughout the province of British Columbia, worked through people

within the Union of B.C. Municipalities, talked and worked and

cooperated with communities large and small in every part of the

province, in every part of the country, and in fact has been involved

in trade delegations around the world helping to sell B.C. Industry,

helping to sell B.C. products and services to the people throughout the

world and especially in Pacific Rim countries. He has dealt with prime

ministers and heads of state, with premiers and cabinets. This is a

member with the kind of experience we need in the Legislative Assembly,

to take a leadership role in this Legislature, and I am very proud that

we now have as a member of the Legislature this new member for

Vancouver Centre — not an inexperienced member.

I'm not sure the Premier is too happy about that, but I'm convinced

that when the next election rolls around, this Premier is going to make

a very effective Leader of the Opposition.

I'd like to talk about the members from Vancouver Island — and we have the odd new member from Vancouver Island

[ Page 27 ]

here. Not that odd, one of my colleagues said. The

second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) is an academic — has taught in a

community college. He is an author — has written historical and

political books — and is very familiar with the political traditions of

British Columbia. He is an activist in Nanaimo, and, I think, will make

a terrific member of this Legislature — again, a suitable candidate for

government here in the province of British Columbia.

[3:00]

Another lawyer is the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr.

Sihota). I'll tell you, it's very difficult for anybody to fill the

boots of Frank Mitchell. And I'll tell you the reason for that.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, it's not because he was a cop and had big feet.

I'm convinced that Frank Mitchell was the best constituency

representative who has ever appeared in this Legislature. He knew every

lot line in the constituency. He knew every subdivision application.

When they had difficulty with a trailer court, Frank Mitchell knew

where the sewer lines were located. He knew everything about Esquimalt

constituency. He was always available on a 24-hour basis to help his

constituents with any problem they had, whether with the provincial

government or local government. Well, I'll tell you, there's only one

person in Esquimalt-Port Renfrew riding we could find to fill the shoes

of Frank Mitchell and that's the current member.

He's a lawyer, but don't hold that against him. There are other

lawyers in the Legislature. But this is a lawyer who has taken the

case, for example, of federal civil servants who were approaching

pensionable age and being denied their rights under the Unemployment

Insurance Act. This member took their case before the highest tribunals

and was able to win cases on behalf of those federal pensioners who

were entitled to UIC benefits. He has done hard work on behalf of his

constituents in that regard.

He was a very respected alderman in the township of Esquimalt, who

was elected many times over, and in fact was one of the more popular

aldermen in that community. We are very pleased to bring this member

into the Legislature, and I'm convinced that the people of Esquimalt

are going to elect him for years and years, both as an opposition

member this time around and as a government member next time around.

I also want to talk about those who operate from the suburbs of the

city of Vancouver. The member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley (Ms.

Smallwood) was the seconder for our motion yesterday to try to persuade

the government to set up a committee to look into those comprehensive

economic problems being experienced by people in every region of the

province. She is a community activist — very active in women's rights

issues, very active in environmental and human rights issues in her

community, very respected and active in community development issues in

Surrey. I'm pleased that the people of Surrey-Guildford-Whalley sent

this member to the Legislature. Again, she's going to make a terrific

member, both in the opposition and in the government benches next time

around.

New Westminster. That's my home town, Mr. Speaker. Derek Fox, the

member for Vegreville, Alberta, whom we just introduced in the

Legislature, is also from New Westminster. A number of members in this

Legislature have come from New Westminster, were born in New

Westminster. In fact, there's a plot among the citizens of New

Westminster to try to get as many members elected as possible from as

many constituencies as possible, so that at some point a vote will be

held in the Legislature to move the capital back to New Westminster,

where some people feel it belonged in the first place.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not Blencoe.

MR. SKELLY: We're taking a long-term view, the participants

in this plot, but I understand that the Minister for Advanced Education

and Job Training (Hon. Mr. Hagen) is also one of the plotters. He's

from New Westminster as well, although he was a little bit ahead of me

in school; he was a year ahead of my brother, who is now a Member of

Parliament. But we're working on the idea, Mr. Speaker, of getting the

capital back to where it used to be.

The current member for New Westminster (Ms. Hagen), following again

in the difficult footsteps of Dennis Cocke and Rae Eddie, has been

active in senior citizens' issues over the years, getting aid and

assistance and help to senior citizens in her community and as well

around the province. She was the chair of the school board in New

Westminster through some pretty difficult times, through the tough

times of restraint, and in fact was very respected for the work that

she did in confrontation, unfortunately, with a provincial government

that was constantly attempting to drive down the resources that were

allocated to education in this province, at the same time trying to

maintain the highest possible quality of education and to represent the

needs of the voters who elected her as chair of the school board in New

Westminster. I think she is going to be a terrific Member of this

Legislature, and with the kind of experience and approach that she's

had over the years I think she's going to distinguish herself as a

member of the B.C. Legislature. She is going to make things tough for

any government that wants to undermine the quality of education or

undermine the quality of services that should go to the senior citizens

in the province of B.C.

Maillardville-Coquitlam. We have a terrific member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), who has been active in social

issues with the United Church of Canada; very active in defending the

concerns of the poor, in trying to recognize the plight of the poor and

to raise economic and social conditions for people in this province.

Our member for Maillardville-Coquitlam represents the kind of strength

and compassion and concern that all Members of the Legislature should

have, and I hope do have, to be the representatives and spokespeople

for the people of the province of British Columbia. I'm very pleased to

welcome our member for Maillardville-Coquitlam to this Legislature.

Last but not least, the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones), again

following in the very difficult footsteps of Eileen Dailly, who without

question on either side of the House was the best Minister of Education

that this province ever had. The current member for Burnaby North was

the chair....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Were you a Minister of Education?

AN HON. MEMBER: She wants to forget.

[ Page 28 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't remind her.

MR. SKELLY: Most of the people in the province want to forget that.

But again, the Member for Burnaby North chaired one of the most

progressive school districts in the province, and again through

extremely difficult times of restraint imposed on the education system

in the province by the former minister, who is sitting across the House

from me in the Premier's seat.

I'm pleased, very proud, Mr. Speaker, that we have brought in as a

result of the last election a brand-new team of excited, enthusiastic,

hard working Members of the Legislature on the opposition side who are

prepared to work hard on behalf of their constituents, on behalf of the

people of the province, to bring the best possible government that they

can bring and the best possible programs that they can bring to the

people of the province of British Columbia. I'm very pleased that they

represent a broad mix of ethnic, social and occupational backgrounds,

and I think that will bode very well for the operation of this

Legislature.

One thing I want to say before I finish this round of introductions

is that I'm pleased about the number of women we have elected to the

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. In the last convention of our

political party before we went into the election, Mr. Speaker, I called

upon the New Democratic Party constituencies throughout the province to

make an effort to field among the candidates at least 50 percent of

those candidates as women candidates, and I think our constituencies

made a terrific effort to do that. As a result, we have brought some of

the finest women candidates into the Legislature. But I want to tell

you this, Mr. Speaker, that this party does not intend to rest until

women are represented in the corridors of power in the same proportions

that they're represented in the population of the province. Only then

will we feel we will have accomplished our goal of equality for women

in the corridors of power.

I don't intend to respond in any comprehensive way to the throne

speech. I'm going to leave that up to this bright field of debate

leaders that we've put in place in the Legislative Assembly. But I do

want to say some things about the throne speech and to express some

concerns. I don't want to be negative, because I know there are some

good things in the throne speech, things that we've been looking for

for years, that we asked the previous government for for years, and the

previous government simply refused to deliver them. I'm very pleased

that those kinds of things are in the throne speech. However, we'll be

commenting on those again through the debate leaders that we have in

the House.

One of the things I'm concerned about is the right-wing rhetoric in

this throne speech. I know that the Premier wants to bring us together

in this Legislature, and I know that he wants to bring the people of

the province together — from all sectors, from all walks of life — to

try to deal with and resolve some of the problems we're experiencing in

economic terms, in terms of social services and in regional

disparities. But you don't bring people together by using the kind of

rhetoric that tends to offend some sectors in our society. The

suggestion that we're going to be privatizing government services, the

suggestion that we want to get the public sector off the back of the

private sector — I think that kind of rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, is not

conducive to the kind of debate that we want to establish here in the

province of British Columbia.

If I have any kind of regret about the throne speech, the major one

is that it employed that kind of rhetoric that's reminiscent of the

Fraser Institute and of a right-wing view of economics. I think that

that's going to make it much more difficult for us to get together and

debate on equal terms, and in a very cooperative way. I think what we

in the opposition want to do is perhaps to ignore that kind of

rhetoric, to get down to the meaning in the throne speech — to the real

words in the throne speech — and maybe we can find some common ground

there.

I think it was a mistake for this government and for this Premier to

advise His Honour to put that kind of rhetoric into the throne speech.

The last time we saw that kind of rhetoric was right after the 1983

election, when debate in this House, I think, degenerated to the lowest

point that I had seen it in the period of my 14 years' experience.

Hopefully we can put rhetoric aside. It makes the government appear

very rigid and ideologically hidebound. Hopefully we can put that kind

of rhetoric aside and deal with people on both sides of the House who

are concerned about the problems that present themselves to us here in

the province of British Columbia.

I'm also concerned about good faith. I think the jury is still out

on this, Mr. Speaker, in terms of good faith in approaching the

opposition and in dealing with the opposition in a cooperative and

consultative way. We put forward a resolution in the Legislature

yesterday. The reason for that resolution was to test the government's

good faith, to see if they were willing to accommodate, to move a

little bit towards the opposition's position in terms of establishing

committees. We found that our approach was rebuffed. We were a little

bit concerned about that.

Hopefully this Premier and this government will get together with

the opposition to develop terms of reference for the existing standing

committees that we did name, so that we can make sure that the problems

that have been identified on both sides of the House are dealt with by

those standing committees. I would encourage the Premier to take that

suggestion to heart and to approach the opposition when he's

considering developing terms of reference for those committees.

[3:15]

It's okay to establish councils, task forces and ministerial inquiries,

and it's okay to set up all of these methods such as assigning cabinet ministers

to do various tasks and assignments. That's fine. It's okay for the

government to do that; in fact, I encourage the government to do that. But we

have to remember that the government represents only 49 percent of the electors

in the province of British Columbia; that things happen best when all of the

representatives in the Legislature are involved in the debate and in the consultative

process. I would encourage the Premier, rather than using government task forces,

rather than sending ministers around the province — although those things should

happen — that he should use those legislative committees much more so that all

members of the Legislature can be as well informed as the members of the government.

I am concerned about the statements in the throne speech tying such

things as support for single parents and support for families and

support for day-care services to the question of abortion. I think that

was an unfortunate connection within the throne speech. We know that

abortion is a very difficult issue to deal with on the floor of the

Legislature. It is an issue that many people hold very strong views on.

[ Page 29 ]

I respect the views of those who believe that abortions should not

be allowed. I respect their views. On the other hand, we expect

government to respect the views of those people who feel that the

choice on abortion should be up to the woman involved. Those two

opinions are very difficult to balance. In fact, there is probably no

common ground. But I think government has to accept the view of the

majority in this case. I am concerned that the government is going to

tie daycare, support for single-parent families and those kinds of

things to the issue of abortion. I hope that is not the case.

People in British Columbia are looking for an increase in support to

single-parent families. They are looking for increased support to

people who require day-care services — core funding for day-care

centres as well as funding to the people who need to send their

children to those day-care centres. I was pleased in my discussion with

the Premier prior to the throne speech when he indicated that he was

not only going to increase subsidies to parents for daycare but he also

intended to provide core funding for day-care centres. I am very

pleased that the Premier has indicated that, but I would wish that the

Premier would not tie that issue to the issue of abortion. I think

those things should be kept completely separate.

People of British Columbia do not want their government to impose

the religious views of the Premier or the religious views of the

government on all members of British Columbia. They do not want that to

happen. Those who believe in freedom of choice on this issue want their

views respected in the same way as we respect the views of pro-lifers.

I also have some concerns about the way native Indians were dealt

with in the throne speech debate. After what appeared to be an initial

change in the government's approach to native Indians, I was sorry to

hear that the government is now going back to the approach of the

previous government, which is to negotiate economic development

programs and child-care services and those kinds of things separately

on a group by group basis.

Native Indians in British Columbia have a major concern, and that is

that there has never been a legal transfer of title between the native

Indians and non-native occupants in this province. They don't want

control over the whole province, in spite of the rhetoric that we have

heard in political campaigns and in spite of the rhetoric that we've

heard throughout the province; native Indians want a solution to the

problem of Indian land claims which would allow us all to live in this

province together, to share the province, and also recognize that they

were the original owners and the original occupants of the province.

In virtually every other country in the world, accommodations have

been made through treaty or through other agreements with the native

Indian people to make sure that legal transfers have taken place and

that Indians and nonIndians can occupy the province on the same basis

with respect given to their traditional forms of government and to

their right to have their communities sufficiently based in resources

so that they can be relatively independent in terms of their own

community economies.

I think that this is an area where the government could make

substantial moves and could create benefits for all British Columbians,

native and non-native alike. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think that we in

the Legislature might benefit from a select standing committee looking

at this issue. I don't think that settlement of aboriginal claims in

British Columbia is going to be at great cost to the people of the

province; in fact, once those claims are settled and native Indian

communities are able to establish themselves and their economies and

their local self-governments, I think that it is going to be a

tremendous boon to the economy of the province.

Indians are going to establish a measure of economic independence.

They are going to be able to create employment for themselves and for

non-Indians. We are going to be able to settle an outstanding injustice

that has plagued this province for years and years. I think the fact

that native communities will invest the profits from their operations

in their own region means that more jobs are going to be created.

It is well known that more jobs were created from settlement of

aboriginal land claims in northern Quebec than were created from the

James Bay hydroelectric project. The big job creator, the big economic

incentive, is the settlement of aboriginal claims. I think that we

should look at this from a very positive point of view. I think it will

have positive social and economic benefits for the people of this

province, and it will also improve our reputation around the world as a

province where justice can be done and justice is available to all of

its inhabitants.

I will close by talking about a few environmental concerns. As Mr.

Speaker will recall, there was a demonstration on the lawns of the

legislative buildings when the Legislature opened on March 9. That

concern was around the changes that have been proposed for the

boundaries of Strathcona Park. There are many people out there in the

province of British Columbia who are concerned about what's happening

with our parks, what's happening with our environment in this province.

They are serious concerns. I'm pleased to see that the Premier in the

throne speech has indicated that they are going to be dealing with the

federal government to establish a national park on Moresby Island. But

I think it's unfortunate and, again, a demonstration of bad faith that

the government changed the boundaries of one of its oldest provincial

parks without public consultation. Public consultation was promised by

the former Minister of Environment and by the....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Well, he's now the former Minister of Environment too.

Public consultation on the changes to the park boundaries was

promised by successive Ministers of Environment, and this government

has gone back on that consultation with respect to altering the

boundaries of Strathcona Park.

Mr. Speaker, the alteration of those boundaries affects my

constituency. My constituents are extremely concerned about what will

happen if mining takes place in some of the areas that have currently

been removed from the park. We're concerned that the largest waterfall

in North America, Della Falls in Alberni constituency, has now been

removed from the boundaries of Strathcona Park, and that a mine will be

established in that area that could pollute the Bedwell River that

flows into an area north of Tofino and may have an impact on the

aquaculture and mariculture projects going on in that region and adding

to the economy of that area. We're very concerned that boundaries have

been altered without public consultation, in violation of a promise

made by this government and two of its Ministers of Environment, and we

would like to see that decision reversed and the process of public

consultation, as promised, taking place.

[ Page 30 ]

Mr. Speaker, I'm looking forward to the participation in this debate

by our new members of the Legislature. I think you'll find that our new

members are going to be very positive about the role that they're going

to play in the Legislature. They want to see the best things happening

for the people of British Columbia that can possibly happen. They have

seen economic recovery take place in eastern Canada, in Manitoba, in

Ontario and Quebec. They are looking for very positive things to happen

out of this Legislature, given the statements made by the Premier and

the government and given their intention to be positive and upbeat and

enthusiastic about what might come out of this Legislative Assembly.

I am concerned about the throne speech; I'm concerned about its

rhetoric. I'm concerned about the promises of the Premier; as I say,

the jury is still out on those promises. We want to see the Premier

live up to his promise to consult in a cooperative way with our caucus.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we are prepared to respond in a

consultative and cooperative way, in the best interests of all of the

citizens of British Columbia.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's indeed a pleasure for me to take my

place in this debate, this being the fourth Parliament I've had the

honour to be a member of.

I'd like to start off by saying a few remarks to the member who has

just taken his seat, the Leader of the Opposition, and say to you, sir,

that you were once my critic in one of the ministries I had — and I

think you've changed criticism as we went along the way. I think you

have gone through a rather difficult period, and I commend you for the

courageous way you have conducted yourself personally during the last

year, and I think all members of the House respect that. There are

difficult times in this political business. There are some great times,

but there are also some very difficult times. You've conducted yourself

in an admirable way.

As I said, it's the fourth opportunity I've had — this is the fourth

Parliament — and I hate to feel, at my tender age, like one of the

veterans, but as I look at the pictures around this hall, I see the

very few survivors over the years. There are only a few of us who can

genuinely be called recidivist, but perhaps if some of you will listen

to my cogent words, you may become recidivist yourself.

There is a great deal that has happened since the House last met in

session. Among other things, we hosted the most successful world's

fair, I believe, to be held on this continent in history. I think the

people that were largely responsible — the Premier of the day, Premier

Bennett, who had the courage to stick with it when it looked like it

wasn't the right thing to do, Jimmy Pattison, who needs no

introduction, and Patrick Reid — all really deserve a special word of

thanks, because through our thanks to them we will thank all of the

people that worked behind them and made it go. There's no question

about it that more people around the world know about British Columbia

because of Expo than because of almost anything else. We don't normally

talk about things that have just happened, but since the House hasn't

been in session and we haven't had a chance to do that, I thought I'd

make those comments.

Having said that I've been a member for some time, I am very

saddened by the passing of two members: one member who was exclusively

on the opposition side of the House and one member who spent some time

on both sides of the House.

I knew both members well, I respected both members' opinions. Their

opinions were very different, and their styles were indeed extremely

different. In both cases their deaths were untimely, and I extend my

personal sympathies to the families involved. I think we'll really miss

Ernie Hall quite a lot; I think you people genuinely will miss him. He

was a sort of senatorial type on the NDP side, if there ever was one.

I'm sure Ernie Hall got excited in the privacy of the caucus room, but

he reminded me of a fireman rather than a pyromaniac when it came to

issues: he wanted the fire to go out and people to focus on the facts

rather than anything else.

I must admit Al Passarell's humour was something that took a long

time to get used to. It took time to grow onto, as did his stories of

hunting and other exploits, but he'll be missed as well, as will his

wife Ruth.

In the summer of 1986, the Social Credit Party did something rather

remarkable. It's something that doesn't happen in the history of

political parties in Canada. Normally, political parties change leaders

after they have been defeated at the polls, but Dr. McGeer would always

stand up and start off with 1932 and go through that whole process

about how many times....

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It'll happen, don't worry. Someone else will do it. I'm not going to do it; someone will do it.

He'd go through that great legacy of election victories of the

Social Credit Party and defeats of the New Democratic Party. Therefore,

following that tradition, the Social Credit Party could hardly go

through the process of changing leaders by losing an election, so that

wasn't to be the case.

So there really was a very substantial number of people who took a

crack at the job of being the leader of the party. But our party, being

a very democratic party — and those of you who were at Whistler may

have seen it — chose, and in hindsight I think chose very wisely, and

in fact history will judge that as having been a very wise choice. What

happened was, the party changed leaders without having to lose an

election, and that's not something that happens in Canada. It always is

the case that the party loses an election, and then the leader retires.

I wonder what's going to happen in Ottawa but that's another story.

[3:30]

We managed to do it, and we managed to do it successfully and came

out of it as a much stronger party. That's witnessed by the number of

members who are here today. In fact, there are more new members here

now than at any other time after any other election since the end of

the war. I think it's wonderful, because each and every one of you will

bring a refreshing new look to this hallowed chamber, and hopefully a

more tempered response than we've had in the past.

I guess if I was going to say something to you, those of you who

wish to get re-elected might take these small words of advice: that is

to say, don't forget who your constituents are, because they're the

people you must ask again for the second mandate; take your work very

seriously; and, at your own peril, take yourself very seriously. The

minute you think you are terribly serious, your constituents will

discover that you have become pompous and will dispense with you almost

post-haste. We have seen it happen with great regularity at any time

that a member arrives here and decides that they have been anointed or

put into the Senate or chosen to some

[ Page 33 ]

auspicious group. They are almost instantly dispatched by their constituents, usually with quite a resounding defeat.

There usually is a member who stands and reminds the new members

that you have joined the most exclusive club in the province. I am

almost reminded of Groucho Marx's remark that he wouldn't want to

belong to a club that would have someone like himself as a member.

Having said that, this organization is the most wide-open and most

watched and most looked-at organization in the province, and your

actions and your judgments will be judged accordingly.

Nothing is terribly private around these buildings, and certainly

things that are private became public knowledge officially,

unofficially.... And in the event that it's a very slow news day, if

nothing has happened by 9 o'clock in the morning, generally something

is made up.

This fall, we went to the people....

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Now come on, it's not my maiden speech. You could heckle me if you want, but I'll get after you.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's too easy.

HON. MR. ROGERS: You know how much fun you are, and some of

your best critics aren't even back. But that's all right, there is some

new blood back here. Watch it.

We went to the people this fall with a program of new and open

government. Having been in both governments, let me tell you that this

is genuinely an open government, a government that travels, a

government that meets people in their constituencies and a government

that, I think, is going to move about and around this province more

than anyone else or any other government has ever done before.

The throne speech is incredibly different from throne speeches in

the past. There was serious debate some two or three years ago about

whether or not the throne speech should be entirely dispensed with,

because the throne speech was filled with wonderful platitudes and

generalities, to the point that most members had given up taking

terribly much interest it, and the Whips were having difficulty finding

someone who wanted to go on with something. Well, this throne speech,

for the first time, I think, in the time that I have been here, is a

genuine, pithy throne speech which is directly to the point and brings

forward a whole host of issues that are going to be discussed in this

chamber — issues that are policies of the government that will come

forward for discussion.

There is one point that I find very good, and that is the board of

internal review. To suspect that our entire debate would take place

over one vote during the Committee of Supply — of which you have no

knowledge, of course, Mr. Speaker — for all the matters that take place

in this chamber is totally inappropriate. There are different concerns,

and over the years we have addressed those concerns. Members from rural

ridings and members from far northern ridings and members from ridings

that have different difficulties all have had to make their point. I

think that having a board of internal review will be very good.

I welcome a great deal the introduction of television to the House.

I think it will be a great advancement for two or three reasons. One of

them is that we'll see a better quality of debate; secondly, we may see

a better quality of behaviour — that's only questionable; but thirdly,

I think the public who are interested in the political process will

have an opportunity to watch. Only those people who are normally

resident in Victoria and have the opportunity to do so can come down

and sit in the galleries, and only a very small fraction of one percent

of the public has that opportunity to do so. But there are more people

today interested in the political process and what goes on in Victoria

than there has ever been in the past, and I think offering it to the

cable television networks and those other people and other networks

that want to do it will be of great assistance.

I'm also pleased with my particular challenge that I have in terms

of native issues, and I will be introducing in the not too distant

future some legislation to deal with the self-government of the Sechelt

Indian Band. But there are a number of other issues that affect the

native community, and the Cabinet Committee on Native Affairs that has

been traveling and meeting with native groups and individual bands

throughout the province will continue to do so. I think it is a major

step and a major departure from policy for this government to make that

decision. Some of the things that we have been asked to do are so

relatively simple and yet have been such large roadblocks in the past

that we'll have a great improvement in what goes on.

I have a little difficulty with the dual member ridings that are now

going to become single member ridings, Mr. Speaker, because I have

represented a dual member riding in all the times that I have been in

this legislature, and I have always enjoyed working with the

constituency seatmate that I have. I have twice been the first member

for Vancouver South and twice been the second member for Vancouver

South. In our particular constituency it has worked very well, but I

respect the decision of government to go with single member ridings.

There are some great advantages to a dual seat riding, especially in a

metropolitan area, but there are also some disadvantages in terms of

who is actually responsible. But the government has made that decision

and I respect it and I will stay with it.

There are some references in the throne speech to the improvements

in funding to those people on social assistance. In view of the fact

that the government has found itself in rather difficult financial

circumstances, I think it is a very compassionate move to not only

increase social welfare spending, but to make specific references to

those areas in which we will be increasing that spending.

In dealing with Ottawa, as you may know, Mr. Speaker, there is now a

joint committee made up of members of the government of British

Columbia and the government in Ottawa to deal with Ottawa/British

Columbia issues. It's interesting to point out that the window of

communications opportunity between British Columbia and Ottawa is only

worse in one place, which is the Yukon. Because by the time we get to

the office in the morning, the people in Ottawa are just about to go to

lunch; by the time they get back from lunch we have about a half hour

opportunity before it's our turn normally to go to lunch; and by the

time we get back from lunch there's about a two hour opportunity before

they retire for the rest of the day. The people in Ottawa are visited

daily by the people in Ontario and Quebec. They're all in the same time

zone, they're all in the same, I won't say trough — that's probably not

a parliamentary word. It's high time that British Columbia got just its

fair share: its fair share of appointments on boards and commissions,

its fair share of work, a proportional representation of what's going

on.

[ Page 32 ]

The agreement by the Prime Minister and our Premier to set up this

committee, of which I have the honour of being the co-chairman, I think

is a major step in that direction. We will be meeting in Ottawa later

this week on other issues. I will be meeting with Mr. Mazankowski at

that time and will go ahead and see what we can do about setting up

some meetings as early as possible. I think it bodes well. In the past

British Columbia has had a rather obstinate attitude towards Ottawa. I

guess Ottawa has been somewhat humbled recently and is more willing to

be cooperative with the government of British Columbia and I look

forward to working with that cooperation.

There is reference in the throne speech to the new issue of

privatization. It has been discussed in many places before. We are not

going to necessarily plagiarize other people's work, but I feel it is

very important that the scope of examination that the Ministry of

Intergovernmental Relations takes be as wide as possible, so that no

stone is left unturned and yet nothing is abandoned unnecessarily. I

feel that if we have a net benefit outlook on decisions that are made,

and if we look in as wide a range as possible, we will be pleasantly

surprised by the number of responsibilities that belong in the

corporate sector, which we now leave to the corporate sector and

abandon as the government.

I'd like to speak briefly to the aspiring first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Harcourt), who is not in his place at this time but seeks

the leadership of the New Democratic Party, and congratulate him. This

is the third time that he has sought office as a member of this

assembly. He once sought it in a contest in 1975 in the constituency of

Vancouver South, he tried again in 1979 in the constituency of

Vancouver-Little Mountain, and now he has been what we call third time

lucky. I hesitate to use the analogy of the captain of the Titanic, but

the barge doesn't get away from the dock too often, and I think it's

probably appropriate that it's reflected in the number of people who

are challenging him for the nomination. But we've been old and personal

friends for a long time, and I wish him well.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I wish him well. You always come up with

that wonderful speech about introducing all the new members who will be

here next time and they always are here next time, but they're always

on the same side of the House. You're going to be pleasantly surprised.

In fact, you might find someone who can heckle you more than my member

from White Rock. But we'll try to be on our best behaviour.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot more members than before in

this Legislature. I think that's a good thing. We haven't come close to

having as many members as Alberta does, for example, on a per-capita

basis, or other jurisdictions, but I think the new representation will

be welcomed. The previous House was becoming a little stale, to say the

least. We have an enormous lot of time ahead and we have a lot of work

to do.

One personal word that I might say to all members is that I

described this building once to visiting school children as a bit of a

cruise ship that's at anchor. We all get to know each other very, very

well, whether we like each other or not. If those of you who have come

with a little pent-up animosity on either side of the House can try to

vent it in this room and have it pass out of you as you leave through

these doors, you will find your time here will pass in a much more

pleasant manner than it has in the past.

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to have the opportunity to stand here

as a government member and speak on this throne speech. We finally have

a throne speech with some real meat in it and we have a government with

real backbone. I'll have absolutely no difficulty supporting the throne

speech, and I have great confidence that the government will do its

utmost to carry out all the programs enunciated in that speech.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to begin by congratulating

you on your election and the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) on

his election to the positions of Speaker and Deputy Speaker

respectively, and I would like to assure you that the more we see

people taking positions where they seem to know what they're doing, the

more reassured we new members are. So we wish you well in your

appointments. I'd like also to congratulate the first member for

Langley (Mrs. Gran), and I hope that she gets along as well as the

others, who know where they're going.

Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure to rise to speak for the riding

of Kootenay, and it's particularly gratifying to be here because I

stand in a long line of socialist representation for our area. We've

talked a lot about members who have been around a long time. I have two

of the masters at it, I think. Tom Uphill represented the Ferme riding

for some 40 years and was the longest-sitting legislative member in the

British Commonwealth, except for one man who surpassed him by a few

months; that man was Winston Churchill. Then Leo Nimsick sat for the

Cranbrook side of the riding and then for the riding as it exists today

for some 26 years. Both these members set very good examples. I hope to

follow them, but I also hope to bring something a little different than

they did, and I can also assure you right now that I have no intention

of trying to match Mr. Uphill's record for sitting as a member.

I'm also pleased to recognize my immediate predecessor, Terry

Segarty, who sat for two terms, and who finished his term as Labour

minister.

Kootenay riding faces a future with a rich resource base threatened

by some severe market problems. We as residents face some difficult

decisions about the use of our land base as we move into a development

phase in which our human resources, like our natural resources, may be

sorely tested. Not uniquely, Kootenay people face a major lack of jobs.

Unemployment hovers above the provincial average — up to 25 percent in

the coal-mining Elk Valley. As one response, our communities have

mounted a coal lobby to encourage increased Canadian purchases of

Canadian coal. With the international market for coal slipping

dangerously and the consequent loss of nearly 1,500 direct jobs in the

Elk Valley alone, coal-miners, chambers of commerce, municipal

politicians and I formed in December a western Canadian delegation to

the federal government in Ottawa and to the Ontario government in

Queen's Park in Toronto. Put together to maximize the impact of the

federal-provincial low sulphur report, our delegation stressed that but

also talked about increased sales of metallurgical coal to the Ontario

steel industry. We stressed both thermal sales and metallurgical sales.

[3:451

We said that western Canadian coal is cleaner than the U.S.

coal that Ontario now imports. Were Ontario to buy more of our low

sulphur coal, as that province moves to meet

[ Page 33 ]

environmental standards geared to reduce acid rain

emissions, both western Canadian producers and eastern Canadian

consumers would benefit by the creation of tens of thousands of jobs.

Environment, jobs and the national good are all very positive

benefits. The problem, of course, is the chronic Canadian problem of

distance. However competitive the coal price, and our coal is priced

competitively, the cost of hauling coal 2,000 miles can never equal the

cost of hauling coal only 500 miles.

We ask the federal government working with the consuming and the

producing provinces to directly address that cost imbalance by

restoring a coal subvention similar to the one that was lifted in 1959.

Our community said that such a subvention would constitute an

investment in successful nationhood and investment in people. We

believe this national issue must be fairly addressed and soon.

We feel the case we made for the urgency of our situation helped

bring the Canadian and provincial governments to further meetings. At

the moment Deputy Prime Minister Don Mazankowski is trying to arrange a

meeting with the premiers of Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and

Saskatchewan to discuss ways of increasing domestic coal sales.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We have already met with Premier Vander Zalm and told him our

situation is urgent and that we are committed to keeping the pressure

on to expand the domestic market as a hedge against the vagaries of the

absolutely necessary but mercurial market that is the world market. I

intend to keep this issue hot and visible until we get some action.

But constituents of Kootenay riding face other resource extraction

problems. Chevron Canada Resources Ltd. plans to drill a gas well

called Chevron Shell Mansfield C72D in a populated area less than 10

kilometres — that's six miles — from the core of the district of

Sparwood, Although the possibility of finding gas at all is very small,

as it is with much gas drilling, and the probability of an accidental

release of potentially lethal sour gas — that's hydrogen sulphide — is

also small, residents are justifiably wary of the project for three

major reasons.

The first is that B.C.'s gas drilling regulations are unclear and

inadequate as far as the residents can determine. Companies usually

follow Alberta's regulations by habit and by conscience, but those

regulations have no legal force in British Columbia. The second reason

is that Alberta wells and those in British Columbia's northeast exist

in flat terrain. Sparwood and Elkford lie in a very narrow mountain

trench where air inversions occur up to 70 percent of the time.

Dispersion of any escaped gas would be extremely slow, far slower than

it would be in open prairie, and in fact there is no way out for the

people up the valley because the prevailing winds go up that valley.

Sour gas hangs low in the air, and it can be deadly.

The third reason is that even if no blowout occurs, dangerous

emissions could cause severe physical symptoms: lethargy, headaches,

nosebleeds and that kind of thing in humans as well as in animals.

Experts believe that fumes from producing gas wells can create

measurable illness. They have said so in the media, and they have also

said so in connection with a case near Pincher Creek, Alberta, where an

out-of-court settlement awarded $700,000 to the residents near some

gas-producing gas wells.

Although our Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon.

Mr. Davis) has promised a public hearing before any drilling takes

place, residents wonder why they had to mount an intensive

letter-writing and public-advocacy campaign in order to get the

information that would clearly reveal the health and safety hazards

that they face.

In Moyie, another gas well that could produce sour gas is now being

drilled within three kilometres of their settlement, and many residents

feel ignored and threatened by their lack of information and lack of

opportunity, before the drilling began, to have a say about their own

safety.

A different but somewhat similar situation exists in Elkford, where

the Elkford preservation group has been working for nearly a year to

save the Greenhills slope facing their village from mine dumps that

Westar Mines says are necessary to the life of the mine and the jobs of

more than four hundred people, fewer than fifty of whom live in Elkford.

The point, Mr. Speaker, is that the Sparwood, Moyie and Elkford

residents are prepared to participate in the decisions that affect

their health, their safety and their way of life. They are demanding

that they be informed and involved. They want decentralized

decision-making, and they know what kind of issues should be considered

regionally, not centrally. I make that demand with them, to restore a

level of trust never achieved when decisions are made in bureaucracies

remote from the locus of action.

Social problems occur in my riding. There are some severe social

problems, including the school services which continue to decline,

problems involving troubled youth who need more and better treatment

facilities at home. They also involve our seniors, those who are able

to still stay in their homes but face serious problems in thinking they

will be able to stay there for very much longer because they cannot get

adequate support if they stay at home. The alternative, of course, is

to move them into crowded intermediate-care facilities.

The education problem has a long history. When we should be offering

our young people the best education possible to face the technological

age we have now entered, we are instead still cutting back on teacher

numbers. Class sizes in our comer of the province are among the highest

in British Columbia. Residential landowners cannot alone carry the

costs for the level of education these people want and believe they

need. And delegations appear regularly before our school boards to say

so.

Beyond the school problems, our troubled youth needs help. We still

have drug-abusers in British Columbia. Drug abuse continues among many

adolescents, but British Columbia offers no treatment specifically

designed for adolescents. Young people involved with habit-forming

drugs usually fail to respond to adult treatment. They keep their

habits until they are adults, or forever, or else they must go to the

United States. Now the throne speech has mentioned that there will be

some facilities to prevent that kind of thing happening for other

things. We want that to happen for adolescent drug-abusers in this

province, and citizens in my riding are working to get a facility for

adolescent drug abusers. Their goal is practical and achievable, and I

support them strongly in their efforts.

As for the seniors, the homemaker services in my riding have been

reduced. Clients are protesting loudly in our area. With no transit

services, often no taxis, usually no mail

[ Page 34 ]

delivery, sometimes some expensive grocery delivery

and often no nearby relatives, homemaker services are needed to keep

the seniors and the handicapped people in their own homes, where they

want to be. Without an adequate level of care, however, they are

isolated and at risk. If they can't stay within their own homes, they

will have to be in our already crowded intermediate-care facilities. My

constituents and I think it makes sense to give enough home care to the

nearly self-sufficient and save the intermediate-care beds for those

who need a higher level of care.

There are some positive and good things happening in Kootenay

riding, Mr. Speaker. Tourism is a developing industry in Kootenay. We

have all the requirements, the very best of everything that's needed

for a good tourist industry. The same spirit that prods us into social

advocacy and protest has brought us a number of exciting plans for

development of tourist, heritage and recreational projects that will

give Kootenay a considerable economic boost — if they can go ahead.

Fort Steele Historic Park serves our riding and is on the verge of

an expansion that will, I hope, enrich its connection with the

community and make it serve even better the bridge between residents

and visitors. Fort Steele Park, by the way, is sometimes the largest,

sometimes the second-largest, tourist visitor draw for any heritage

park in western Canada.

The Kootenay Indian area council is promoting a regional eco-museum,

an

interpretation project which is ready to go. The Hosmer Heritage

Society has planned and prepared for three and one-half years. It is

ready, at the drop of a dollar, to develop a major mining

interpretation and recreational project. Other similar attractions

based on the region's heritage are in progress by the Cranbrook Railway

Museum and the Sparwood Arts Council. And the city of Cranbrook hopes

to soon build a new civic auditorium and also an interpretive forest.

Recreational developments are underway. A huge snowmobile trek will

travel through Cranbrook and Elkford next winter on its way to the

Calgary Olympics, stopping twice in the riding, with more than 1,000

participants and followers. The three Elk Valley communities of

Elkford, Sparwood and Fernie will sponsor semi-annual games, beginning

this coming summer, much in the spirit of the just completed and very

exciting Fernie Winter Games and the 1986 Cranbrook Summer Games, both

of which are provincial projects, and both of which sponsored great

community feeling. Our Rocky Mountain Visitors Association has the

largest promotion budget of any British Columbia area that uses

matching provincial funds. It is ready to promote any or all of these

projects, if they can go ahead.

We have to take a coordinated look ahead. Our problems and our

assets both point to the necessity for some serious planning to deal

with our future. Some communities in our area already have an economic

plan. Some attempts have already been made to coordinate efforts to

overcome the problems and make the most of our assets, but we need to

go further in assessing our physical, technical and human resources,

and in putting them together as efficiently as we can to save the jobs

we have and to create more. I hope that in working together we will

make things happen because our communities decide to work together as a

region, and because they decide to include all constituents in our

planning. I hope to facilitate a regional planning process that will

involve volunteers and industry people, business and native people,

labour and immigrants, men, women and young people, workers and

facilitators, immigrants and professionals. If so many people become

involved, we will surely succeed in getting concrete action. The task

is not simple. It will not shape itself easily to our benefit. It will

frustrate and tire us. But it will also excite and reward us. I look

forward, Mr. Speaker, to getting on with the job.

[4:00]

MRS. GRAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker and hon. members. I'm proud to stand in this House

today as a member of the Legislature and participate in this session. I'm proud to be part of the

government team that we have in British Columbia today.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your election, and I congratulate the first member for

Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) on becoming Deputy Speaker. I look forward to working with both of you.

I also want to congratulate the Premier of this province for obtaining the strong mandate that he did:

47 strong Social Credit seats. The Premier has indeed obtained the trust of all British Columbians.

I also congratulate my co-MLA, the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson). I thank him for his

support and hard work during the campaign, and for helping me to represent the constituency of

Langley, as we are today.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I congratulate all MLAs on both sides of the House for gaining the confidence of their constituents, and I

wish each and every one of you well during this session, especially the new members, like myself. I want to

thank all of the constituents of Langley for their support, and I pledge to serve them to the very best of my

abilities. I want to thank all of the residents of British Columbia for bringing Social Credit back to power,

for wanting a fresh start, to which we are dedicated. And I want to thank Bob McClelland, who represented the

constituency of Langley so well for 14 years. I want to thank him for giving me the opportunity to stand here

today. I would also like to thank my campaign manager, Ida Fallowfield; my constituency secretary, Marjorie Allen;

and all the tireless workers who helped me to be here today. I would like to thank my fellow caucus members

for their support and their assistance, and last but not least, I would like to thank my family and friends

for their love and support — and in particular, my husband.

A few words about my constituency, Langley. Langley is a vibrant and

dynamic community, a place which more and more people choose to call

home, an excellent place to live. The boundaries of Langley from east

to west are Matsqui and Surrey, and from north to south are the Fraser

River and the U.S. border. There are two municipalities within the

constituency of Langley and two councils. Langley is a community where

rural and urban lifestyles abound and live together in a sort of

harmony.

Langley has many attractions within its boundaries. The first

attraction is historic Fort Langley, which I am sure all of you have

been to and have enjoyed. Fort Langley was the first capital of the

Crown colony of our province, and each year on November 19 the

provincial cabinet meets at Fort Langley to celebrate Douglas Day,

honouring Sir James Douglas. It is my hope that this government will

support the community of Fort Langley in becoming a major tourist

destination. It is my opinion that Fort Langley has the greatest

potential of any community in British Columbia. I encourage community

[ Page 35 ]

leaders in Fort Langley like Bays Blackhall to continue with your hard work.

Also in the constituency of Langley are three major regional

district parks: Campbell Valley, Aldergrove Lake and Derby Reach. You

can ride, walk, swim and fish in those parks, and it adds to the

lifestyle that we enjoy there.

The pride of Langley is Trinity Western University, privately funded

and dedicated to excellence. Trinity Western has grown to over 1,100

students who are pursuing various fields of studies, from education to

biblical studies. It has been my privilege to support that university

for the last ten years, and I intend to continue to do so.

Langley is in the rich Fraser Valley and has a wide economic base.

It is a regional, commercial and industrial centre and has a thriving

agricultural industry. Langley is horse country. Horse owners provide

many jobs in Langley, and right now the horse owners in Langley are

asking government to legislate more safety on the roads and more

consideration. The number of thoroughbred racehorse breeding farms is

growing. A higher than average proportion of show and recreation horses

are in the riding, in addition to work horses used on farms. Other

agricultural products produced in Langley are poultry, fruit and

vegetables and the largest dairy farms in British Columbia. Some of our

livestock statistics are: over 21,000 cattle and over 22,000 swine.

An example of small business ingenuity at work is the success of

Money's Mushrooms, now worth more than $50 million and with 159 people

employed. As government we recognize that the key to job creation is in

the development of small business, and this government is working hard

to encourage this kind of venture. Governments must stay out of the way

of business and allow the private sector to prosper and provide real

jobs.

In Langley we have experienced steady and impressive growth in the

number of business incorporations — almost a 100 percent increase

from 1983 to 1986. The increase in the number of business

incorporations in Langley was almost four times the provincial average

in 1985. With the amenities that Langley offers, it's not surprising

that it has grown so rapidly in the last decade. It is important that

we preserve the excellent quality of life that we now enjoy there, with

carefully encouraged development and growth.

In 1981, the population of Langley area was 59,804, an increase of

27.7 percent from 1976, almost three times the average gain for the

entire lower mainland area. Langley is a family-oriented community.

Almost one-third of Langley's population is 14 years and under. It

makes it even more imperative that we recognize that jobs must be

created for our young people if they are to have a future and if we are

to have a future. We must encourage the private sector to provide those

jobs, real jobs with a future, a long-lasting future.

Some of Langley's concerns are: making it easier for private

enterprise to start up and be successful — and I'm happy to see that

that has been addressed in the throne speech; job creation for

Langley's youth and reduced unemployment levels in Langley; improved

services for residents — day care, education, health, recreation and

seniors' programs. An example of what we face in Langley is a new

community called Walnut Grove, where people from all over British

Columbia are moving quickly. The population will grow from 4,000 to

17,000 within the next five to ten years. Those people must be provided

with recreation, water, sewer and all of the soft services and schools

that we all have come to appreciate and expect. And that money must

come from tax dollars, and industry must create those tax dollars.

Langley district has unique problems, I believe, in this province.

Eighty-five percent of Langley district is in the agricultural land

freeze, making it very difficult to service many of our communities

that have grown in Langley. With money difficult to come by, running

sewer lines and water lines across our municipality is going to cost a

great deal, and it is my hope that the provincial government will see

the need and assist.

I'd like to talk a little bit about my background. I have been an

alderman in the district of Langley for the past five years; I resigned

a week before the nomination. I have worked on many committees, and one

of the committees that I'm proudest of is the transit committee in

Langley. On that committee I was chairman, and with the help of Bob

McClelland we established the first transit system in Langley, which is

still going and expanding, and I'm very proud of that. Also with the

help of Bob McClelland, we kept the landfill sites out of Langley, and

there were four of them in four beautiful areas of Langley. The entire

lower mainland wanted to dump their garbage.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MRS. GRAN: Yes, they did. I spent ten years as executive

assistant to Bob McClelland, and it gave me an opportunity to listen

and to learn. I know my constituency and I know my constituents, and I

plan to serve them well.

Priorities for the future include improved services for seniors and

working women. I am more than pleased to see day care in the throne

speech. In Langley we have 690 single mothers, and that means that

there is a strong need for adequate day-care services. If a mother is

to earn a living and have self-respect, she must know that her children

are well looked after at home, and I compliment our Premier on

recognizing that.

I am pleased to also see in the throne speech that we're going to

make government more efficient. I am also pleased to see that we're

reviewing the role of government and examining the need for Crown

corporations. The appointment of a minister in charge of privatization

is an excellent step, and again I commend the Premier.

We must, as government, assist all of our communities to provide

improved recreation facilities for our people. We all have more leisure

time, and we must have constructive recreation to spend that time on.

I am also happy to see child abuse addressed in the throne speech.

In Langley, we have a very strong and active Christian community, and

the issue of abortion will not go away. I believe, although it's a

federal matter, we must decide as a society: where does life begin?

When does life begin?

In the throne speech the government has pledged to be open and

accountable. We will see positive things in British Columbia. We will

see reduced interference in small business and increased assistance to

small business. Reduced red tape will mean more small business starting

up.

[4:15]

There is a concern for improving essential services in British

Columbia, and that too has been addressed in the throne speech. I am

pleased the government wants to involve citizens and has a cooperative

approach. We must be concerned about our neighbours, about one another,

and I encourage the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services

[ Page 36 ]

(Hon. L. Hanson), in his review of the Labour Code,

to bring about more fairness into the workplace for both employees and

employers.

And again I say, we must do more for our children. Sexual abuse

should not be tolerated by this society. Sexual abuse of anyone should

not be tolerated by this society. We need to care about our future and

the legacy that we leave for our children. Programs must be sound, and

they must help and give hope for the future.

In British Columbia we have a growing population of seniors, and

their concerns must be addressed. We must provide recreation for them

and alternative lifestyles, housing. I am happy to be part of the

Social Credit team, dedicated to an open approach, consultation and a

new beginning. I am happy to see a government that deals in a positive

manner even with negative items. I am happy to know that the investment

climate in British Columbia is going to improve and has already

improved. I am very, very happy about the strong leadership of our

Premier, his openness and his willingness to talk to people, his open

line show, his town hall meetings, his caring, positive ways.

I want to send a positive message to my constituents that they have

elected a government that cares and is going to act. I want to express

a positive vision for this session. I feel good about it, and I want to

work closely with all of you on both sides of the House so that we can

all benefit from this session of the Legislature.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, much like the other speakers before

me, it is certainly with honour and pride that I stand in this House

today to give my first speech. The honour and pride isn't there simply

because it's my first speech but because it represents the first

occasion upon which I will be speaking on behalf of the people of

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. Secondly, it is the first time that a member of

the Indo-Canadian community has spoken as an elected representative in

any House in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I was reading the throne speech last night and this

morning with some intrigue and I noticed while I was reading it the

phrase or the paragraph that appears on page 2 of the throne speech. It

says, and I quote: "We have a plan for a new economy — we will make it

work." I read with some interest the plan as it was sort of explained

in the throne speech, and it occurred to me, after I read the throne

speech and analyzed the plan, that first of all the plan is not new,

and secondly that the plan is fundamentally, economically flawed.

When I say that it's not new, let me elaborate on that a little bit.

First of all the plan, as I understand it, is no different than the

plan that the previous Social Credit government, or any other

right-wing political government in this province, has been promoting as

the salvation of our economic woes. It says, let's vacate the economic

field, let's deregulate the world, let's get rid of red tape, let's

hand everything over to the private sector and all of our economic

problems will be solved. That's foolish. The record shows, Mr. Speaker,

that that type of economic philosophy has been a failure. It wasn't too

long ago that in this House this government, the Social Credit

government, introduced the much forgotten Ministry of Deregulation with

the idea of deregulating the world, of eliminating the red tape, and

then it quietly disappeared. It disappeared because it didn't work.

It wasn't too long ago in this House, Mr. Speaker, that the

government introduced special enterprise zones — another idea

consistent with this deregulation, giving the private sector the

breaks. Once again, that didn't work. Even the federal government

squashed that idea. Then of course there were all these initiatives

where we kept sending ministers off to Asia to sort of secure this

giant Crown corporation that's going to be coming over to the shores of

British Columbia and becoming our economic salvation. We continue to

send ministers over there, but there have been no giant multinational

corporations coming to British Columbia from southeast Asia, because

that type of philosophy just doesn't work.

So today, as the rest of this country recovers from the economic

doldrums, B.C. remains in an economic depression. Unemployment hovers

somewhere between 14 and 16 percent in the region that I represent and

towards 25 and 30 percent in other regions of the province. The typical

Social Credit response, when faced with the reality of that

unemployment, is to say it's due to the price of coal or the price of

lumber in the world. Mr. Speaker, we can't continue to blame our

economic woes on the world. It's about time that we took charge of our

economic destiny.

The economic plan put forward by this government, as I said earlier,

is basically one that says, let's vacate the economic field, let's take

a secondary or peripheral role and make way for the private sector, and

through a combination of free enterprise and deregulation we'll solve

our economic dilemmas. The flaw in that plan, Mr. Speaker, is that it

fails to recognize the leadership role that government can play in

taking charge and developing our local economics and ensuring jobs and

prosperity for the future.

The government, Mr. Speaker, should be and should continue to be a

major participant in our economic system. Government has at its

disposal an enormous amount of capital, capital which influences the

operations and the productivity of the market system. Government

decisions and expenditures have a profound impact on, for example,

investors in the stock market. We only need to take a look at the stock

situation with a company that's active in my riding, Versatile Pacific.

In the past week government announcements had a tremendous effect on

the value of shares of Versatile Pacific on the stock market.

Government actions and expenditures influence how small businesses

operate and how families make their expenditures to obtain the

commodities that they need.

The challenge for government today is not to return to the

nineteenth century laissez-faire economics that's proposed in the

throne speech before us now, but to put purchasing power back into the

hands of people so they can buy back the very things that they produce.

That's the challenge that's before us. The question is, how do you meet

that challenge? How do you propose to deal with the resources that

government has? How do you propose to take the leadership role that

government can play in the marketplace and deal with the fundamental

economic problems of the day?

Let me talk about a few things, Mr. Speaker, that were missing from

the throne speech that I thought ought to have been there, designed

first of all to ensure economic prosperity; secondly, to ensure jobs

now, not somewhere in the future when some giant multinational shows up

from somewhere else; and thirdly, to pave the way for job development

in the years to come.

For example, Mr. Speaker, there's no mention of all in the throne

speech about the municipal infrastructure program that my colleagues,

and in particular the former Mayor of Vancouver, have been pressing for

to be established at both

[ Page 37 ]

the federal and provincial levels. Now we need

that, and we need that in the riding of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. We have

a problem in Esquimalt-Port Renfrew in an area known as Bilston Creek.

Each year Bilston Creek floods. As a consequence of the enormous

flooding problems at Bilston Creek, the Capital Regional District has

placed a moratorium on development there. What we need in the province

is an ongoing municipal works program that can begin to solve flooding

problems like Bilston Creek, so that we can create jobs now, today —

cleaning out places like Bilston Creek so the creek flows properly and

adjoining lands don't flood; and jobs tomorrow, because if we eliminate

that flooding, we'll be able to lift the moratorium on development and

allow for some sensitive development along Bilston Creek.

In Sooke in my riding, Mr. Speaker, we have a problem with clean

water. The waterworks infrastructure that feeds into Sooke right now is

so dilapidated and so poor that the people of Sooke do not get clean

water year-round. What we need is a municipal infrastructure program

that creates jobs now, today — to develop an appropriate waterworks

system for the people of Sooke. I notice that the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) is applauding that one. I would anticipate

that in the weeks to come we will have some funding put forward for an

appropriate water system in Sooke.

In the Western Community in my riding we have a lot of problems with

septic tanks. We don't have appropriate sewage disposal and treatment

facilities in the communities of Langford, Colwood, Metchosin and,

until recently, View Royal. We need a municipal infrastructure program

now to create jobs for sewage treatment facilities in those regions of

my riding. So jobs now, first of all, through the municipal

infrastructure program.

Secondly, there is no mention at all in the throne speech of

increased expenditure on transportation and highways. I note that the

minister isn't here now, although I must say I'll be meeting with him

later on this week to talk about that. We have a highway in my riding

that is supposed to be the corridor between Victoria and Sooke. It is a

treacherous wagon trail. In the last 18 months it has witnessed nine

deaths. It is not a safe passageway for the residents of Sooke, nor

does it do anything for the potential for tourism in that region of my

riding.

What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we need now, today, a highways

and transportation program to create jobs now to open up communities

like Sooke to the tourism opportunities that exist there and further

down the road to Port Renfrew. There is no paved road past China Beach

to Port Renfrew. Nor is there a paved roadway from Port Renfrew in my

riding to Mesachie Lake near Lake Cowichan in the riding of

Cowichan-Malahat. If we were to have an appropriate roadway built

today, not only would we create jobs in Sooke and Port Renfrew, and

also in my neighbouring riding of Cowichan-Malahat, but at the same

time we would provide a loop route for tourists to go through Sooke on

their way to Port Renfrew and another way around the Island. If that

were to happen, there would be enormous tourist potential for places

like Port Renfrew, which is the gateway to the best botanical

facilities in the area, to the Pacific Rim and to all the trails in the

region. We need to promote the tourism potential of Sooke, the fishing

opportunities for sports fishermen in that area, and we need to open up

that community. We need an appropriate transportation system that would

create jobs now and pave the way for development in the future.

What causes me the most amount of concern, Mr. Speaker, is that

there is no mention whatsoever in this throne speech of the jobs in our

shipyards and in our shipbuilding industry. I happen to live in and

come from the municipality of Esquimalt. A few weeks ago, and up until

about a week and a half ago, there was a lot of attention given to the

Polar 8 contract. Of course, we saw the Premier in front of all the TV

cameras saying: "Yes, we have to have this contract. We need it to

revive our shipbuilding industry." But there's absolutely nothing in

the throne speech that talks about a long-term strategy to inject some

vitality into our shipbuilding industry. What we need in the

shipbuilding industry is work today to cover the 18-month interim

period between now and the time the Polar 8 project goes to

construction.

Secondly, we need to make sure we don't have the same problem we had

this time around. In other words, we need to begin to plan in the long

run for work after the Polar 8 contract, so that once that project is

completed there are other shipbuilding projects on design, so we don't

face the situation that we have now. Today there are only 200 people

employed in the shipyard in Esquimalt. At its height there were 1,400.

What we need is a comprehensive strategy for Esquimalt and other areas

in this province that are the bases of the shipbuilding industry. What

we need, first of all, is interim work. Secondly, what we need to

establish is a permanent lobby in Ottawa to go after those federal

contracts when they come up. Of course, now that the Polar 8

announcement has been made, you don't see the Premier saying that any

more, because the political sex appeal of the issue is gone.

[4:301

We need a new generation of B.C. ferries, or at least a

consideration towards that. We need to market our SeaBus — the

wonderful SeaBus that we've got in downtown Vancouver, which, of

course, is a credit to the former NDP government, designed in B.C. and

marketed elsewhere in the world, so that we can construct those

Seabuses here in British Columbia and provide them to people elsewhere.

We need to begin to look at the possibility of negotiating within

our trade contracts a provision that says that if you want to buy some

of that coal or some of that lumber or any of our other commodities,

then a percentage of those goods has to be shipped on our ships built

here in Canada, built in places like Esquimalt.

But sadly, there is no mention of a municipal infrastructure, no

mention of an appropriate roadways work, no mention of an appropriate

program for shipbuilding, and no mention of young people. Both myself

and the member for Vancouver East are two of the youngest members in

this House. Young people are facing an unemployment level of about 24

percent. Government can play a leadership role in providing jobs for

young people, not during the summer but for the more important period

from graduation to their first job, to bridge that gap. But no mention

of that; totally oblivious to the needs of young people.

The point I am trying to make here, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a

challenge before government to play a leadership role in economic

development, to be an active and vigorous and positive participant in

the marketplace, not to take a secondary or peripheral role and stand

by and wait for this

[ Page 38 ]

economic miracle from the private sector or from

deregulation and red tape. We need action now; we need it from the

government. We need that leadership.

We have heard enough about this whole issue of creating the right

climate or bringing about the right atmosphere for investment. We have

been hearing that for eight or ten years, and the unemployment level

remains precisely where it is right now. The economic policy, the

philosophy that appears in the throne speech, is flawed. It is flawed

in the way that I have announced already, and I encourage and urge the

government to take a look at its economic policies and begin to take

economic leadership in the marketplace.

I want to deviate for a moment and take a little bit about some

other things that the throne speech omitted. I want to refer to two in

particular, because it seems to me that there are a fair number of

holes in this throne speech.

First of all, as I made my way through the throne speech I noticed

that there is no mention at all about seniors, nothing. And yet in

southern Vancouver Island we have a very large population of seniors,

and a lot of them have retired in the areas of Esquimalt, Langford and

Sooke, which of course are in my riding.

These people produced the wealth of this country. They helped build

this country. Many woul