1988 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

MONDAY, MARCH 21, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3531 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

WCB review board decisions. Mr. Gabelmann –– 3531

British Columbia Enterprise Corporation. Mr. Williams –– 3532

Downsizing of Riverview Hospital. Mr. Rose –– 3532

Family life education program. Mr. Jones –– 3533

Tabling Documents –– 3533

Throne Speech Debate

Mrs. Gran –– 3533

Mr. Williams –– 3535

On the amendment

Mr. Barnes –– 3538

Mr. Weisgerber –– 3541

Mr. Cashore –– 3544

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 3548

Ms. Edwards –– 3552

On the main motion

Ms. Edwards –– 3552

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. CAMPBELL: In the gallery today visiting from

Vancouver-Point Grey is a young constituent, Mr. John Boehm. I'd ask

the House to please make him welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: From the beautiful Fraser Valley — more

precisely, the central Fraser Valley — we have in the gallery today

Terry Schellenberg, Louella Schellenberg, Tim Rempel and Flo Rempel.

These are people who were instrumental in bringing me to this House.

Would the House please make them welcome.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a young man

whom I've known very well for 24 years. He's a good friend of mine, and

he's also my son. Would the House please welcome Blair Gran.

MR. LOENEN: I'd like to ask the House to join me in

congratulating the Richmond Colts. On Saturday they won the B.C. senior

boys' high school basketball championship. We're indeed proud of them,

because it means that the Colts have won three times in the last four

years. It also means that in the last five years a Richmond team has

won four times. I'd like to pass on congratulations to the team and to

coach Bill Disbrow.

HON. MR. VEITCH: As all hon. members are aware, the Queen's Printer has been an integral part of this chamber.

As a matter of fact, when I first came here in 1975-1976, the Queen's Printer had a desk over here in the corner and used

to keep track of the votes manually at that time.

At the end of this month, Mr. Howard Britt, director of government

printing services, will be taking retirement. I want to bring this

matter to the attention of the House today, because the Queen's

Printer, as I have said, not only serves government well in all the

printing functions it performs but also performs a most necessary

service to this House. The Orders of the Day ,

the Votes and Proceedings , the bills which later become statutes, are a vital part of the Queen's Printer operation.

Close liaison with the Speaker's office, the office of the Clerk of

the House and the office of the Deputy Provincial Secretary is most

necessary. In recognition of this fact, I am pleased to say that the

hon. Speaker has agreed to host a small dinner tonight for Mr. and Mrs.

Britt to honour Mr. Britt and to recognize his outstanding contribution

to the smooth running operation of this Legislature.

You may be interested to know that Mr. Britt, who spent 44 years in

the public service, was sent to the province on loan from the

Department of Supply and Services in Ottawa in 1969 to take charge of

the branch and has remained here ever since — which says something for

east-west transfer. The next nine years at the Queen's Printer saw many

changes and innovations which have greatly improved the productivity,

efficiency and customer service of the Queen's Printer operation, and

this is in no small measure due to Mr. Britt's leadership.

Mr. Britt is in the House today on the floor of the House. His favourite hobbies

are gardening and wine-making, and I understand that he is now going to try

his hand at golf. I would ask the House to join me in expressing our thanks

to Mr. Britt and wishing him and his wife Margaret many years of happy retirement.

MR. ROSE: On behalf of the opposition, I'd like to add my

voice of thanks and also best wishes for Mr. Britt's retirement. A

record such as 44 years of good and loyal service certainly deserves

this kind of recognition, and I can only add that I, too, on behalf of

my party, wish him a productive, enjoyable and carefree retirement.

Thank you for your work, sir.

MR. REE: Possibly today should be classified as Carson Graham

Secondary School Day in Victoria, because we are favoured in the

chambers with three groups totalling approximately 150 students from

Carson Graham Secondary School. They are under the guidance of their

teachers, Mrs. Kathleen Barter, Mr. Rob Karr and Mr. Paul McCormick. I

would ask this House to welcome them to Victoria and to this chamber.

Oral Questions

WCB REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question for the Minister of Labour

and Consumer Services. The B.C. Supreme Court has ruled three times

recently in the Testa, Kolman and Guadagni cases that the commissioners

at the Workers' Compensation Board were wrong in law to refuse to

implement review board decisions. The commissioners refused to

implement review board decisions on average seven times a month in 1987

and ten times a month so far in 1988. Has the minister taken steps to

point out to the commissioners their duty to follow the law and pay

benefits to all injured workers who are successful at the review board?

HON. L. HANSON: I'm sure that the members of the Workers'

Compensation Board are well aware that they are required to obey the

law, as all citizens of British Columbia respect that responsibility.

You suggested that there were a number of turndowns of review board

decisions in 1987. I'd like to put that in perspective.

There were about 5,000 decisions made by the review board in 1987,

of which 84 were not instituted in the total year. That's something

like 1.5 percent or 1.75 percent.

[2:15]

The latest decision was not that the Workers' Compensation did not

have the right to overturn a decision, but that the review board

decision had to be implemented as soon as its decision came out, and

then the commissioners had the ability to review that decision. That is

in place now. The Workers' Compensation Board has not made a decision

as yet whether they will appeal the decision of the court.

I'd also like to point out to the member opposite that we are

announcing very shortly — it has been announced earlier, but not the

specifics — that an advisory body is being formed representative of

those people most involved in the workers' compensation system: labour

and management. Things like this will be some of the subjects they will

discuss in a broad sense to best have the input from the employees and

the employers to the Workers' Compensation commissioners.

[ Page 3532 ]

MR. GABELMANN: I find it astounding that the minister would justify breaking the law because it happened only 84 times in 1987.

Second question, Mr. Speaker. Vic Stusiak was recently appointed to

the board and withdrew for both personal and political reasons, the

political reason being that his appointment was controversial. The

controversy arose because neither the Business Council nor the B.C.

Federation of Labour was consulted about the recent appointments. Is it

now the government's policy to consult with the parties of interest

before making appointments to the Workers' Compensation Board?

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, I disagree with the contention

of the member opposite that Mr. Stusiak's resignation from the board

had a political connotation to it. Mr. Stusiak had some difficulties

personally and asked to be withdrawn.

Secondly, I believe that we as government have a responsibility to

communicate in most appointments, and we do that. There were

accusations that the decision to appoint a member to the Workers'

Compensation Board was not communicated as well as it should have been,

but I don't really find that those accusations have total grounding in

fact. And yes, wherever it is important and necessary, wherever it will

have a beneficial effect, consultation will go on.

MR. GABELMANN: Is it necessary and important for future

appointments to the commissioners that those consultations do in fact.

take place prior to the appointments?

HON. L. HANSON: The member for North Island is referring to

the understanding that there would be equal labour and management

representation on the Workers' Compensation Board, and I believe that

to be the case. We will consult as we feel it is appropriate.

MR. GABELMANN: Third question. Just about everybody in

British Columbia thinks the WCB is a disaster area. Has the government,

in the interests of making a fresh start, decided to remove Jim Nielsen

and his colleagues and to appoint as commissioners people who are

broadly acceptable to both labour and management?

HON. L. HANSON: I have to contest the statement that most

British Columbians are upset with the Workers' Compensation Board. If

you look at the record of the Workers' Compensation Board as it relates

to other jurisdictions in Canada, I think it's a pretty good system. We

don't have any intention of calling for Mr. Nielsen's resignation.

MR. GABELMANN: Final question. In the interests of making

this fresh start in the WCB, has the minister decided to convene at the

earliest possible date a conference of representatives of all

interested parties to consider the system of workers' compensation in

B.C., as recommended by the ombudsman in July of last year?

HON. L. HANSON: That, of course, is future policy. The member

opposite is quite aware of the report that was done on the advisory

committee that I hope to have in place by the end of this month. It's

certainly my belief and the belief of members of my caucus that

that will serve the purpose of reviewing the Workers' Compensation

Board.

BRITISH COLUMBIA ENTERPRISE CORPORATION

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, could the Premier advise the House

why he recommended the appointment of David Poole to the board of the

Enterprise Corporation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I believe he'll serve us very well.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the Premier aware, Mr. Speaker, that the

former Premier, Mr. Bennett, had two senior people in his office: one

who was a political person and another who dealt with the bureaucracy?

This Premier has them all in one person. Is he not concerned about the

potential conflict in terms of political interference in the activities

of the Enterprise Corporation, which lends hundreds of millions of

dollars?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the Premier aware that the predecessor of

the Enterprise Corporation lost $500 million through bad loans? Does he

want his political operative associated with that kind of activity?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We've moved away from the loan portfolio, and the emphasis will not be there.

MR. WILLIAMS: Assets of $700 million or more are going to be

sold off by the Enterprise Corporation. Does the Premier find it

acceptable that his political person in his office should sit at the

table directing the fire sale of these hundreds of millions of

provincial assets?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There's an excellent process in place,

and we're following the process which was established and appears to be

working very well.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Audain, the head of Polygon Properties,

indicated that the province would lose tens of millions of dollars by

the process you are undertaking in selling off those assets, as has Mr.

Brian Calder, both of them outstanding realtors in greater Vancouver.

Have you reconsidered with respect to that fire sale?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it's not a fire sale.

Proper evaluations are done by people expert in the business. Obviously

one could follow an approach of piece-mealing it or selling it little

by little or, alternatively, take and sell the bigger chunks. We've

decided to take the latter approach, and I believe it will serve the

people of B.C. well.

DOWNSIZING OF RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL

MR. ROSE: My question is to the Minister of Health, and I'll

try to be objective about this matter. I don't want to be alarmist

either, but I would like to ask if the minister can confirm that all

kinds of problems, including an increase in violent crimes, are

resulting from the government's deinstitutionalization at Riverview?

HON. MR. DUECK: We've done a consultative report on deinstitutionalizing or downsizing of Riverview. That

[ Page

3533 ]

report has not yet been approved by cabinet, and so the process has not yet

begun. We hope to have that report before cabinet within the next few months,

and at that point in time we will then decide to go ahead with it or to stay

as we are.

MR. ROSE: Supplementary. Can the minister confirm that there

has been an increase in staff injuries in handling these patients since

the downsizing, due to early retirement and less experienced staff?

HON. MR. DUECK: I am certainly not aware that there has been

an increase in injury to staff. I know there are a number of people

taking early retirement, and just this morning I instructed my senior

staff to be sure that we do not have a shortage of senior staff, or any

staff, for that matter, because of the early retirement.

MR. ROSE: Supplementary. Does the minister not agree that

non-institutional placement for the mentally ill patients creates far

more problems of community safety and patient security than have

placements for the mentally handicapped? I'd like to make a distinction

between those two groups. Does he intend to change his policy, or at

least proceed more cautiously at Riverview?

HON. MR. DUECK: I would certainly hope that we're proceeding

cautiously. I would certainly not be in favour of anyone going ahead

and not being cautious. We have, I think, roughly 1,900 mentally ill

people in the province in various facilities — some of the larger ones,

but smaller than Riverview — and thus far there have been very few

incidents. I believe people who are mentally ill, who are assessed as

functioning well in the community, should be given that opportunity the

same as anyone else. When I open the paper in the morning and look at

the crimes committed around the province, most of the time they're

committed by so-called sane people. So when an incident occurs.... I

want to be kind when I say this, because I know of the last incident,

which I think we all feel very sorry for, but we're doing everything we

can to see that this will not happen again.

FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION PROGRAM

MR. JONES: I have a question for the Premier regarding the family life program in B.C. schools. Given the fact

that the program has been well received by most school districts in British Columbia and that the existing program can be

adjusted to meet local community standards, would the Premier explain why he feels it necessary, based on his own personal

views, to order revision of that excellent program?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I hadn't heard that the Premier had ordered a revision of the program.

MR. JONES: It has been reported in the press that if the program is teaching that homosexuality is normal, then

corrections have to be made. To me, that's a revision and a call by the Premier for a revision. Can the Premier explain why

he feels that revision is necessary? What's wrong with the existing program that has been accepted by school districts

throughout this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, that appears to be a little more accurate,

Mr. Speaker. I gather that what the member is saying is that there was some

comment made with respect to a review, if need be, and changes, if required.

Frankly, I've had the beginnings of that, in discussing it with the minister,

and we'll be discussing in more detail the exception apparently expressed

by at least one school district with respect to one aspect of the family life

program.

Whenever we have a group of citizens, regardless of where they are —

whether they're in a school district in the north or south or wherever

in the province — if they have a concern, I don't think we should,

because of our own particular hang-ups on a particular issue, such as

obviously exists with some of the members opposite, simply say: "No, we

won't listen." I'm saying that if people have a valid concern, the

least we can do is say: "What is your concern? Can we look at it? We're

obviously prepared to see what it is and why you have this concern."

That's really what we're talking about, and we're not so dogmatically

tied in and so hung up as obviously some members are with respect to

this question. We're prepared to look at it if need be.

Hon. B.R. Smith tabled the 1986-87 annual report of the B.C. Police Commission.

[2:30]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

MRS. GRAN: It is my pleasure and privilege today to rise to speak to the throne speech.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the time that

I worked with you and with the Deputy Speaker, the first member for

Dewdney (Mr. Pelton). I would like to thank both of you for the

assistance that was always offered, and I would like to thank the

Premier for giving me that position in the first place. It was a

wonderful learning experience, and I think it's an experience that

every member in this House should have — sitting in the chair. It gives

you a completely different perspective of the House.

I would also like to congratulate the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr.

Rabbitt) on his appointment as Deputy Chairman of the Committee of the

Whole, and wish him well, and perhaps give him a little advice: you

can't say "Good stuff!" from the chair.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the second

member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) for all his help in the past 18

months, for his support even when I've not been sure whether he really

supported my ideas, I thank him for being a compatible partner and for

helping me, together, to look after the concerns of our mutual

constituents.

The throne speech, in my view, points out very clearly that

individual responsibility and accountability must be brought back to

this province and to this country. I myself firmly believe that. We are

all in charge of our own lives and we all make our own choices. There

are many among us who have problems and difficulties in being able to

make their own choices, but I believe that most of us choose to make

our own choices and that socializing the world is not the answer to our

problems.

I want also to congratulate the government on the commitment to eliminating the deficit. I think all would agree that

[ Page 3534 ]

there is nothing more burdensome in this world than

countries that owe debts they know they will never be able to repay.

This government's commitment to eliminating the deficit is commendable,

and I support it 100 percent.

I'd like to speak a little about the ten-year plan that the Premier

and the government are doing for our province: another commendable

action. As chairman of a special committee of government MLAs and

ministers, I am proud to say, working with the private sector, the

Premier's Economic Advisory Council, that that plan will have the input

of the public, of the public service and of the politicians, and will

be a guide for the next ten years, as we face many difficult problems

in our society and in our economy.

There has been some criticism in the press of statements in the

throne speech regarding the federal government. I would like to take

this opportunity to talk about two instances in my own riding of

Langley where those statements become very valid. The first one is

South Moresby Park, which we have not been compensated for yet. The

loss of logging on Lyell Island has been very hurtful to the forestry

industry. In my riding there is a company called McDonald Cedar, a

division of Whonnock Industries. The loss of Lyell Island was a very

heavy blow for that company. I recently toured McDonald Cedar, which is

the largest private sector employer in Langley. The mill is located on

the Fraser River in Fort Langley. Each year McDonald Cedar produces

approximately 50 million board feet of western red cedar. The mill is

now using new technology to increase efficiency and to create more, not

less, jobs for the people of Langley. The forestry industry has an

untapped potential for new economic growth for British Columbia; I

merely point out that decisions made by the federal government do have

direct effects on people, and valid criticism is due the federal

government.

The second item is Fort Langley. Fort Langley is, in my view — and

in the view of many others — probably the most historic spot in British

Columbia, yet it has been consistently ignored by the federal

government. While millions and millions of dollars have gone to other

parks in Canada, Fort Langley has received nothing but empty promises.

So I say that the press coverage of criticisms of Ottawa is bunk.

Ottawa deserves to be criticized.

I'd like to go on and talk a little bit about women and children.

The issues we have been dealing with as a government and as a society

have pointed out very clearly that there is a great deal of

misunderstanding where women are concerned. I was extremely happy to

see so many of those issues addressed in the throne speech. The throne

speech promises more money for day care. I must tell you that day care

is lacking in this province. Although this government, with two throne

speeches, has given more money, more money is still needed. New ways to

look after our children must be found. Our children are our future, and

I thank the government for including day care in the throne speech.

The mention of improved social services to those in need also

pleases me. A lot of those people in need are women who through no

fault of their own are left with children to raise without the skills

to get a job that pays a decent salary. They are left to live on social

assistance. I thank the government once again for addressing those

needs.

I also recognize in the throne speech assistance for women facing

unwanted pregnancies. I think this issue is better understood now than

it ever has been at any time, in my lifetime at least. I think we owe

the Premier of this province a debt of gratitude for bringing this

subject to the front, for forcing us to discuss it as a society. We may

not all agree on how it should be handled, but for sure we've all got

an opinion on it, and we've all dealt with it in our minds.

I'm also happy to see more flexible adoption procedures mentioned in

the throne speech. I've talked to many adopted people who spend a lot

of their lives searching for their natural parents. As a human race I

think we have to understand that adoption procedures that don't allow

enough flexibility for parents and children in later life to find one

another aren't worth having. I thank the government for recognizing

that.

As an elected member I will only be happy and feel I have

accomplished something in my position if I can say that we have

recognized that women and children need our help to help them help

themselves.

I'd like to talk a little bit about education at this point. Just

about everything that we deal with in life stems from education. Never

in our society has it been more important or more misunderstood. The

throne speech promotes excellence in grade schools, colleges and

universities, but those institutions must be updated. There are new

ways of learning, and I fear that our institutions are not up to date.

At the Vancouver Learning Centre, the president, Dr. Geraldine

Schwartz, who is a psychologist, author and scientist, teaches people

of all ages how to learn. That may sound very simple, but there are

many people in this room, in this city and in this province who have

never learned how to learn. We do not teach our children in school how

to learn. Dr. Schwartz has made that commitment for her life: to teach

people from ages 6 to 76 how to learn.

Dr. Schwartz believes, as I do, that Canada is one of the most

exciting countries of the world, and that we are on the edge of a

future beyond our own imagination. New technologies of the mind must be

introduced throughout the education system at all levels. The public

and private sectors must also be ready for the new age. The minds of

the twenty-first century leaders will need to be nourished, created,

educated and tutored in unprecedented ways. I can't emphasize enough

how we must all recognize that the old ways of learning must change if

we are to keep up with the rest of the world we live in.

I would be remiss if I didn't spend some time talking about seniors.

In particular, I'd like to talk about how we waste valuable knowledge

when we retire our seniors at age 65. Today's longevity provides for

more than 65 productive years in this society. The brain doesn't stop

functioning at age 65; in fact, it just gets started.

I'd like to talk about two people who are excellent examples of what

you can do in your golden years. The first one is Rita Levi-Montalcini,

who shared the 1986 Nobel Prize for Medicine. She is 78 years of age.

When asked if there was any reason why a healthy person at any age

shouldn't continue in science or any other field, she replied: "My

brain has not deteriorated, as far as I know, so why should I not use

my brain as I use my hand? My eyes are also very good. As long as I

have these advantages, why shouldn't I work?" I commend that lady. We

should all strive to use our brains for as long as we are able and to

contribute for as long as we are able.

[2:45]

My second example is the chairman of Borden Inc. — the dairy

business that good old Elsie the Cow made famous. A 63-year-old

creative thinking man has been at the helm of that company for two

years. Borden's will close 1987 with a 30

[ Page 3535 ]

percent revenue increase over 1986, and a jump of 20 percent in estimated earnings.

The potential is real, and the future is unlimited. 1 say let's keep our

seniors working as long as they want to, and as long as they are able.

I think that one of the things we have the most difficulty with, as

a society and especially as politicians, is change. No one likes

change. It's natural to reject change, but change we must. This

government has introduced more change in the last 18 months than any

government in the history of this province. I'd like to talk about one

of the changes and give you an example of how the first reaction is

negative but the end result is positive, and that's regionalization.

My example is in my own constituency, and it's the Langley School

Board. A couple of years ago they decided to decentralize their budget.

Each principal receives the money that is needed to run his school, and

he puts in his own particular budget. Those principals were terrified

and upset, but today they understand the budgeting process. Most of

them save money on their budgets and buy buses to transport students to

sporting events. I think there's a lesson for the provincial government

in this one. Instead of losing the money that they saved, they're

allowed to keep it and use it for something special, and I think that

that is missing in the provincial system and well worth looking at. I

would hope that the Minister of Education would do that.

So you see, you can change, and it can be positive, and it is

positive. And the rest of British Columbia deserves as much opportunity

as the lower mainland. In fact, I understand there is a great deal of

life beyond the lower mainland — and of a much higher quality in some

cases. So I compliment the government on the regionalization program,

and I urge the opposition members to participate so that when the next

election comes along you can say: "I was part of that process."

Finally, Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech is the mention of

enhancing the viability of the horse-breeding and racing industry in

this province. I may be biased, but of the 700 thoroughbred breeders in

British Columbia, over 300 reside in Langley. That's quite an industry

— and I see by many faces around this room that there are a lot of

racing enthusiasts and perhaps even thoroughbred breeders in the room.

I wonder how many people think about the spinoffs from the

horse-breeding industry. Millions and millions of dollars are spent on

feed, on veterinary services. Most horse-breeding operations exist on

marginal farmlands. As we all know, the Fraser Valley contains 85

percent of it, in the land freeze, and so the horse-breeding industry

is extremely important to the economy of the Fraser Valley and in

particular of Langley. I would like to commend the government for its

actions.

The B.C. thoroughbred breeders are capable and have the desire to

breed for an extensive export market but have not had the essential

proving ground, a one-mile track. It is my hope that in the next year

we will see an acceptable proposal for a new one-mile racetrack outside

of the city of Vancouver.

MR. ROSE: Colony Farm?

MRS. GRAN: Someone says: "Colony Farm?" I don't know. I'm

just saying I hope that in the very near future we have a new racing

facility for the breeding industry in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to end my comments by thanking all the

members of this House for their cooperation and their friendship over

the last year, and I look forward to this session being lively but

cordial.

MR. WILLIAMS: How can one follow that speech from the hon.

first member for Langley? She plans on stealing the most attractive

racetrack in the province; but we'll deal with that another time.

I'd like to talk about the way this Premier does public business in

British Columbia, I'd like to talk a little bit about the Energy

ministry and what came out of the throne speech in terms of that, a

little bit about some aspects of the Enterprise Corporation and the

latest appointment to that corporation. I'd like to talk a little bit

about the Premier's travels in Europe with the director of the Krupp

corporation, and a little bit about the conflicts of interest that the

Premier always seems to turn a blind eye toward.

We were really given only one line or so in the throne speech. I

think we have to look at these throne speeches now in terms of what

they don't say as much as for what they do say. As a member who has

been here for some time, I might say that I find myself somewhat

offended by the words this administration consistently puts into the

mouth of the representative of the Queen. They said this: "To

encourage industry participation in the management and development of

British Columbia's mineral, petroleum and natural gas resources, my

government will investigate the establishment of joint venture

operating boards." It seems quiet and innocuous, but it's an extension

of the kind of radical "public be damned" program that we get day in

and day out from this Premier and this administration. What he's

talking about there is the privatizing of the powers of government

itself in the form of the mining industry and government taking over

the civil service of the mines and energy department, of its being put

in the joint hands of these two groups.

You get the impression from the throne speech that they're really

going to think this over. that there would be a public dialogue and all

the rest of it. But no, that was not to be the case. A day or so later

there was a private meeting in the Newcombe Auditorium, with 300

employees from that ministry simply being told: "You're going to be

part of some new agency that will be funded jointly by government and

by the mining and the petroleum people." This is a $24 million chunk of

government in British Columbia that is being privatized. It's the fox

and the chickens getting together to run the public sector; it's $3

million in administration. $1 million in executive management, $6

million in energy resources, $10 million in mineral resources and $4

million in petroleum resources in terms of our civil service staff that

will be privatized by the actions of this Premier. There was no

dialogue, no discussion with the staff. Nevertheless, all the details

are spelled out in lengthy reports that have already been printed which

the staff have not been advised of.

Who was the deputy in this case? Mr. Plecas, the fixer throughout

the whole restraint era, was plugged in there to get rid of a

department. Who prepared the report that set up this system for

destroying public government in British Columbia? The consultant was

one Mr. Ed Northup, an assistant deputy minister for many years in

Human Resources. My experience is that the Human Resources ministry has

been historically the worst managed ministry in the province at the top

level — not at the field level, but at the top level. Mr. Northup was

one of the main players. He now goes on to his just reward of higher

consulting fees and preparing the plan to gut this ministry. That has

been the case.

[ Page 3536 ]

Throughout all this, this Premier has the idea that what's good for

Noranda is good for the people, that what's good for General Bullmoose

is good for the people. It is a blind-sided view of conflict of

interest that continually dominates his thinking. He has no

understanding of what human capital is. When we had a small debate here

in the fall sitting, I dealt with this question of human capital and

civil servants: what their experience, know-how and training is worth

if you keep them on. It was a naive kind of man who sat there in the

chair. It was clearly a new idea to him that there could be such a

thing as human capital, a kind of collective wisdom built up over the

years by people working together. All of that is going to be gone as

this process carries on. It's part of this blind-sided view in terms of

conflict of interest that dominates his decision-making again and again.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

My colleague from Vancouver East dealt with part of that the other

day on the question of Fantasy Gardens, of the Terra Nova lands in

Richmond and so on. My colleague from Nanaimo dealt with the question

of conflict of interest even when it comes down to such basic things as

automobile testing, where the guy who does the testing has an interest

in repairing your automobile. But this Premier and this administration

don't seem to understand the conflict-of-interest question. It's there

again and again.

Now we've got the case of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. Let's

think about the predecessor of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation — the

B.C. Development Corporation. A year ago, the predecessor was written

off in terms of its huge debts and bad loans to the tune of $500

million. That's an abysmal record by any standard. Now that is replaced

by the new corporation — the energy corporation — nominally under the

jurisdiction of the Minister of Economic Development, the first member

for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). We know there's

been a kind of minor war going on between the Premier and the Minister

of Economic Development, and she is clearly slated for an ouster;

there's no doubt about that. Somehow he's threatened by that other

aspect of feminist strength in his cabinet.

Let's get on to that in a minute. He just recently appointed Mr.

David Poole to one of the jobs as director of that corporation —

clearly his man on the board. As I mentioned earlier in question

period, the last Premier, Mr. Bennett, recognized the problems of

conflict, and he appointed two people to his senior level staff in his

office. One was Dr. Norman Spector, who was the chief bureaucrat, if

you will, dealing with government generally. The other was his

political fixer, Mr. Smith, who currently is the second member for

Kamloops. So he saw that there was clearly a difference in these roles.

[3:00]

This Premier again has a blind eye on these conflict questions. It's

one thing to be a senior bureaucrat and deputy minister under the

British system; it's something else to be the principal secretary, or

your main political hit-man. You can't marry the two, Mr. Premier.

Surely you know that; surely you understand that. You can't, because

what's good for politics and the Social Credit Party and the friends of

the Social Credit Party may very well indeed not be what's good for the

people of British Columbia or the management of the public's business.

They are two very different things indeed.

So this employee takes his orders from the Premier — a Premier who's a

very political Premier, There have been a lot of rumours about the Premier phoning

that board and telling them that he'd like things to go a certain way.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, by all means, Mr. Premier. Do that indeed.

But let's understand, Mr. Premier, this.... You've already

authorized $325 million in borrowings for the B.C. Enterprise

Corporation by order-in-council. They have that authority now, and now

you have your political man sitting on that board. That is not

acceptable in the modem democratic state, Mr. Premier; it's simply not

acceptable. Now you're entertaining the selling of the best land in the

city of Victoria — the Songhees reserve. You're entertaining the sale

of the best land in the city of Vancouver — the B.C. Place lands, miles

and miles of downtown shoreline. Your political man will be sitting on

the board and pushing them to make the decisions you want made. That is

not acceptable. Three hundred million in loans out there that you want

to sell, in addition to $400 million in lands, and your political man

is sitting on the board and, I'm sure, doing as he's told. That is not

acceptable. You don't understand what is improper, Mr. Premier. You

don't understand that people like this should not be in those roles,

Mr. Premier.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. WILLIAMS: Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMS: I hope that the Premier will join in this

debate, because I plan on moving an amendment talking about the way he

does business. It's not acceptable, and I'd like you to join in that

debate, Mr. Premier.

Mr. Audain from Polygon Properties says that what you're doing in

the energy corporation is all wrong; Mr. Calder, with one of the major

national companies, says that what you're doing is all wrong. They

basically say you're going to lose money, that the Crown will suffer

because we won't get what those lands are worth. Are you going to tell

your man on the board not to sell to one big company, to a Monopoly

game player like Li Ka-shing from Hong Kong? Are you going to tell him

that he should vote for your player, Peter Toigo, a longtime political

supporter, or are you going to tell him to vote for Bell Canada — the

primary players? Come on! That's no way to do it.

Clearly there should be pluralistic ownership of these lands.

Clearly there should be opportunities for small business, and there

won't be under the kind of game you set up and with your man on that

board. Those opportunities will be gone for the independent British

Columbia players.

There are 650 hectares on the Westwood Plateau in Coquitlam. I'd

like you to hang in, because I'd like you to explain your association

with the Krupp empire in Europe on your trip.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: Why not? Weren't they with you? Wasn't he with you?

Interjections.

[ Page 3537 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: You can laugh all you like. Was he not with you

in Europe, Mr. Premier, the representative of Krupp? No? Is the picture

of you from B.C. House in London with Mr. Ekhard Freiherr von Maltzahn,

director of Friedrich Krupp, simply not so?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Absolutely.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh! Was the note in a column in the Vancouver Sun

not correct — through you, Mr. Speaker — that indicated that you were

indeed traveling with or being introduced by this representative of

Krupp in Europe? Is this not true?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll explain later.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, okay. Fine.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Go ahead. Crazy assumptions.

MR. WILLIAMS: Not assumptions. This is public information.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Now to some serious research.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay, fine.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Every time you use that newspaper magazine....

MR. WILLIAMS: This is your own publication, Mr. Premier.

Just to deal with the Enterprise Corporation before we leave that,

Mr. Premier, I'm sure that the municipality of Coquitlam, with respect

to those 650 hectares, would like to embark on some involvement of the

municipality in its development, not having to deal with Li Ka-shing or

any of the other major buyers that there might be waiting in the wings

or foreign companies that would end up owning it. Are you prepared to

entertain municipal proposals when these lands are in those

municipalities? That's what should happen. If you really believe in

individual enterprise in this province, you would be providing

opportunities in British Columbia for entrepreneurs in British Columbia.

I would note, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to lands already sold

by the Enterprise Corporation, I intend to show in the coming budget

debate how funds were indeed lost even by the scale of sales that this

government entertained under the Development Corporation and the

Enterprise Corporation to date, parcels that are far smaller than they

plan on selling now to one single buyer. The data is in. It's clear

that it has cost the government a bundle, but we'll deal with that in

the budget debate.

When you get down to the question of what's going to happen to these

ministries, it seems clear. There's going to be a gutting of the

ministries under this administration. I suggest that the next one's

going to be Economic Development. The signals are all there. The first

member for Vancouver-Little Mountain has clearly been too strong a

player around these halls, and she's going to go. Right now the signals

are all there. The deputy minister — there isn't one; there's only an

acting deputy minister, and there's going to be an acting minister

before long too. After all, her job has been handed to the graduate of

our greatest universities, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch),

who is the super mayor for the lower mainland region. it’s a reward for

his great abilities, there's no doubt about that.

What's next after that, Mr. Speaker? Why, probably Human Resources.

There's a one-line reference in the speech: "My government will

reorganize the delivery of income assistance and social programs in the

coming years." It's the one-liners you have to worry about in this

speech.

There are clearly going to be fewer cabinet ministers around —

because who needs them when you run it all out of the Premier's office?

The private sector is clearly worried about the flakiness of this

administration. Make no bones about it; there's a flakiness around here

like we have never seen before. So that's why the private sector said:

"How about a ten-year plan? Because we never know where the goalposts

are with this guy and with this operation." So that's all

understandable.

I did raise this question of the Premier meeting with the director

of the Krupp corporation in Europe. He has decided that he will not

attend at this point. But I would note that the B.C. House newsletter

of February 1988 has a picture on the front cover that shows the

Premier with Mr. Gardom, who's our director of B.C. House. It was a

meeting of the Premier's Economic Advisory Council, and it included

Ekhard Freiherr von Maltzahn, a director of Friedrich Krupp GrnbH, and

also, interestingly, the representative of the Swiss Bank Corporation

International.

Well, I don't know. I found the idea of our Premier in British

Columbia meeting with the director of the Krupp company offensive. I

may be young and naive — I was just a kid during the Second World War —

but the Krupp name is one that I, as a result of my understanding of

those days, would never, ever again want to be associated with. The

Krupp corporation were the merchants of death in the Second World War.

The Krupp corporation were the manufacturers of armaments for Nazi

Germany. The Krupp corporation and others were financiers for the Nazi

Party in the 1930s. That is the background of the Krupp corporation,

and I can't ever forget that, as a Canadian. I'm sure there are

countless other Canadians of my age and older who can never forget it

either.

We were told by a leading columnist that the guide for his tour of

business concerns in Europe was indeed this man from Krupp, Mr. von

Maltzahn. The Premier can answer to that. It appears that the meetings

took place, and so on. But you know, this is a company that was

convicted as a war criminal in the Nuremberg trials. They were advised,

as a result of those trials, that 75 percent of the corporation should

be sold off so that this monster should never rise again. But as time

wore on, it turned out that that didn't happen at all, and the company

remained intact.

I find it disturbing that the Premier should travel with these

people in Europe — as the Premier of British Columbia. It's one thing,

in terms of his private business interests, if he wants to associate

with these people, but I find it extremely offensive that he should

have associated himself with this company. I find it offensive that

representatives of this company, as well, should be on our Economic

Advisory Council in British Columbia, in terms of how we build a modem

British Columbia.

It doesn't add up, but it's part of that blind side of the Premier. There's a blind side that doesn't see these things that

[ Page 3538 ]

are incredibly offensive to most people. Oh yes,

you can shake your head. He talked about the Holocaust in his offensive

speech on the question of choice and abortion. Anybody who speaks about

the Holocaust knowingly would certainly have trouble with this

relationship.

So there's going to be an economic plan, and one of the people who

is going to work on how that plan is going to be developed will be this

representative of this corporation from Germany. That's extraordinary.

But taking the clue from industry, which has been concerned about

irrational decisionmaking in the Premier's office, this government of

the Premier's accepted the idea of a ten-year plan, so that there might

be some consistent pattern. Well, lots of luck.

If you were going to prepare an economic plan for the province of

British Columbia, who might you hire to do it? Who, indeed? Well, you

might go to our universities. We have departments of economics at all

three universities, with eminent people. Would you ask them to carry

out the actual staff work? No, apparently not. Who we have doing that

work for us is a television reporter. We're told in the Speech from the

Throne that there's going to be a draft in August, and it's all going

to be complete within a year. Well, that strikes me as quite demanding,

Mr. Speaker, and quite a challenge for that former television reporter.

[3:15]

MR. CLARK: South African investment.

MR. WILLIAMS: South African investment indeed which many

people found offensive, again in terms of the Premier's attitude with

regard to their representative when he was here in Victoria. But indeed

the Krupp company carries on and has many economic activities in Africa

as well.

What we got from the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, was

essentially a fog of fed-bashing that was covering an approach that is

consistently there: there's going to be dramatic change in the nature

of this province, a dramatic change for the worse in terms of income

levels and wages for workers and privatization. We were not advised

that there were going to be any changes in terms of that foot on the

accelerator; we were not advised in that regard at all.

So, Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the Premier would continue, in

terms of this debate, because it's my intent to move an amendment to

the Speech from the Throne that deals partly with the questionable way

this man does business in British Columbia and the way he does not see

the issues as clearly as most citizens in the province do, with the

fact that he does not see conflicts of interest where they obviously

are, and with the fact that the provincial economy is captive to his

kind of inconsistent pattern.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am moving that the motion "We, Her

Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia, in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour

for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the

opening of the present session," be amended by adding the following:

"But this House regrets that the throne speech contained no new

initiatives for economic development. Rather, it represents a

continuation of reactionary and discredited economic policies and

ideological dogma which have caused uncertainty and instability instead

of setting out new directions to benefit British Columbians."

MR. ROSE: It should be pointed out that I am seconding the amendment but not speaking to it at this time.

On the amendment.

MR. BARNES: I guess because of a technicality I will not be

seconding the motion. However, I will be speaking to the spirit of the

motion, as intended by the first member for Vancouver East, who, I

believe, very forcefully expressed the concern of all of us on this

side of the House: regret that the throne speech failed to take

seriously the conditions in the Legislature and in the province that

we've all been desperately attempting to bring to the House's attention.

I would just say that it's rather significant, in fact, to reflect

on that day when we sat here and the throne speech was being presented

by His Honour. I believe that it was perhaps even too much for His

Honour to take, because I cannot recall any time in the past when a

page of the throne speech was accidentally overlooked by His Honour.

Perhaps it says something, though, Mr. Speaker, in terms of this

government's karma, shall we say, and the way things have been going,

because it was definitely a document of vitriol and rhetoric. Just

about all of us have expressed our disbelief in this shift from

traditional protocol in non-partisan documents coming before the

Legislature to give us an opportunity to express our varied concerns

constituency by constituency; for the government to take an overview,

at least in presenting a philosophic statement that would indicate its

concerns, of whether it was in a position to address all of those

concerns, at least to afford to do so at any particular point in time,

at least recognizing those concerns....

So the document in effect failed to achieve that level of

cooperation or understanding, as far as I'm concerned — and, I believe,

the members on this side of the House as well. To call it an

ideological reactionary document is certainly an understatement. The

document was somewhat flagrant in its arrogance and lack of sincerity.

In other words, it wasn't a very convincing statement.

Like the first member for Vancouver East, I have sat in this House

for some years. The thing that should be happening when we have throne

speeches is for all of us to have an opportunity to really take a look

at the things that concern us, rather than using a psychology that

attempts to divide the province. This should be a time for rallying and

coming together. But what we had was a series of statements basically

suggesting that one part of the province was more important than the

other. We heard, time and time again, the government's reference to the

private sector being in support of its initiatives, particularly with

the government's agenda of privatizing services and resources. You must

recall that the opposition leader attempted to suggest that we were all

together in this — public and private. It's a rather offensive

statement to be in a document that is a non-partisan document,

suggesting that the private sector is more important than the public

sector. As we know, the government has demonstrated its disdain for

public employees by its agenda of removing many of them from employment

and placing them at jeopardy and great risk, despite their many years

of service, to the highest bidder, which, as we know, has its

surprises. The most notable was, of course, the decision to remove

automobile testing from the public domain to the private sector. Now

the government, although not coming back entirely, has certainly

realized that the lack of proper maintenance of vehicles is causing

accidents and is costing us

[ Page 3539 ]

more money. ICBC rates, as a result, are going up.

There are more at-risk situations as a result of that short-sighted

initiative.

1 want to spend some time talking about a matter that I believe is

probably the only issue, when you get right down to it, that we can get

enthusiastic about, and that concerns the situation with young people

today. We can talk and we can politic and do all kinds of things, but

ultimately we have to look to tomorrow. We have a responsibility to

look after today, but it's tomorrow that our young people have to be

concerned about. I think that's the issue this afternoon, as far as I'm

concerned, that I would like to talk to you about.

First, let me just tell you the reason I raise this as an issue in

terms of the future. Last week when the Leader of the Opposition was

advising the House that my wife Janet and I were recently proud

grandparents, 1 had a quick flash. Although I've always felt some

responsibility for trying to look after the problems of today, the

world as it is today, it suggested to me that tomorrow is also a

challenge for all of us; that that is the abstraction of it all that a

grandchild can stimulate in one's thinking. I suppose, when you think

of it that way, it has relevance to everyone in this House, because we

are all at least grandchildren, even though we may not become

grandparents. Somehow there is a significant factor there, in terms of

how we handle our affairs.

As you know, over the years I have attempted in this House to

profile issues respecting young people, sometimes with success and

sometimes with not so much success, depending on the nature of what it

was I was trying to present. What better time than now for this

government to demonstrate its commitment to tomorrow.

I have difficulty when the government suggests that it can't afford

to do something about the young people on the streets today, do

something about the high number of dropouts, for instance, in the

public school system, the amount of unemployability, the level of

illiteracy with respect to young people — not only in secondary school;

even post-secondary students are having difficulty, are functionally

illiterate or very close to it. These are large numbers we're talking

about — 14 and 15 percent unemployment among people who are 25 to 30

years of age. Certainly it reaches much higher when it comes to

teenagers, not to mention the incredibly high amount of unemployment

among native youth. Just up-Island in the Cowichan Valley there is a

tribe which has something like 80 percent unemployment among young

people and, in fact, among the population generally.

Why is it that we are not addressing those issues? This is the thing

about these throne speeches. They should be inspiring. We should be

addressing the real problems that face us all, not the abstract kind of

jargon that we're getting. The government is talking about the economy

never being better. Well, the economy may never have been better, but

the provincial debt is rising. In fact, the provincial debt is

ravaging. You've heard these figures before, but since 1975 the debt

has gone from less than $5 billion. including Crown corporations — and

the consolidated revenue balance sheet wasn't what it should be — to

something like $20 billion in 1988, give or take a billion or two. And

it's still rising, as the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams) was just pointing out — sell-offs, giveaways, situations like

the Coquihalla Highway project, which expended so much money the

government was totally without authority to spend that money through

debate in the Legislature.

We've all gone after those issues over the months and years. They're

not new. What would be new — what isn't new, and this is why I'm

supporting this amendment — would be the government's resolve to say,

despite all these problems and all our human failings and the

machinations and the antics of the Premier and his cabinet members....

One thing is clear. We all have children, and we've said time and time

again.... Although it's a clich nowadays, we talk about youth being

our most valuable resource, that we are bound and obligated to do

something for our young people. That type of commitment would be the

thing I'd like to hear in this House. There's no reason why we can’t.

The real picture out there with young people is scandalous; it's

frightening and desperate. I'm sure that every member in this

Legislature could probably point to examples in every constituency of

what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter whether you're in the

downtown inner city or out in the boondocks — any place in this

province. You're going to find neglected youth.

In fact, there was an example of this in West Vancouver. Denny Boyd

wrote a column quite recently in which he described a situation so

desperate that people with children couldn't afford to live in West Van

in the first place because of the high rents; all you had over there

were wealthy retired people with no children, and it was a bit of an

unhealthy situation in that community. They've got to import children.

The next thing you know, they'll be busing children to West Vancouver

in order to get some semblance of a normal, healthy environment.

[3:30]

But the youth are left to fend for themselves, and this is a

tragedy. The youth are endowed with a lot of survival instincts, and we

all know that, because as youths ourselves, despite all the good advice

and the strategies and opportunities placed before us, we still had to

exercise our right to take our chances. So it's always a case of

experimentation in growing up. It's always the case, in the final

analysis, of motivation, a person's values, the type of support they

have, role models, and a number of other factors which affect how a

youngster will develop in society.

I'm not suggesting that this Legislature can lay that out to a T —

in other words, set out a format to ensure that every single youngster

in our society is going to achieve his maximum potential which —

incidentally, is another point raised in this throne speech. The

government suggested that it wanted to have an effective education

system that would permit each youngster, Mr. House Leader.... The

government in its throne speech was suggesting that each youngster have

an opportunity to reach his maximum potential. Right?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

MR. BARNES: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons

this motion is put forward is that that is rhetoric. That is not, in

fact, the case.

I have a sheet, which I will refer to in a second, indicating the

number of suicides among young people, the number of young people who

are becoming pregnant, without sufficient education and understanding,

who are at risk, who are going to become new members of the social

assistance rolls, who are going to be single parents, and who are

predictably going to have a great deal of difficulty making it through

life — many of them struggling to get an education with great

difficulty and at great odds.

[ Page 3540 ]

To get back to the government's initiatives, the government’s

responsibility, the kinds of strategies it is putting in place, let's

deal with the most obvious situation. One of the most tragic things

that always alarms me is young people selling their bodies, and young

people who have abandoned their desire to live at home for whatever

reason, because the parents are unemployed or have stresses in their

lives like abusing alcohol or engaging in a number of other activities

that they feel are more of a priority than looking after their children

and providing a home.

Where is the government? Where was the government when the city of

Vancouver, through the school board, suggested that it should try to

provide nutrition for children who were going to school inadequately

fed, and who were basically hungry, in varying degrees, for various

reasons. But whatever the reasons, in many cases they are from families

on social assistance where the rates are inadequate.

The minister suggested that perhaps those rates were not so much

inadequate as it is a case of mismanagement or improper budgeting. We

can get into that debate. We can argue with the government as to

whether or not the rates should be raised, or whether people have

access to the proper markets to purchase the nutritious foods they

require within their budgets, in terms of their ability to get to those

places and buy in bulk and all of the other techniques used by people

who have the resources to ensure that they can provide adequate

sustenance for their children.

That is not the point. The point is that the children are hungry.

Something like 600 young people in the greater Vancouver area are

hungry. The school board has approached the provincial government — the

Ministry of Social Services and Housing. It has requested assistance

and has been rejected, but while rejecting the request for assistance,

the government has said: "We agree in principle that these children

should be fed, and if you can get the money from someplace, for

instance Ottawa, we're quite agreeable to that. We're amenable to you

getting the money." In other words, we don't disagree with you getting

the money, but we don't think it's appropriate for us to provide it.

You say: "Well, how can that be?" This motion talks about

ideological dogma. One of the reasons for the nonconfidence motion is

that the government is talking ideology. For some reason, it's the view

of the provincial government that it should not help feed these

children, because it is contrary to the principles of Social Credit. I

would like someone to tell me if I'm incorrect in drawing that

conclusion. But that's the only reason the school board finds itself

alone and has, in fact, found it very difficult to get assistance from

Ottawa unless the provincial government is prepared to cost-share. All

the provincial government has to do is say: "We agree with this

concept. These children are hungry; we know that parents could manage

their affairs better, that there should be a budgeting program in

place, and that there should be access to resources. We agree with all

those things, but in the meantime, we are going to assist in feeding

the children."

I'm sure that if the members of this Legislature were to consult with nutritional

experts who have studied the effects of hunger and starvation and a number of

other environmental factors affecting the learning ability of young people,

they would agree that it is close to criminal to neglect young people when it

comes to fundamental things like eating and a good environment in which to develop.

The costs are beyond imagination when young people are traumatized in that way;

when they are, in effect, falling asleep in class, or dozing, or preoccupied,

or daydreaming because they are either hungry or haven't had enough rest

the night before, or in some way are not stabilized. They are young and impressionable,

and in many cases find themselves ostracized because of inability to function

properly. We have to pick up those youngsters somewhere along the line. Many

of them have given up and dropped out by the time they reach grade 8, and we

find that while they're doing that, they've been faking it for several

years; many of them have not been functioning but have been smart enough to

pretend.

We find that many of those dropping out are going to become unable

to function properly in society — especially when we consider the way

the world is going, the way tomorrow will be. Those of us who have had

an opportunity to study the future know that our workforce, the

marketplace, the commodities that will be traded, the resources that

will be required in the future, will require well-educated people. Not

to mention the new technologies that are coming on stream, the demands

that will be made upon all of us, even those who are already well

educated and already employed. We'll find through phase-outs and

through decentralization and privatization and a number of other

strategies that cut back on budgets that these people again will have

to find themselves new markets and new ways to function.

So what's going to happen with these young people? I feel that we

have reached a point where we're going to have to stop talking about

it. We're going to have to put in place children's rights, children's

guarantees, not rhetorical but in fact, through legislation —

guarantees that youth will be a priority. We'll have to look after them

and give them the confidence they need to function in society.

I have a lot of stuff that I'd like to talk to you about, but quite

frankly I feel that no matter how much we talk, what we need is results.

I mentioned that I would say something about the suicides. I've

talked about these things again. It's not the kind of thing that's

pleasant, and it's not the kind of thing that I'd like to talk about to

make my case, but I think everyone realizes how bad the situation is.

The suicide rates over the last several years have tended to level off,

but as late as 1982 there were 34 male and female teenagers who took

their lives. It stayed close to that range up until '85, and it has

increased slightly to 38 in '85. In '86 it dropped down about ten.

The alarming thing is, why would young persons be taking their

lives? They talk about the different means by which they do it:

firearms, asphyxia, drugs, alcohol, carbon monoxide poisoning; they

fall, they drown themselves. Why are they doing this?

Why is it that youngsters between the ages of 14 and 15.... ? By the

way, this is not the age at which young people should be able to get

alcohol. These are Canadian statistics, and I imagine in British

Columbia they would be pretty consistent. Between the ages of 14 and

15, some 36 percent have had alcohol in one form or another, and just a

little less than that by age 17 — 33.9 percent. Putting those together,

it would appear that just about every youngster, maybe 80 percent, has

been drinking before the legal age to buy alcohol. By the time they

reach the legal age, there's not very much difference: they just do

what they've been doing all along.

That's a cultural thing that we've all experienced, I'm sure. I

guess if I were to be very honest with you, I'd say I had my first

drink when I was probably six years of age. I had to

[ Page 3541 ]

steal a bottle of beer from someplace, from an adult. I was curious. I could see everybody drinking, and I wanted to try some.

The thing is, it's a cultural habit in our society that I believe is

beginning to have a very serious effect on people. It's a very serious

problem. Even though I've done a lot of drinking, I will suggest to you

that it is a contradiction in our society, because we read in the paper

just about every day where there is an alcohol-related accident, large

numbers of youngsters are killing themselves, and they are finding the

easy way out. They are not encouraged. If there is no employment, no

recreational facilities or interesting things that young people can do

to explore and enjoy their lives, then what do they do? They say:

"Well, we can get high." Of course, alcohol is just one thing; there

are other drugs that they're involved in as well. I think it's pretty

alarming when you consider that many young people are drinking. Where

is it going to end? What can we do? It's a problem that I certainly

hope we take seriously.

I think we could do a lot if, for instance, we were to become more

of an example of what should be happening in terms of recreational

facilities in the schools. We should be highlighting the youngsters

more. The government is talking about a passport of some sort for high

academic achievement, but that concept suggests to me an elitist

approach. We should have something that gives every youngster a chance

to get a passport to better things. Not every youngster is going to go

to university. Some will be involved in vocational training; some will

be involved in business on their own. All kinds of outlets are

available to young people. So I think we're looking for a comprehensive

approach, something that makes sense for everybody.

[3:45]

1 would like to conclude, because to my mind this is not a time for

making long dissertations. It's a time for some shifts and some

reflections. I think that's well put, because I'm not too impressed

with the kinds of things that have been happening. I would like to see

the government commit itself to, for instance, the youth who are

walking the streets. Large numbers of young people believe they can

make a better deal for themselves by turning tricks or by getting

involved in illegal acts, by cheating or beating somebody or getting

something for nothing. Or they just opt out, not taking life too

seriously, sort of feeling like: "What's there for me?" I think we

should answer that question.

If we looked seriously at the statistics and put faces and families

to those statistics, if we put families there and looked at those

situations, we would realize that what we are doing, in effect, is

turning our backs. We are simply saying: "There's nothing we can do.

They all had a chance to make it." Let's not just leave it up to the

youngsters. They have to make a decision, that's true, but let's give

them the resources and the opportunity. And let's not give up. In their

trial and error in development they have to experiment and don't always

respond the way we would like, but let's at least be sure the

opportunities are there. I think we have to admit that right now we are

falling short on resources.

MR. WEISGERBER: I rise to oppose the amendment seconded by the first

member for Vancouver Centre. To start off, I'd like to say that I always

appreciate listening to that member in this House. His presentations are always

very thoughtful, very measured, I think sincere, and in a style that 1 would

really like to emulate; it's one that I think many members in this House

would do well to.

However, having thought all those kind things while he was speaking,

I was a bit disappointed to hear him question whether or not feeding

hungry kids is against the policy of Social Credit. That seems to go

against all those kind things that I said about him. This member has

questioned the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) a number

of times in the House on that issue and knows full well the minister's

position: that we look after the entire family rather than one member

of the family who might be identified as being hungry at school. I

think that's a reasonable way of doing it.

It's a pleasure for me to rise today to speak in support of the

Speech from the Throne. There were many, many items in the Speech from

the Throne that are good news items for my constituents in South Peace

River, and it is to those issues that I'll address my comments today.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Before I do that, however, I want to recognize the job that the

Chair has been doing. The member for West Vancouver Howe Sound (Hon.

Mr. Reynolds) has done an excellent job, as has the first member for

Dewdney (Mr. Pelton). The first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) spoke a

little earlier, and I think she's done a great job in the past year as

Chairman, Committee of the Whole. For you, Mr. Speaker, let me offer my

congratulations on your recent appointment.

Now to the Speech from the Throne. One of the first items in that

speech that caught my ear, and then my eye as I read it later, was the

goal to eliminate the deficit. I think members on both sides of this

House must agree with that. I was interested to hear the first member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt) talk about the deficit and refer to

the fact that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) was

also obviously in favour of eliminating or reducing the deficit.

MR. WILLIAMS: At any cost?

MR. WEISGERBER: I didn't hear your speech, hon. member, but I

did hear the member for Vancouver Centre. He pointed with some pride to

the fact that in 1975 the deficit was only $5 billion in 1975 dollars.

If my sense of political history is correct, in 1972 there was a

surplus in the government account. The member for Vancouver East shakes

his head, but I kind of think that I'm right. I think that we left a

surplus that turned into a $5 billion deficit. Now gentlemen, $5

billion in 1975 dollars compared to $20 billion in 1988 dollars. You

didn't come out of that as total winners on this thing. Believe me, I

would have left those particular figures behind and just condemned the

deficit had I been sitting on the other side of the House.

I am encouraged that members on both sides agree that we should

reduce the deficit. First of all, we have to get back to balanced

budgets. I think a balanced budget should be a first target, and second

to that, we've got to start creating some surpluses in good years. I'm

not against deficit spending on a one- or two-year basis. In good times

government should accumulate a surplus. During that time they should

have some major capital spending plans and be prepared to put them into

place when the economy turns down, as we all know it does on a regular

basis. But before we do that, we have to get out of the habit of

overspending in the good years,

[ Page 3542 ]

and I commend the Premier for his commitment to eliminate on an

annual basis the deficit and then to work on the longer range the

accumulated deficit.

I must say that this is an issue of major concern in my

constituency; it's a major concern on the provincial scene; the $322

billion-odd deficit that the federal government has accumulated is a

major concern. To say that the feds have one and we have one is neither

bad nor good on either side. I think it's sad that western governments

are budgeting for deficits even in the good years. I think that we have

to decide what it is we want from government. We can't continue to make

greater and greater demands on government and still ask that the

deficit be eliminated.

MR. WILLIAMS: You're the one that wants that expensive gasohol plant that's going to turn grain into gas.

MR. WEISGERBER: I'll talk about that a little later in my

speech, so stick around. Well, we could talk about social programs and

all of the things that you want. That's not an argument that I think is

appropriate in the throne speech.

The second major item in the throne speech was a reference to

regional development in decentralization. I know that the members

across the way find that something that they're not totally satisfied

with. I think probably that's because they come from Vancouver and

they've never really had to face the problems of communicating with

government and are not really aware of the problems that people in the

remote and northern parts of the region come up against. Your

constituents, Mr. Speaker, would be well aware of them.

I came back Sunday night from Dawson Creek, having spent all day

Saturday in Fort St. John at one of the second of our major regional

development meetings, a meeting that was attended by 60 or 70 people,

among them all of the elected mayors and regional district chairman,

all supporting this activity, all well aware of the benefits that this

activity could bring to our region. That's not to say that they didn't

start off initially with some hesitation, that they didn't think that

perhaps this was something that was going to encroach on their areas of

authority. But people in my part of the country are positive and

open-minded enough to take a chance, to have a look at the scheme, to

look and see what it had to offer. As a result, we're getting

tremendous support in the northeast region for the idea, not only for

regional development but for decentralization of government services.

MR. WILLIAMS: There's one born every minute.

MR. WEISGERBER: I suppose.

Decentralization to me doesn't mean a massive movement of people out

of Victoria or Vancouver to Dawson Creek or Fort St. John. What it

really means is bringing the decision-making authority to those

employees of our government who are already resident within the region

but who don't have the kind of regional manager authority necessary to

solve some of the local problems.

In the northeast region, we don't have one regional office of one

ministry. It seems to me to make sense that there might be a regional

forestry ministry to look after the northeast region of the province;

certainly that there might be a Ministry of Agriculture regional

office, so that a farmer who had a problem with the ministry didn't

have to travel 250 miles to talk about his problem.

1 don't think the movement of that decision-making authority has to

be expensive. It's a movement of authority; it's not a movement of

people. I think there's no contradiction with restraint and the setting

up of regional offices within each of the regions. I think it makes

tremendously good sense that the regions of the ministry — line

ministry offices — conform with the economic development regions. I'm

satisfied and convinced, Mr. Speaker, that over the period of the next

few months and years we will see in fact some of those offices

established in the northeast region, offices that make sense, like the

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. It seems to me only

reasonable that they might have a regional office in that part of the

country that supplies the vast majority of the oil and gas for the

province, a good percentage of the coal supplies and a large amount of

forestry.

That doesn't seem to me to be unreasonable to expect, and it's an

expectation that people in the northeast region can see coming through

this decentralization initiative. So 1 for one support that very

strongly. 1 am pleased to have the opportunity to be parliamentary

secretary for the northeast region and to work with the hon. Minister

of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) as minister of state for that region.

The throne speech recognizes that about 90,000 new jobs were created

in British Columbia between January 1987 and January 1988, and also

recognizes that a goodly number of those jobs were created in

industries like forestry, pulp and paper, and mining. Within the

northeast region we are very well aware of the role that these

industries are playing in creating new jobs. Within the last 12 months,

within that January '87 to January '88 period, Louisiana-Pacific opened

its waferboard plant in Dawson Creek, a plant that directly employs

more than 100 people in the mill. The last time I talked to the manager

of the plant, I asked him how many people they'd hired from outside of

the region. He said: "One." That fellow was from Chetwynd, 60 miles

away. So it created 100 local jobs. It created another approximately

200 jobs in the woods, jobs performed by farmers on a part-time basis,

by construction workers who have suffered a turndown, by people in the

oil and gas industry and....

[4:00]

It's unfortunate that my good friend from Vancouver East has seen

fit to leave. He always spurs me on to greater ideas or whatever, so

I'm sorry to see him leaving.

That good member for Vancouver East mentioned a subsidy, and in fact

the government of British Columbia, the previous government, saw fit to

assist Louisiana-Pacific to establish the first plant in British

Columbia that would use aspen wood — and that has been tremendously

successful, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell you just how successful.

Only last Saturday, the day before yesterday, I had the pleasure to

be with the minister of state to announce that there would be in fact

four new aspen-wood facilities established in our northeast region

within the next two years and that they would create 1, 340 direct jobs

and probably twice that many indirect jobs. We understand very well in

the northeast region what the government means when it says that job

creation through industries like forestry and pulp and paper is

important. Of those mills I mentioned, two of the new mills will be

aspen oriented strand board plants and two will be pulp mills.

We're excited. We see some good things happening in the northeast: the

kind of development, the kind of expansion of the economy that probably wouldn't

mean much in Vancouver; 1, 340 jobs — nice, but not really much when we look

at the fact that there were 90,000 new jobs created in the

[ Page

3543 ]

province. But I want to tell you, in the northeast region 1, 340 regular payroll

jobs is big stuff; it's important stuff. That’s the kind of thing

that our people look to the government to help them with, and I'm very proud

to be a part of that.

I want to commend the foresight of the last government in making the

decision to assist Louisiana-Pacific to set that pilot project plant in

place. It's already been responsible for creating somewhere in the

neighbourhood of 10 to 15 times as many jobs as were in that original

plant.

The throne speech mentions a long-term strategic plan. Again, I want

to commend the Premier and the government for showing that kind of

initiative.

My work history is that I worked for two multinational companies

early in my career: Imperial Oil and General Motors. We took for

granted that major organizations had long-range plans in place; no one

ever questioned it. We just assumed that they were there, that we were

working to a plan. If you're in the car- manufacturing industry, you

know five or ten years ahead how many cars people are going to want.

Are they going to want small cars or are they going to want large cars?

Can you imagine a corporation the size of General Motors continuing

with tailfins, etc., when people want small cars?

After having left the employment of those companies, 1 went into the

automobile business for myself. Whether I wanted to do planning or not,

I assure you that the banker and the manufacturer that I represented

insisted that 1 have a longterm plan in place, or at least a mid-term

plan — a plan by which I would be there long enough to pay the money

that I owned them.

After I got out of the car dealership, I went to work for the region

as an economic development officer. After a few months, it became clear

that if we were going to be successful in that region we had to have a

long-term plan: some goals, some strategy, something to shoot towards.

The region that I was employed in, coincidentally, is exactly that same

area now encompassed by the northeast region, So it's a coincidence

that's been fortunate for me.

Anyway, when we went to develop a plan for the northeast region, it

seemed sensible that the first thing we would do would be to find the

provincial plan and then fit our regional plan into the provincial plan

— that was in 1982. But I was surprised to find that not only did

British Columbia not have a plan, but there wasn't a province in Canada

that had a plan. Even more alarming was the fact that the Canadian

government didn't have a plan; nor does the U.S. government have a

long-term social and economic development plan. We work from election

to election. The two countries that I found that do have long-term

plans are, not surprisingly, West Germany and Japan, the two

best-performing economically; the two countries that are performing

best in the free western world. They have a plan.

When we talk about leadership and vision, 1 believe that our Premier has indicated

very clearly that he has a grasp of what's necessary, that he's prepared

to break new ground and take some political risks and establish a long-term

provincial plan. I was again very pleased to have the opportunity to be among

the ten MLAs appointed to the committee to work on this long-term plan. We're

going to use the very best minds in government. We're also going to use

the very best minds we can find outside of government: long-term planners, futurists,

industry leaders, labour leaders. We're going to prepare a White Paper and

circulate it, give it the widest possible exposure and, I think, come up with

a workable social and economic development plan for this province that will

put us further ahead of the rest of this country than we already are.

I think that when we look back over a period of time and look at

this session of the Legislature and whato was put into place that had

the greatest impact, there is no question in my mind that this

long-term planning will stick out well above all the other activities

that have gone on here.

There were several comments in the throne speech with regard to the

inequity between delivery of goods from the province to the federal

government and the return of benefits from the federal government to

the province. These criticisms were justified. There is no question in

my mind that British Columbia has been coming out on the short end of

federal-provincial agreements and federal-provincial costsharing

agreements.

We in the Peace River region know very well what it's like to feel

that way. Prior to 1952, the region didn't even have a road that

connected it to the rest of British Columbia. We didn't have a rail

connection with the rest of British Columbia. Airline travel wasn't

that common at the time, so if you lived in Peace River and wanted to

go to Victoria, you had to detour by way of Edmonton and then Coeur

D'Alene, Idaho, and then up into Victoria and Vancouver. As you can

well imagine, there weren't a lot of trips between Victoria and Peace

River. However. in 1952 the first Social Credit government acted

quickly to connect us with the rest of British Columbia, and except for

a few bleak years from 1972 to 1975....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: What happened?

MR. WEISGERBER: The Minister of Social Services asked what

happened in those years. I had an opportunity to reminisce with my

predecessor, Don Phillips, about what happened in those years. He said

that they had a lot of fun sitting across the way, and he got about a

five-mile powerline extended in the constituency during that three-year

period. Other than that they didn't get much. That's why we get nervous

any time the rest of the province flirts with the idea of socialism.

We've never been guilty of that in the Peace region.

In any event, what I wanted to say was that while I fully recognize

the comments that were made with regard to the federal government, I

want to take this opportunity to commend our MP, the Hon. Frank Oberle,

Minister of State for Science and Technology. Frank has worked very

hard on behalf of our constituents, and he has a tough job in going to

Ottawa and representing a reasonably small population in a caucus that

represents primarily Ontario and Quebec.

I want to recognize particularly two things. The first is the

investment tax credit which is available only in the Peace Liard region

in the northeast part of British Columbia. This investment tax credit

can amount to as much as 40 percent of the total cost of a new

manufacturing facility. It's one of the best tools we in the northeast

region have for attracting new industry.

I spoke a little bit earlier about the activity that

Louisiana-Pacific and Fibreco and Makin are planning as it relates to

aspen board and pulp production. The fact that these investment tax

credits are there and available from the federal government plays no

small

part in that. I would be remiss if I didn't recognize that.

Another item in the throne speech that I was pleased to see was the government's commitment to enhance and

[ Page 3544 ]

strengthen programs to deal with substance abuse, including drugs

and alcohol. This is a problem that I hear about in every community

that I visit, not only in my own constituency but within the region.

When the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy met recently in Fort St.

John, they heard about the problems that counsellors in rural areas are

having. Alcoholism runs high in remote communities. It becomes the lead

form of entertainment initially and dissolves into problems for many.

It's something that we have to address; it's something that is far less

expensive to address in the early stages than in the late stages, and I

commend the government for taking that initiative.

Also mentioned, almost in conjunction with that, is the commitment

to supporting and strengthening families in British Columbia. That is

another area where the number of counsellors is limited in the remote

areas, and they're very hard pressed. Anything that we can do to

improve on that will certainly be welcomed in my constituency.

We have the Minister of Social Services and Housing here. One of the

initiatives mentioned is the government reorganization of income

assistance and social programs, to ensure that assistance is provided

only to those who are in need. That's something very much at the heart

of the feeling and the wishes of my constituents. Most of my

constituents — 99 percent of them — want to be sure that anyone who is

in genuine need of social assistance gets that assistance, and that it

be at a level that allows them a decent lifestyle. But, Mr. Speaker —

and indirectly, Mr. Minister — we don't want to see social assistance

go to those who don't need it. We want to see jobs created for those

who are capable of working, and social assistance, in my opinion,

should be reserved for those who are not capable of working. That

should be the focus of our social assistance programs.

[4:15]

There are several items in the throne speech that deal with education, and I'll just touch on them very briefly.

The first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) made the point

the other day that while he applauded the government's decision to

bring computers into the classroom, he didn't think they necessarily

had to be third-generation computers. The important thing was that kids

be able to operate the computers; they didn't have to be the ultimate

state-of-the-art, big-dollar computer but the small working models. The

theory behind it was what's important. That seemed to me to make a lot

of sense.

I also want to commend the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

and the government for the Passport to Education program. I think

that's a great program. My two kids have just gone through high school.

They were very good students, good achievers, but we were always

pressed to challenge them, to encourage them to do better. They could

easily pass their courses; it seemed difficult to keep a plateau or a

target out there that they could strive towards. For that type of

student, this Passport to Education would have been of benefit in

motivating them to better performance, and I certainly would have

welcomed some assistance with the cost of their post-secondary

education.

That brings me to the problem of kids from the remote parts of our

province, not only from the north but I'm sure also from the Kootenays

and elsewhere: the additional expense in traveling to Vancouver or

Victoria for an education. From the Peace River region many of the kids

go to Edmonton because it's closer, but even that's 360 miles, so it's

not really close.

My oldest daughter, Joanne, of whom I'm extremely proud — not for a

minute to suggest that I'm less proud of my younger daughter, Pam....

Both of them are at UBC now. Joanne has been there for three years. So

I've got a pretty fair idea of the problems that parents and kids face.

Most kids, even from the lower mainland, live in residence, or in an

apartment close to the university. So the residence thing is not really

a valid argument for someone who lives a long way away. The valid

argument, in my mind, is toward travel. It's fine when you have

students in third or fourth or fifth year at university, to say to them

that they should only come home at Christmas and at summer break. But

when you send 18-year-olds from Dawson Creek to Vancouver, for the

first time away from home, particularly if they're going to a school

where they don't have any other family, they should be coming home at

least once between start of school and Christmas, again at

Christmastime, at reading break, and again at end of term. That's four

return trips to Dawson Creek, which 1 think would be minimal for

somebody in our area. You're looking at a couple of thousand dollars'

additional travel expenses that anyone in my constituency would have,

as opposed to perhaps students from the Coquitlam area, where they

might travel in on Friday night and stay in residence and come back on

the weekend. I urge the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen)

to consider that. We've got to give some sort of travel assistance to

those traveling a long way.

Another item that I thought tremendously important to South Peace

River was the government's commitment to open up back-country

recreation opportunities to our own people and visitors. Really, all of

the tourism opportunities in the Peace River region are along that

line. Ninety percent of our tourists are U.S. citizens traveling up the

Alaska Highway to Alaska. Our real opportunity to expand tourism in the

Peace region is to keep those people in the region for one, two, three

or four days extra.

With all due respect, they don't want to come and look at a museum

or go to a play. What they want to do is get a wilderness experience.

We should make available to them some of the exceptional scenery we

have — things like Kinuseo Falls in Monkman Park, one of the great

scenic opportunities in the province.

With that, I see, Mr. Speaker, that my time is up. I am particularly

regretful that I didn't get to the problems of the agriculture sector,

but I've talked about them in this House before. So thank you.

MR. CASHORE: I am pleased to see that the Minister of Social

Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is in the House, because I am

going to try to find some time to talk about a few matters that I know

he is interested in. We both have our hearts in the right place, so I

know he will be here to cheer me on. Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

congratulate you on being in the Speaker's chair. I want you to know

that we're going to miss the rabbit pack in the House. I would also

like to extend my congratulations and appreciation to the first member

for Langley (Mrs. Gran), who spoke earlier this afternoon, for the work

she did when she was the chairperson.

In supporting the amendment moved by the first member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Williams).... This amendment not only has support from the

members of the opposition; it also has very strong support from the

citizens of British

[ Page 3545 ]

Columbia. The citizens of British Columbia are disillusioned,

disappointed and disgusted with this government, and the sad spectacle

of the throne speech has certainly added to that feeling out there

among the public. I think the government knows the public is feeling

very disenchanted with what's being going on in this province with the

lack of leadership and the way in which this places a real stress upon

the moral fabric of the people of the province.

As the amendment states, there are no new initiatives for economic

development. Sadly, we're still going to have the kind of pork-barrel

politics that have epitomized this government. We deplore the

continuation of reactionary and discredited economic policies, policies

whereby the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and more and more

of the middle class who pay higher and higher taxes become poor

themselves.

It certainly is appropriate to make the point that the ideological

dogma of this government has caused uncertainty and instability; and it

certainly is true that there is a lack of new direction to benefit

British Columbians. We might say that what we really have here is a

continuation of the great vacuum in leadership in British Columbia. How

can you give leadership when you choose to put energy and resources

into unwinnable court defences, when ministers of the Crown should have

taken action to correct obvious wrongs, and government insisted on an

unnecessary and costly day in court? We really have a sad legacy when

we look at the experience of this government's first year. I think we'd

have to say that the B.C. government has received a failing grade from

the courts of British Columbia, mostly from the Supreme Court. In fact,

there have been — and this came out of a brainstorming session, and the

list may not be complete — six failures before the Supreme Court of B.C.

It's interesting that some members opposite find that humorous; I

find it rather sad. There have been an additional three losses by the

Workers' Compensation Board before the Supreme Court of B.C. and a

further loss before the B.C. Council of Human Rights. That's ten

losses, Mr. Speaker. You have to ask where the Premier is getting his

inadequate legal advice. Instead of bringing forward dynamic new

initiatives for economic development, the throne speech indicates that

the ineptness will continue. I think we have to be very sad when we see

government human and financial resources that should be used for the

benefit of our province being used to fight the people of B.C. in the

courts. Instead of fighting to preserve illegal and unrealistic

policies, the government should be standing up for all British

Columbians.

I'd like to read into the record just exactly what is on this list.

It's quite a telling list. In June 1987, following a work stoppage, the

B.C. Supreme Court threw out the government injunction known as the

"sedition injunction." What kind of advice was the Premier getting on

that occasion? In July of 1987 the B.C. Council of Human Rights, this

government's own instrument — a watered-down version of the Human

Rights Commission — ruled that the government was guilty of age

discrimination in welfare rates for those under 26. In August of 1987

we found that the government, instead of listening to the wise counsel

of the human rights council, had persisted; again at great cost, the

B.C. Supreme Court ordered the government to cease discrimination on

the basis of age for those under 26.

MR. WILLIAMS: Tell it to the judge.

AN HON. MEMBER: We did.

MR. CASHORE: Yes, at great expense when you had wise counsel

who could have advised you, and if you had followed it, you would have

saved the taxpayers a great deal of money.

Then in January of 1988 the Supreme Court decided against the

government on the issue of mandatory retirement. Where is this

government getting its advice? Is it from the same people who drafted

Bill 19? In February of 1988 there was the Supreme Court decision

preventing employees from being sold along with their privatized

services. That was another loss, another embarrassment, another day

that the B.C. government flunked in court. In March of 1988 the B.C.

Supreme Court decided in favour of an appeal brought by the B.C. Civil

Liberties Association regarding abortion funding. Again the unwise

action of this government had plunged the province into a debate that

generated a great deal of heat and very little light when there could

have been a process of consensus building if only they had gone about

it in a wise and appropriate way.

I know it hurts to hear about it when you get flunking grades from

the impartial courts of British Columbia. I think all of us have had to

learn how to cope with failure. Hopefully that type of learning helps

in the years to come, but looking at the throne speech, it doesn't look

like it.

In March of 1988 — we're on to number seven here, the seventh loss

before either a court or the human rights council — we had the B.C.

Supreme Court decision against the government's wolf kill program. And

then apropos of questions asked by the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) today in question period, there were the three WCB cases.

The B.C. Supreme Court found that the commissioners of the WCB failed

to implement review board decisions and to pay benefits to injured

workers in separate actions regarding Testa, Kohrian and Guadagni.

Mr. Speaker, that is not good government. What we have here is government that

should be going into detention; government that should be spending a lot of

time learning how democracy works: government that should be getting some remedial

help, because that's the kind of help that is needed if this government

is going to in any way be able to continue inflicting its convoluted understanding

of democracy upon the people of this province. Through ill-advised court appearances,

through petulant federal-government bashing in the throne speech, the Premier

has brought B.C. to a new low, a low where this province is a laughing-stock

and subject to ridicule across the country.

[4:30]

Mr. Speaker, we have a crisis of leadership in this government,

because instead of being a builder of consensus, as I mentioned before

on the abortion issue — an issue that requires wisdom and understanding

— the Premier of this province chooses to confront and polarize.

Instead of using effective diplomacy in dealings with the federal

government, he chooses to violate the tradition of the throne speech by

directing a childish, petulant and crude diatribe that descends to the

mayhem of "us against them." That's inappropriate for a person who

would lead a government. It's inappropriate and it's an embarrassment

for the people of British Columbia.

Instead of being a planner who works with his cabinet — and we see

many sad faces in the cabinet these days — to develop the teamwork that

will inspire all sectors of our society to join in building a better

B.C., he sows the wind of

[ Page 3546 ]

bigotry and reaps the whirlwind of frustration that is being

experienced by all the residents of this province. People didn't know

what they were getting into when they voted for this man in 1986. They

didn't know, but they're finding out now, and all I can say to them is:

keep those cards and letters coming.

Mr. Speaker, it's a sad situation when we find the Premier leaving

his confused and tormented ministers to defend programs they know

little about and don't really seem to have the heart to want to defend

all that vigorously. 1 can understand that. They've been enduring that

lack of teamwork, that rule by whimsy, for well over a year, and I

think it's a tribute to many members of the cabinet that they've been

able to bear up — although I do wonder about blind loyalty when what is

at stake is the future of the province.

A leader cannot be all things to all people, and the people of

British Columbia don't expect that. We in the opposition don't expect

that. But a leader knows whom to consult for wise counsel, when to move

on a new initiative, how to work with the democratic system, and why

complex issues need careful ethical reflection.

I'd like to turn to the area of social services and housing. It's an

area that I'm very concerned about. I would have to say again that if

we were to report on this government's action, the government has

failed in its first year, and the throne speech, if you read between

the lines — and that's pretty well where you have to read if you're

going to find out anything at all about that throne speech, about what

it's trying to say — indicates continued misery for low-income people

in British Columbia and a real struggle for a lot of other people as

well.

I think one of the scandals of this government is that in the area

that perhaps requires more consultation than any other, we have, I

believe — and I may have to stand corrected on this — the one select

standing committee of this Legislature that has only met once. Why is

that? We met to elect the chairperson.

MR. PETERSON: You are wrong again.

MR. CASHORE: We met and elected the chairperson, and that

select standing committee has not met since. The health, education and

social issues that confront this province require that kind of

consultation. If that kind of process could take place, it could avoid

a great deal of the anxiety that's created on the floor of the House

when it comes to dealing with those issues. It has not met once, other

than to elect a chairperson, and that's because the government decides

whether that committee shall have an agenda.

The abortion debate was a good case in point. That was an

opportunity for the Premier to ask that select standing committee to

sit down and deal with a very difficult issue which cuts across all

party lines. That certainly would have been a more appropriate format

for dealing with it.

Also, we could have dealt with the issue of hungry children in the

select standing committee and worked out a way that would be worthwhile

for all the people who are concerned about that. We could have done

some work. We read in the throne speech about day care. I think there

needs to be a lot of work done and that kind of process about

developing a meaningful day care program. I think that, with regard to

the adoption registry, a lot of people are not happy with the passive

nature of the existing registry, and that is another issue that needs

some discussion.

The point is that it is a rejection of the democratic process when a

select standing committee of this Legislature is not allowed to meet

for an entire year. I hope that the Premier of this province will see

the importance of enabling that committee to meet before very long.

That is why we on this side of the House regret that there are no

new initiatives, that there are continued reactionary policies, that

there are discredited policies, and that all of this creates

uncertainty and instability.

All we have to do is look at the inadequate references to social

programs in this throne speech. One reference to a social program is

where the Premier brags that there have been 90,000 new jobs created. I

always find it interesting when I look at the ways in which the

government establishes that kind of statistic. I know when it comes to

job creation programs for people on welfare, quite often it will be

said that so many jobs are created. But when you really go into it and

analyze it, you'll find that some of those jobs lasted for one day.

Perhaps there were jobs created, but the fact still remains that

there's been no significant reduction in the unemployment figures in

British Columbia. Now there's a need for a social concern to be

addressed. The lack of imagination of this government has failed to

address that issue. Also, we noticed that from last summer until

October of this year, there was some modest improvement in the number

of people on GAIN. But from November to January the graph began to rise

again, and the numbers are increasing. I think that's a very alarming

trend. It's possible that the Minister of Social Services and Housing

has more recent figures than I have, but the figures I have up to the

end of January indicate that for three months in a row, the numbers of

people on income assistance were once again increasing.

There may be some people in British Columbia rejoicing about ways

they have had windfall profits, and ways things have gone well for

them, but there isn't much rejoicing among people in this province who

are really struggling in the inadequate programs that should be there

to help them get back on their feet.

On page 3 of the throne speech, there's a reference to a draft White

Paper outlining strategy in a broad range of areas ranging from fiscal

policy and economic development to social issues, and that it will be

completed in August. There's also a sentence there — and I think this

is worthwhile — pointing out that there will be input from other people

in our society. But I'm not too optimistic about that.

If this White Paper is going to deal with social programs, then I

think we should have input from the unemployed. We don't need to have

input just from people who are considered to be authorities in the

field. We need to hear from the unemployed on this — not just the kind

of input that we hear when we hear about the cabinet social affairs

committee going around the province. We need real input that results in

measures being taken that are going to do something about unemployment

in this province. The same goes for working people, the disabled and

those who live in inadequate housing, who live in cockroach-infested

rooms, and who line up at food banks eating leftovers.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There's nothing in this throne speech to indicate any kind of an

attempt to address issues of poverty in our society. It's still a

band-aid approach. There's no recognition that poverty

[ Page 3547 ]

causes stress on people, and that's a costly stress — costly in

social terms and costly in economic terms. There's no recognition that

poverty causes violence in society. Sometimes that's not a physical

violence, but an emotional violence. Nevertheless, poverty causes that.

There's no recognition that poverty causes limited educational

opportunity and that children who are deprived of nutritious meals are

not able to make the best use of those opportunities they should be

able to use within the education system. There's no recognition that

poverty should be tackled.

I find that when the minister is speaking about the issue of hungry

children, he comes with his stock answer — which he's given so many

times because this issue has been before the people to such a great

extent — which is: "No, we won't feed the hungry kids through the

school program, because it's a band-aid solution." Then he goes on to

say that if you're going to help them, you have to do it at the front

end. That is an expression of social theory that has some merit, but

they're hollow, empty words, because there's nothing being done at the

front end to help those families. When we talk about teachers sending

in the names without really knowing what's going to happen to those

kids.... Are they going to be rounded up? Just what kind of counselling

is going to help somebody with such a limited income to be able to do

better than they're already doing in putting nutritious meals on the

table?

I think that we have to really call that for what it is: simply an

inappropriate response to a widely recognized problem that the majority

of the people in British Columbia would like to see dealt with, because

the majority of the people in British Columbia are concerned about

those kids. It's high time that this government decided to do the

decent thing and put the sponsorship and the funding into the program

in cooperation with the Vancouver School Board so that those federal

dollars could be applied and we could get on to dealing with the issues

that the minister says need to be dealt with, such as the generic

issues.

Nobody is denying that programs such as food banks and feeding

programs are band-aid programs and that there are much deeper issues

that have to be dealt with, but you just don't walk away and leave

people hungry and in that situation. A great deal of thought and a

great deal of care and compassion is required if that is really going

to take place.

We heard in the throne speech that seniors have special health care

and social needs. You bet they have special health care and social

needs, and the fact is that since the last budget those needs have been

deepened. Those needs are greater for seniors in this province because

of the actions of this government in targeting seniors as a source of

revenue and reaching into their pockets. Of course, the throne speech

is right that these people have special needs; and those special needs

have been deepened by the actions of this government.

I was pleased to read in the throne speech that there will be

programs to deal with substance abuse and alcohol abuse. But again I

have to say that the funds that have been drawn out of programs like

that, good programs that have been functioning within this province,

really beg the question. You have to wonder what kind of a

cat-and-mouse game is really going on, when during one period of time

funding is drawn away from programs like that and then the government

comes back like a knight on a white charger and says: "Now that you're

hurting, I will save you."

[4:45]

In order for us to really deal with problems of substance abuse and

alcohol abuse, it's important that we have consistent programs that are

put in place, evaluated and continue to function, and that aren't

losing the type of support they need depending on the electoral term in

which a government is in power. I'm glad to see that this kind of

support is going to be put into that program. I hope it's more than

just a token gesture, when you consider the amount of money the

government makes on the sale of alcohol and the amount of hardship that

is caused by this problem.

One of things that bothers me very deeply about this throne speech

is the way in which it has been co-opted by the Premier to try to

justify a problem that he's been having for quite some time: that is,

where he has tried to rationalize his position on the abortion issue by

saying he's going to resolve that problem by helping families. That is

really a very vacuous and inappropriate use of the throne speech or of

the term family."

Families were not invented on January 22, after the Supreme Court

decision. Families have been around for a long time, Mr. Speaker —

different kinds of families: extended families, traditional families.

single-parent families, and maybe there are other

definitions of family

that could be added to that. Families aren't anything new.

But one thing that's been going on for quite some time when we take

a look at the policies of this government is that families have been

losing support, and nothing really significant is being done to put

anything in place of that support. For instance, if we consider the

reorganization taking place right now within the Ministry of Social

Services and Housing — something that we'll be talking about to a much

greater extent during the estimates on the Ministry of Social Services

and Housing — I would point out that the trend is away from there being

front-line workers in the field to work with disadvantaged people and

toward there being more top-heavy administrative procedures.

Now we see the minister shaking his head, but let me read something

to him, because the annual report.... I won't say I could hear him

shaking his head, because that's somebody else's line, but I can see

him shaking his head. I know that he spends a lot of time in the

evening reading annual reports. They are very interesting reading.

My reference here is the 1982-83 annual report of his ministry and

the 1986-87 annual report. We had field service workers in '82-83

numbering 3,052. In 1986-87 they numbered 2, 466. That's a loss of 19

percent of family support workers, and yet this government touts that

it's going to be supporting the family, What kind of support is that?

The minister will be able to argue that numbers are increasing in

some ways — there are the people from Woodlands who are being taken

into the ministry and that sort of thing — but even when you look at

it, when all is said and done, the process is toward more people trying

to organize themselves at an administrative level and fewer people

available to work out in the field.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there's one more point I would like to make, and

I'm going to be canvassing some of these at great length with the

minister. I know he's going to speaking a little later this afternoon,

and I would dearly love to have a rebuttal after he speaks, but I know

I won't have that opportunity.

There's another problem, and that is that in British Columbia we

have the worst record of every province in Canada in terms of having a

multiplicity of ministries working with families and children. British

Columbia has the Ministry of

[ Page 3548 ]

Social Services and Housing, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of

Attorney-General, the Ministry of Education — and when we don't have

the coordination that we need in those services to children, we have

gaps. When we have gaps ' children fall between them, and that's why we

are hearing about some really sad and tragic situations happening to

children in this province. I will want to go on with that further.

In the last few seconds that I have, I would just like to say to the

Minister of Social Services and Housing that we have a really good

issue that we want you people to respond to, and that's the issue of

your argument that the superintendent of child welfare is at arm's

length. Remember Andrew Armitage.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have been looking at this amendment. I

was actually thinking of supporting it, but it is argumentative, and I

can't support anything that's argumentative.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I know, but it's argumentative, and it

upsets me. So I would like to advise you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be

voting against the amendment, which will be coming up shortly.

MR. WILLIAMS: And that's all you have to say?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, no. I have lots to say.

An interesting thing is that the amendment says in part that this

House regrets that the throne speech contained no new initiatives for

economic development. That's clearly not correct, and I'll be speaking

to that later. But then the first two members for the opposition who

spoke to this, the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) and

later on the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), dealt

with social issues. I have no problem with that, because that is their

area of expertise and they genuinely are good critics in terms of that,

but the motion does deal with economic development and not social

issues. Nevertheless, I guess that's the latitude allowed in the throne

speech, and they certainly took advantage of that latitude.

MR. ROSE: It's a wide-ranging debate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I should say. Wait till you hear my comments.

The amendment further says that there is uncertainty and instability

in the province of British Columbia. That's really where I wish to

begin with my constructive remarks, because that's clearly not the

case. If we examine any association, any business interest or any of

the peopl