1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 20, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5603 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

David Poole's pension. Mr. Harcourt –– 5603

Every woman’s Health Centre funding. Mrs. Boone –– 5604

Royal commission on forestry. Mr. Harcourt –– 5604

Export of raw logs. Mr. Miller –– 5604

Mr. Bruce

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Harcourt –– 5605

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 5608

Mr. G. Janssen –– 5611

Mr. Loenen –– 5614

Mr. Clark –– 5616

Hon. Mr. Vant –– 5620

Mr. Rose –– 5622

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 5627

Mrs. Boone –– 5631

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID :

I rise today to bring to the attention of all Members of the

Legislative Assembly the reason for the yellow daffodil in front of

them — in contrast to the red

rose worn by some people. The daffodil is from British Columbia, and

today is the first day of spring. Over the past decade radio station

CKNW has celebrated the arrival of spring by handing out B.C.-grown

daffodils. Despite the bitter cold of February this year on the whole

Pacific coast, as far south as southern California, these daffodils in

the Legislature today are a symbol that spring opens the door to a new

season of tourism in British Columbia.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Last Thursday I said that I would mention a particular birthday;

unfortunately it was not possible at that time. I'd like to extend a

belated birthday greeting to Donna Sitter, CKO Radio, Canada's national

FM network.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I would like to ask

members in the House to please join me in welcoming the Chinese

cultural consul, Mr. Yan Shixun, and his wife, Mme. Yan, who is also a

cultural consul.

MR. G. JANSSEN : I would first like to ask the House to help me congratulate the Prime Minister on his birthday today.

I would also like the House to welcome my wife, Florence, and my son, Rjean, who are here today.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, in the members' gallery today are Mr. and Mrs. Paul and

Julie Reynolds, our Speaker's brother and sister-in-law, along with

their two children, Laura and John. They are accompanied by Mr.

Speaker's wife Yvonne. I would ask you to make them all very welcome.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, I'd like the Legislature to welcome a

visitor from Prince George who I met at the Prince George Exhibition a while

ago. He's a well-known native artist, Robert Sebastian.

MR. MERCIER :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce two people in the gallery today.

The first is Josephine Wearing, the sister of the executive assistant

to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), and she's also on the

executive in our Burnaby-Edmonds riding. Her friend and cousin,

Marianne Sanchez, is visiting here from Spain. Would the House make

them both welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a dairy farmer

from the Central Fraser Valley — a very successful dairy farmer. Would the House

please welcome John Van Dongen.

Oral Questions

DAVID POOLE'S PENSION

MR. HARCOURT : Can the Premier confirm that the cost to B.C. taxpayers to top up David Poole's pension by order-in-council was $75,000?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, all matters related to pensions are for the Minister of

Government Management Services (Hon. Mr. Michael), and I defer the

question to him.

MR. HARCOURT : We'd like to hear

from the Minister of Government Management Services, but he's not here,

Mr. Speaker. The issue of Mr. Poole's pension, by way of a letter from

Mr. Justice Nemetz is: "The focus of my referred work is future

policy." We're talking about a past decision, and because of the

confusion surrounding this, I'd like to ask the Premier if he is

prepared to table the terms of reference of the Nemetz inquiry into

severance and pension arrangements.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Hopefully Justice Nemetz will provide all sorts of information, also

with respect to how this information, and what information, might be

made public. I am sure he will be looking at the policy as it existed

in the city of Vancouver when the Leader of the Opposition was mayor,

and possibly using that for guidance. We look forward to the report. In

the meantime, all matters will certainly be dealt with by the Minister

of Government Management Services, who will take it on notice.

MR. HARCOURT :

As the Premier was one of the two people involved, can the he tell this

House whether Mr. Poole resigned voluntarily, was fired with cause or

was fired without cause?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I was not involved, but certainly I will pass that on to the minister responsible as a personnel matter.

HON. MR. VEITCH : As the acting minister, I will take it on notice for the Minister of Government Management Services.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT :

Can the Premier then inform the House why David Poole's pension by

order-in-Council was not approved by the superannuation commissioner?

MR. SPEAKER :

The Leader of the Opposition can persist in the line of questioning,

but the Premier and the minister have taken the question on notice.

Does the Premier want to answer?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will take that question on notice for the Minister of Government Management Services.

[ Page 5604 ]

EVERYWOMAN'S HEALTH CENTRE FUNDING

MRS. BOONE :

Question to the Premier. With respect to the Premier's announcement of

a new minister of state for women's issues, can the Premier inform the

House whether one of the responsibilities of this minister will be to

pursue full funding for the Everywoman's Health Centre?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : No. The terms of reference will certainly be drafted by the Premier when the announcement is made.

MRS. BOONE :

Question to the Minister of Health. Has the Minister of Health decided

to provide full funding for the Everywoman's Health Centre?

HON. MR. DUECK :

It has been reported many times in the paper, and I will reiterate the

remarks that I made and the position of this government: if we are

looking for a diagnostic and treatment centre, it certainly wouldn't be

in the city of Vancouver.

MRS. BOONE : A

supplementary. It's clear that the minister is basing policies on his

own personal opinions, rather than meeting the needs of the majority of

British Columbians. How can the minister justify the discriminatory

policy that funds abortion in some health care facilities, such as

regular hospitals, and not in others?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Any doctor or physician can open a clinic, do procedures, get paid for

the procedures; however, they cannot open a hospital and expect to get

funding for the operations of a diagnostic centre or hospital per se.

So it's very clear in my mind, and it has nothing to do with personal

opinions if I have other....

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Now just a minute. I have other requests for diagnostic and treatment

centres, and we say no, we are not going to open one because it is not

required. That's exactly the same for this particular clinic that

you're speaking of.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON FORESTRY

MR. HARCOURT :

To the Premier, Mr. Speaker. In response to calls from New Democrats

and other groups throughout this province, has the Premier finally

decided to overrule his Minister of Forests and to establish a royal

commission on forestry?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I'm

not exactly sure what the procedure was when the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) was the minister responsible for

forestry, but the procedure here is that the minister reports to

cabinet and cabinet makes the decision.

MR. HARCOURT : I take that as basically a no.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT :

I don't know why the Premier is trying to hide the state of the forests

in this province. What's he trying to hide? Maybe some sweet deals for

friends of Social Credit. Manufacturers, aboriginal people, municipal

leaders, loggers, even the previous Minister of Forests, have all

called for a royal commission on forestry. How can the Premier

reconcile his failure to act with a near unanimous call for a royal

commission?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I take this

opportunity to clarify. I didn't say no; I said it would be a matter

for cabinet, although I should say I'm not surprised that the Leader of

the Opposition would take it as no, because it was no to the stadium,

no to the trade and convention centre, no to SkyTrain, no to

Coquihalla, no to the Alex Fraser Bridge. It's always no with the

Leader of the Opposition.

EXPORT OF RAW LOGS

MR. MILLER :

I have a question to the Minister of Forests, who, by the way, is

quoted as saying he's indifferent on the subject of a royal commission,

and in his press conference said the public was all over the map. I

don't know whether the Premier agrees with that or not. However, the

minister, in announcing a new policy to deal with the important issue

of raw log exports, indicated that the policy had to be reviewed in

light of the free trade agreement. Clearly the inference was that there

was some impediment in that agreement to imposing a total ban on log

exports. Could the minister advise the House whether it is the case

that the free trade agreement provides an impediment to British

Columbia's putting in place a total ban on log exports?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The matter of export policy is one that comes under scrutiny by both

the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the free trade

agreement. If we're going to have restriction on trade, we can expect a

certain amount of examination by our trading partners the world over,

because we happen to be a country that relies heavily on external

trade. So yes, whatever we do from the standpoint of export policy will

be examined by our trading partners.

MR. MILLER : The minister, after eight public sessions around the province, has learned the word "obfuscation."

Mr.

Minister, would you clarify your statement? Would you advise this House

whether the free trade agreement prohibits British Columbia from

imposing a total ban on log exports?

HON. MR. PARKER :

I'll be happy to speak with my colleagues who are well versed in the

free trade agreement. The advice I have at this time is that whatever

we do, as far as export policy in this country is concerned, we can

expect to be examined by our trading partners.

[ Page

5605 ]

MR. MILLER : We will have more to say. It's going to come as

some surprise to the people of this province that the government didn't

advise them, at the time they embraced the free trade agreement, that

that was the case.

Moving on more specifically on an issue

of log exports, the minister, by ministerial order, allowed a forest

company on Vancouver Island to export 5,500 cubic metres of raw fir

logs. The minister at his news conference today advised the press that

the new policy would go far in terms of sustaining production and

processing jobs in this province. The minister was also aware...

MR. SPEAKER : Could the member get to his question.

MR. MILLER :

... of the Fletcher Challenge layoffs. He had been previously advised.

Given that he was advised, why did the minister allow the export of

5,500 cubic metres of raw logs from Vancouver Island if he knew that

the impact of the Fletcher Challenge layoffs was coming?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The advice we had from Fletcher Challenge on pending layoffs came long

after the episode that the member opposite alluded to on 5,000 metres

of fir logs. That particular issue was one of an economic and a

job-protection nature in that particular community. The advice I had at

the time to protect those jobs was that that particular transaction

should be allowed to transpire.

What we talked about today

in our press release and at our press conference was a means to put a

lid on export of surplus logs. We have done that by increasing the fee

in lieu of manufacture in the province from 40 percent to 100 percent

of the difference between domestic price and export price. We haven't

stopped log exports, so our trading partners won't have to become

alarmed.

We have set up a situation where there are surplus

logs in the system and where it is as much an advantage to sell them

domestically as to export. There is no reason to see an increase in

export. What we will see is a substantial decrease in export and, I

might caution, a subsequent decrease in revenues.

MR. BRUCE :

As one knows, I have been involved in this issue most recently in my

community, and the aspect of log exports is very near and dear to my

heart. The opposition has for some time been calling for an immediate

and total ban on all log exports, Mr. Minister, as you well know,

citing, of course, job security as their principal reason. Can the

minister please advise this House as to the percentage of that annual

allowable cut that is accounted for by raw log exports? More

importantly, what would be the economic impact if a total ban was

imposed immediately on the industry?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Speaker, I would have to take as notice the total

economic impact, and I will report that to the House. The province is a very

diverse province. There are areas that depend upon log export as very much a

part of the local economy, and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) knows

that full well because his constituency is one of those that are impacted to

the greatest extent in this line of work. There are a number of people in his

constituency whose jobs depend on being able to sell some logs offshore, up

to Alaska or south to Washington State.

I'd

also like to share with the House the fact that log sales from the

Cassiar timber supply area into the southern Yukon and into the

neighbouring province of Alberta are considered log export, and they

are all part of the picture throughout the province. It is a very

diverse resource and a very diverse province. The matter of log export

is part of the commerce of the province.

Last year we were

able to reduce log exports by a million cubic metres from the 1987

figures, and we did that with policy that was introduced in July. That

policy is serving to further reduce what the policy we announced today

will further reduce. But remember, it's a two-way street. Not only have

we been exporting logs but we've been importing logs too, because it's

the nature of commerce.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Could I ask leave to make an introduction, please.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

It is indeed a pleasure for me to rise in the assembly today to

introduce Mrs. Anne Thomas, president of the Delta Hospital Board; Ross

Nursey, a member of the board; Bob Hutmacher, executive director; and

Dr. David Martin, chief of medical staff. Would this House please make

them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, this government's throne speech is about the past, not the

future; a lot more study and review, not much action; more to do with

politics than with people.

Let's look at the throne speech reviews. The Province says it's a "confession of sins." The Times-Colonist

says it's "recanting without actually accepting blame for past

failures, bowing earnestly in all directions and spending or promising

to spend its way to popularity."

Most observers are fascinated by this government's newfound interest in the environment and health care. The Times-Colonist

says: "One can only marvel at a government which, even while provincial

mills are being condemned as gross polluters and forestry policy is

being assailed on all sides, has the gall to claim in public that" the

environment is one of its "most fundamental values." The Sun

says this government's "pledge to introduce a new medical services

act... raises the spectre of one more attack on universality." The Province also says

[ Page 5606 ]

most of this government's throne speech is "talk and study."

[2:30]

Two

and a half years into its mandate this government's action on a clean

environment is to study it. Two and a half years into its mandate this

government's solution for unemployment is a task force. Two and a half

years into its mandate its program for child care is to review it. To

be fair, BCTV did say the government's priorities are actually "warm

and cuddly." Or was that "fuzzy and fluffy"?

This

government's throne speech is not a vision for the future but an

admission of failure. It offers no imagination, no innovation, no fresh

solutions to real problems. This government doesn't grab hold of the

future in a bold way. This is not how B.C. was built. We didn't forge

thriving cities or open up the interior by waiting for someone else to

solve problems for us. It's clear that this government's throne speech

has more to do with correcting the failures of the past than providing

leadership for the future. And it's clear that the people of British

Columbia are way out ahead of this government.

After

everyone else in B.C. knows about pollution, they've just learned how

to spell the word "environment." Then again, they've just started

putting the "u" back in education.

The Socreds seem to think that politics is a promising career, and the throne speech proves it — it's

filled with promises. But we're surprised at some of the promises that

were left out. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) wanted a

tax on good ideas. He knew he'd never have to pay. The Minister

Responsible for Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) wanted to get ready for

the next oil spill; he wanted to double the supply of paper towels. The

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) wanted to have nurses declared an

endangered species, but then that would mean he'd have to recognize

their value to health care in the first place. The Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Reid) wanted a new B.C. lottery. The first prize is a new

home in Vancouver; the second prize is a million dollars. The Minister

of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) wanted to rename his department McForests

and serve up another billion logs for export.

Mr. Speaker,

freely spending money raised on the backs of working people is not

leadership, nor is addressing important concerns like the environment

or education for our kids or women's equality only when it suits the

government politically. Our children and our future are too important

to be suddenly dusted off just before an election.

This

afternoon I'm going to speak about B.C.'s future, about a growing

future, one that we can build through sustainable development of B.C.'s

renewable resources, the protection of our environment and the

diversification of our economy — a growing economy that is managed

not just for a few government friends and insiders, their idea of free

enterprise, but for working people, our children and our parents. Not

growth for growth's sake but growth that provides good jobs for men and

women, new opportunities for B.C.'s businesses, economic equality for

women, income security for the poor, services for families and seniors,

educational opportunities for our youth, and justice for aboriginal

people.

The people of British Columbia are way out ahead of

this government. Their horizons reach beyond today. They've seen the

future and it is our province, a commonwealth of rich resources,

strong, innovative people building livable communities, a province that

can meet the challenges of global competition and change. British

Columbians want to know that the resources we've been blessed with in

B.C. will still be there for their children.

While this

government studies the environment New Democrats have been putting

forward concrete solutions to create new jobs without harming the

environment. Whether British Columbians live in resource-based

communities whose future is directly threatened by natural resource

depletion or in cities where deterioration of the quality of the air,

water and land has increased, sustainable development is the key to our

growing future.

British Columbians want to make sustainable development a reality —

not just another Socred slogan. The government was asking where the

ideas were. All you have to do is to look at the 21 specific

legislative initiatives we've introduced to stop Socred mismanagement

of B.C.'s resources and to immediately protect our environment.

You

asked the question, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith). If you had

checked the Orders of the Day this morning, you would have seen the

bills we'll be introducing in the coming weeks. I want to quickly touch

on those initiatives. Each contributes to the immediate stewardship of

our renewable resources, as well as starting right now to clean up our

environment to minimize future degradation. They are:

An Act to Ban Log Exports.

2. A Tree-Farm Licence Moratorium Act — until we have a royal commission on forestry.

An Act to Increase Pollution Penalties and Create an Environmental Protection Fund.

An Act to Phase Out Pulp Mill Pollution.

An act to ban CFCs — chlorofluorocarbons, for those of you who may not know the term.

6. An environmental protection act to assess the environmental impact of all major industrial and commercial development.

An Act Providing for Effective Monitoring of Pollution and Toxic Spills.

8. A Whistle Blower's Protection Act, to protect workers who report polluters.

An Act to Ensure Environmentally Sensitive Public Spending.

10. Forestry Value Added Act, which ties new job creation directly to industrial access to our forests.

11. Community Reforestation Act.

12. Forest Waste Reduction Act.

13. Forest Practices Act.

14. Forest Inventory Update Act.

An Act to Establish an Environment and Land Use Secretariat.

An Act to Protect Parks and Wilderness Areas.

[ Page 5607 ]

An Act to Restore the Integrity of the Agricultural Land Commission.

An Act to Reduce Lead Levels in Drinking Water.

An Act to Phase Out the Use of Apartment and Commercial Incinerators.

An Act to Continue the Moratorium on Offshore Oil Drilling and Exploration.

21. Freedom of Information Act.

have been asked: what if this government won't accept our initiatives?

Frankly, I have no doubt that they are prepared to do so. After all, it

was the Environment minister who said: "We're ready to follow; just

tell us what to do."

These New Democrat initiatives are

just the beginning. In the coming months we will be introducing further

measures and other key sustainable development areas, including

agriculture, fisheries, energy and tourism.

One month ago

we put our sustainable development program before the people of British

Columbia. We identified five long-term priorities for our province, and

I want to put these priorities on record: (1) we must maintain our

natural resources to provide sustainable economic opportunities for

working people; (2) we must resolve resource and land use conflicts

while respecting the aspirations of all British Columbia citizens and

regions; (3) we must generate new jobs and economic benefits from our

resources by increasing the level of value-added opportunities —

that means getting more manufactured products from our raw resources;

(4) we must protect the quality of our environment for our family and

our children; and (5) we must preserve our unique scenic and wilderness

resources for future generations.

I want to expand on just

one of these priorities: the new value-added manufacturing

opportunities from our forests. B.C. must diversify its economy to

protect people from all the regions of British Columbia from the

boom-and-bust future. In the immediate future, our forests will remain

the backbone of our economy. B.C.'s forest industry has relied on the

mass production of low-cost products like pulp, newsprint and dimension

lumber and fought to maintain B.C.'s share of a very competitive world

market, but unless this government musters every resource at its

disposal and moves with the utmost urgency to work with B.C.'s forest

industry to produce new wood products, thousands of British Columbians

will find themselves on the unemployment lines over the next

decade — just like the 425 workers at Fletcher Challenge.

The

shift from home building to home renovation in the U.S., which is our

largest market, has cut our timber production but increased the demand

for specialty wood products. In the future, Europe and Japan — our other most important export markets — will

only be buyers for value-added products. But the loss of our

traditional markets for B.C. timber also brings along many new

opportunities. B.C. has the chance to produce a wide range of new

products for Canadian and world markets.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Name a few.

MR. HARCOURT :

I'd be glad to name a few if you'll listen for a second. I'd like to

tell you the products we could have: wood windows, doors, frames,

panels, mouldings, shelving, flooring, siding, prefabricated building

components and furniture, just to name a few.

In addition

to exporting pulp and paper, we could also be producing a wider range

of printing and specialty papers. As a matter of fact, last year's

federal-provincial study on value-added opportunities says there's a

billion-dollar market and thousands of new B.C. jobs there for the

taking if we're bold in our thinking and quick on our feet.

This

government and our forest industry must move on research and

development. This afternoon I am announcing another New Democrat

sustainable development initiative: a forestry research and development

act. This will establish a joint industry and government forestry

research and development program for the development of new markets for

B.C.'s value-added forest products, new harvesting, processing and

manufacturing equipment, and new environmentally sensitive production

technologies.

There is a direct relationship between

forestry R and D and selling new B.C. wood products on our world

markets, and that means new jobs for B.C. workers. Our competitors have

shown they can do it. They showed how it can be done. Our markets are

telling us it must be done. You want to know where you can look? Sweden

has doubled their value-added manufacturing by spending three times

what we do on R and D.

[2:45]

We can't rely on our forests alone to produce new jobs for British

Columbians. Like sustainable development, diversification of our

economy is critical if we're to have a growing rather than a shrinking

economic pie. If we don't produce more advanced and complex goods and

services in every region, our children will forever be vulnerable to a

boom-and bust economy.

It's time for this government to

get serious about diversification. There is no shortage of bold ideas

for economic development in every region of this province. B.C. has a

great potential to create jobs, not just in forestry and other resource

industries, including agriculture, food, mining and aquaculture, but

also in information technology, including microelectronics, computers

and telecommunications; in biotechnology, including disease control,

environmental protection and health care; and in high tech, for energy,

ocean sciences, marine subsea, aerospace and transportation.

I said last year, the challenge of diversifying through home-grown

industries is harder than reaching for the quick fix of foreign-owned

multinationals. But that's the job that British Columbians want done.

New

Democrats want to encourage and support new B.C. enterprises that are

locally owned and job intensive. We want public tax dollars to be

targeted to long-term job creation for our children, not just to

[ Page 5608 ]

short-term special deals for the government's friends and insiders.

Next

week's budget is a marvelous opportunity for this government to catch

up to British Columbians. Instead of using indiscriminate tax breaks,

the budget must target investments specifically to those enterprises

which make the greatest contribution to diversification. Instead of

thoughtlessly handing out grants to new industries the budget must

ensure that British Columbians get a fair return on their investment:

in new jobs, repayment, reinvestment or even equity in successful

enterprises.

In addition to these tax incentives, this government can do more: first, with sustainable development —

high access to our renewable resources for B.C. enterprises, directly

to new initiatives and diversification. Second, support R and D in

these growth industries. Third, make the necessary public investment in

our universities and colleges to provide our young men and women with

the skills to help build B.C.'s sunshine industries.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old Chinese proverb: "If you wish to plan for

a year, sow seeds; if you wish to plan for ten years, plant trees; if you wish

to plan for a lifetime, develop people." We're planning for the next

generation.

Our challenge today is to manage our growing future for the greater economic and social benefit of all British Columbians — not just for a few government friends and insiders.

Last

year in the throne speech, this government made a public commitment to

encourage planned and organized growth, so that development does not

bring pressures, problems and costs to threaten the quality of life we

enjoy. Mr. Speaker, ask the Vancouver seniors who are losing their

homes if this government has been managing growth for them. Ask the

young families looking for an apartment or looking to buy their first

home if this government has been managing growth in their interest.

This

government tells us they've got a housing action plan. Where's the tax

on flipping to cool off an overheated housing market? Where's the

property purchase tax exemption for first-time home buyers? And where's

the protection for tenants through the rentalsman? Mr. Speaker, I'll

tell you where these initiatives are coming from. They're coming from

this side of the House — from New Democrats.

Mr.

Speaker, ask the workers from Surrey and Coquitlam, who travel to and

from work taking hours each day, if this government has been managing

growth for them. And ask the families, teachers and health care workers

in those same communities, whose schools and hospitals are bursting at

the seams, if this government has been managing growth. Here is the

leadership British Columbians are looking for — here in the New Democratic Party.

Give communities the right to work together through regional planning and to

build livable communities. Get off your duffs and upgrade our highways and roads

and build our public transit so it won't unfairly burden property tax payers.

Stop paving our farmland and preserve the ALR. Introduce our environmental protection

act to ensure that industrial, commercial and residential properties don't

damage the environment.

Mr.

Speaker, it's time to stop beating the drums of the past and start

pushing open the doors to the future. It's time for this government to

look ahead. British Columbians know what the challenges are: to create

new jobs from our renewable resources without harming the environment,

to diversify our provincial and regional economies for our children and

to manage our growing future for the social and economic benefit of all

British Columbians.

This government is going to have to be

dragged along by the people of British Columbia. Our kids' future, jobs

for working people, equality for women and justice for aboriginal

people are important 365 days of the year — not just when it suits

the government politically. Our children and our future are too

important just to be dusted off months before the election.

This

government hopes that the people of British Columbia forget who this

government shamelessly has come to represent over the past few years: a

few friends and insiders. People are a lot smarter than that. We do

have memories, we care about our kids, and we care about the future.

Mr.

Speaker, this throne speech is filled with study and review and review

and study. British Columbians know what the challenges are. We don't

want another study; we want solutions. We want legislative action to

protect the environment and create jobs. We want to know that the

resources we've been blessed with here in B.C. will still be there for

our children. While this government studies the problem, New Democrats

are putting forward concrete solutions. While they're thinking about

it, we're taking legislative action. As the throne speech shows,

British Columbians are way ahead of this government.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, it's always nice to follow the me-too member, and we'll get to that in a minute.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I lost a couple of things. I lost 20 pounds too. Did you guys notice?

would like at the outset in my address to the throne speech to do as

all members like to do in this time of the year and in this period: to

speak about the riding. It's about the only time we get to do it. It

gives you, other members and your colleagues on both sides of the House

a chance to hear how you feel about the place you represent and what's

happening there. I think it's important.

This was announced

on the weekend, but I want to make comment first to all of you that

Prince George has been awarded the 1990 British Columbia Summer Games.

I am very pleased with that. I think it underscores the tremendous

ability our community has in hosting these types of events. Pursuing

this issue of the awarding of the 1990 summer games for Prince George,

it was easy for me to point out the

[ Page 5609 ]

remarkable

record that our community had in hosting the 1981 British Columbia

Winter Games and the 1986 Festival of the Arts. When you have a

community such as Prince George that has the capacity to bring 5,000 or

6,000 people into town to put together the variety of infrastructure

that has to be put in place — food, lodging, transportation, organization, facilities —

it makes you feel good to know that your community can respond in a

first-class fashion. I am happy to see that we have had this award of

these magnificent games to our community. I can assure all of you that

Prince George will respond in an outstanding manner as host to those

games.

We have also had some success economically in our

community over the last year. As you know, the forest and resource

industry did go through some doldrums from 1981 on, but things have

changed considerably in the last couple of years. Of course, the pulp

and paper industry market has strengthened. So has the lumber market.

We were pleased last year to note the selection of Prince George as the

site for the FMC hydrogen peroxide plant. That was intriguing to me as

Minister of Environment and as MLA for the area. As you know, hydrogen

peroxide is the coming chemical with respect to clean pulp and paper

processing. To have such a facility in my community is indeed

delightful from an economic point of view as well as from an

environmental point of view.

In Prince George we have

British Columbia's highest per capita income. I think that speaks well

for the industry that does locate there.

I might add

parenthetically to the Leader of the Opposition, whose research is

really abysmal, that we have in Prince George value-added sash and door

and window manufacturers, furniture manufacturers and much other

value-added industry. It's all there. I am amazed that he would put

that in a speech and say we don't have it, when in fact just a casual

look at a Prince George phone book would tell him that. If his research

doesn't carry past that, I don't see how he can ask the people of

British Columbia to acknowledge him as leader of a major party, or even

anticipate the thought of his being Premier — if he can't do some telephone book research in the third-largest community in the province.

would like to discuss the issues of the environment and perhaps respond

in part with some factual information about some of the charges that

have been laid in this last speech.

First of all, the Leader of the Opposition began his comments — which he had to read —

by going through the reviews of the various newspapers and how they

felt about the throne speech. I think it's obvious that you are going

to find critical press — I don't have any problem with this —

looking at ways of finding holes in the throne speech or other

government documents. That's what the critical press is supposed to do,

and I think they have a responsibility to do that.

In terms of the Times-Colonist speaking on environment, though, there is a

major deficit there. The Times-Colonist really has no basis to speak on environment.

I recall that they made no mention of the Dr. David Strangway task force that

we put in place on the environment, economy and sustainable resources. As a

matter of fact, in other issues such as the oil spill the editorial writers

had to fabricate information to arrive at an opinion. That has been pointed

out to them, but they don't seem to recognize that. Nevertheless, the point

remains that the Times-Colonist is really not an authority if you are dealing

with environmental issues.

terms of the government record, there are a few other things I would

like to put on record right now for the benefit of the Legislative

Assembly, in response to some of the NDP accusations,

The

Social Credit government in 1971 by statute had the first Environment

and Land Use Committee of cabinet. To say that we have not acknowledged

environmental concerns is incorrect, and any casual look at the

statutes and our record will demonstrate it. The Social Credit

government in 1977 had the first Ministry of Environment, with a

Minister of Environment sitting on ELUC....

AN HON. MEMBER : Seventy-six.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I stand corrected by my historian friend here.

Minister of Environment chaired the Environment and Land Use Committee

of cabinet and was always a member of any cabinet committee, on

economic development in those days — regional development today.

First

of all, the me-too leader seems to take great delight in talking about

our common future, sustainable development and what he's going to do if

elected to govern the province. I should point out to him that in

September 1987— and I was minister at the time — the province of

British Columbia endorsed the Prime Minister's task force on the

economy and the environment, and indicated that we would also endorse

this concept and begin our own task force. That's some two years ago,

so for the Leader of the Opposition to all of a sudden find this

acknowledgment of what the United Nations has said on our common future

and to embrace the concept of sustainable development is laughable

indeed. This has been a feature and a characteristic of our government

for two years now.

[3:00]

In the July 6, 1988 cabinet restructuring it was clear that we would

be embarking upon a task force. You will recall, Mr. Speaker and

members, that in December my colleague, the Minister of Regional

Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch), and I had the good fortune to announce

Dr. David Strangway as the chairman of our task force on the

environment and the economy. In January we announced the further

membership of that task force. For the Leader of the Opposition to say

that he is reacting first to this issue is total nonsense and

indicates, if anything, very skimpy research.

The other comment I would like to make — and a question I should ask — is that when we talk about

[ Page 5610 ]

proposals from the opposition, I don't see one. Interestingly enough, the Leader of the Opposition asked about Votes and Proceedings and all the issues they were going to put on the order paper, yet I notice there's not one question in Votes and Proceedings

dealing with the environment. So any concern they have or are trying to

demonstrate for the environment is I think sadly lacking.

Further,

the Leader of the Opposition spoke at some length about his 12 or 13

concerns about the environment. They deal with log exports, royal

commissions, waste management. We have had the most comprehensive waste

management legislation in Canada, Mr. Speaker — and you will know

this from a former movie. We've had it amended as needed, and quite

stringently. I recall that in 1987 amendments to the Waste Management

Act dealing with the handling of special wastes were voted against by

Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Why they would take a position and vote

down improvements to the Waste Management Act is beyond me;

nevertheless, they did it. It does indicate they really don't have that

concern for the environment when we see them voting against tougher

legislation, which the record will show they did in 1987.

terms of pulp mill regulation, you are all aware that in December of

this year there was evidence from the federal government, doing very

sophisticated testing on edible fish tissues, that dioxins in trace

parts were in the shellfish fishery. Later on there was more evidence

that we had dioxins in fish tissue in the finfish of our province.

Immediately, I and the federal minister, who came into this a little

late because he had just come out of an election and was newly

appointed, put into place an agenda which indicated to the pulping

industry that by January 30, 1989 they would have to present to both

the federal and provincial governments an agenda for stepping away from

the chlorine bleaching process, begin to do their own testing and

submit these plans to the government. That was done; the plans are in

place and are being reviewed now. I would suspect — as a matter of fact, I know —

that British Columbia and the pulp and paper industry will be the first

in Canada to have the most toxic-free pulp and paper process. I think

that's commendable; it speaks well for our industry and for the

government commitment to a clean environment. This does include

extensive monitoring, as I indicated earlier. Our legislation will

introduce changes to the Environment Management Act.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It's interesting that the

Leader of the Opposition talked about all the things he was going to do

in his discussion paper that he issued about a month ago. I was in

Prince George, but I reviewed by telephone with Glen Bohn, the

environment writer of the Vancouver Sun ,

everything the Leader of the Opposition had said, and neither Glen Bohn

nor myself could find anything new. In other words, everything that the

Leader of the Opposition was promoting and that was contained in his

issue paper was in fact legislation or regulation which was already in

place. I did find that curious, and so did the environment writer for

the Vancouver Sun . However, I

guess there's nothing wrong in finding a good bandwagon and finding a

good parade and running to the front of it. It never hurts.

There

really isn't anything there, Mr. Speaker. Just casual investigation

will show that there is really nothing in what the Leader of the

Opposition has put forward that isn't already in place, put in place by

our government. I do thank him for his acknowledgement of our policy,

but that's pretty well all he's done.

In terms of the

Ministry of Environment and the comments made about us by His Honour in

the throne speech, needless to say I was pleased to see the ministry

get, as we characterize it, a full ministry recognition again. You will

recall that in July 1988 there was a restructuring of the cabinet, and

ministers of state, of which I am one, were combined as sort of

mini-ministers of regional development into the Ministry of Regional

Development. I think this is a very good mechanism in terms of being

responsible from an economic point of view for the geographic area that

you represent. But it did cause some problems with the portfolio that I

brought along, which was the Ministry of Environment — to those

working in the ministry. To see that ministry back to full status again

is a good thing and recognizes this government's ability to look at

what they've done, look at management practices, and if there are ways

we can improve upon them, we'll certainly do that.

You'll

also know, Mr. Speaker, that I've been commenting for some time now

about strengthening environmental enforcement. That will become more

apparent when we see the budget, but I think it's appropriate that I

comment briefly on that feature now.

As you know, a study

done in 1987 by Prof. Murray Rankin of UVic indicated that we didn't

really have the best prosecution record in terms of a ministry; there

were many violators who were escaping our attention, or who we just

hadn't been able to take to court and be successful with. That report

concluded in May 1987, but did indicate some rather damaging lack of

ability on the part of the Ministry of Environment to pursue what it

ought to be pursuing.

We have since looked at what we have

to do in terms of beefing up the ministry resources and staff, and also

beefing up the training of our waste management officials, so we can

take good evidence to court and, when we get to court, we can win.

We'll be saying a lot more about that after the budget is done, when we

will be able to describe fully how we intend to carry that process out.

The

point remains that a lot more has to be done. There's a great public

expectation that waste management enforcement is not what it could be.

We have to clearly lead the way in ensuring that we have a clean and

healthy environment in the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 5611 ]

The

other thing I'd like to talk about briefly is the environmental youth

services program, as articulated in the throne speech. Members of the

Legislative Assembly will recall that in years past we had a good

program for youth throughout many ministries, entitled JobTrac. It did

a superb job in supplying work for our young people. The Ministry of

Environment and Parks, as it was called in those days, was a benefactor

two years running of about $2 million for environmental action by our

job corps portion. It was very successful.

We intend to use

the mechanism we used with the JobTrac program, and the environmental

youth services program will no doubt be using the same contractor,

which was the Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia, to manage

the program for us. They really do a superb job. As a matter of fact,

they are also managing the river rafting legislation that I brought in

last year. This is a new and welcome initiative that will involve a lot

of young people in environment enhancement, fish and wildlife, stream

clearing and being able to react to environmental problems as they come

around. I think it will be of general benefit to all of us. I'm looking

forward to that program being put in place. As we flesh out the

details, of course, they will become known to all of you and, I think,

most appreciated.

Getting back to enforcement, there's no

question that we have to increase the ability to handle enforcement.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke of heavier fines, again reacting to

a comment I made on December 8, 1988. He was about six weeks late on

that one, but that's not bad, because he's actually later on other

ones. On December 8 we indicated that, as well as enforcing far tougher

dioxin standards and far tougher management standards with respect to

the pulp and paper industry, we would in fact be seeking equivalency

with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, commonly referred to as

CEPA. This was introduced in July by the former minister, Tom McMillan.

It's a very comprehensive piece of legislation and is the major piece

of federal government environmental protection legislation. It said,

among other things, that provincial governments across Canada could do

one of two things: be equivalent to CEPA or just let CEPA prevail in

their province. Since we already have a number of bills or statutes in

British Columbia — the Waste Management Act and the Environment Management Act —

that deal with this type of regulation and legislation, we felt it

appropriate that we just beef up all of that legislation and make it

equivalent to CEPA in any way that we have to, and we will be doing

that.

I want to reiterate for your benefit, Mr. Speaker,

and for those of you in the House and the press and everybody else

listening, that what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to say and

has said sometime in the middle of February we had announced in

December of last year. There's really nothing new there, as well.

I'm

going to take my place. I understand our new member for Alberni is

going to be speaking to us, and I look forward to his comments.

One

more thing, thinking of Alberni.... It causes me to make some comment

about the oil spill, because I know that is probably going to be a

matter of some discussion in the Legislative Assembly. I note that the

only question on the environment they have on the order paper is to do

with the oil spill, and although it does not deal with my ministry, it

does deal with the issue.

To set the record straight in terms of the record of events: on December 22 in Grays Harbor on the Olympic Peninsula — the main town there is Aberdeen —

a barge had an accident. It was carrying bunker C oil and was towed out

to sea by the American Coast Guard. The presumption was made that the

bunker C oil would dissipate on the high seas and be gone forever. That

was a bad assumption, as we all know, because on New Year's Eve at

about 6:30 in the evening the lighthouse keeper at Carmanah Point noted

that there was serious oil pollution coming in on the beach. They did

some investigation for about an hour, because quite often bilge oil is

pumped. Within an hour the lighthouse keeper had verified the amount of

oil, and the significance of it indicated that it must be from the

Grays Harbor spill.

At that point, all forces were brought into play as quickly as they could —

the provincial emergency program and the Ministry of Environment. It

should be pointed out that in events like this the Canadian Coast

Guard, which has the resources, really is the lead agency. They deal

with all the events, and we take our instructions from them. That was

the way it happened; that's the way it has happened before. There was a

spill in the 1960s, I might add, in the same area— the Long Beach area.

So they are the management agency. They have the boats, the

helicopters, the trained people, and they guide every other agency in

determining what should be done. They had staff in place immediately

and contracted people who are still there.

[3:15]

1 think the best way to characterize the events was done by the

mayor of Ucluelet, Eric Larsen, who indicated that there was more media

hysteria to this than there was real damage. I've been to the site

twice, and I think his opinion, which is shared by many people, is the

opinion that prevails. The site is clean now, and again, I think the

media hysteria was the most outstanding feature of that spill as

opposed to any damage that was done to the environment. We'll let Mayor

Larsen's statements stand because they are correct.

saying that, I will take my seat. We will welcome the member for

Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) to the House. I'm sure he will do well in his

maiden speech.

MR. G. JANSSEN : Mr. Speaker, I am

happy that the minister ended his speech with the oil spill in Alberni,

which I will be mentioning later, as well as some of the misquotes that

he brought forward.

First, I would like to familiarize the

other members of the House with the constituency of Alberni. Alberni is

named after Don Pedro de Alberni, who

[ Page 5612 ]

was

the highest ranking military officer on the west coast at the time. Don

Pedro was governor of Nootka from 1790 to 1792. During his tour of

duty, he taught the natives their cultivation, recorded 633 Nootka

words and provided their Spanish

definitions.

Surprisingly, the only reference made to Don Pedro — despite his illustrious career —

is the city of Port Alberni and the Alberni Canal, which was later

changed by the Canadian Hydrographic Service in 1931 to the Alberni

Inlet. Don Pedro died in Monterey in 1802.

The Alberni

riding is made up of many diverse and ethnic groups. Its original

inhabitants, the natives, consist of 14 bands: the Opitsat, the

Ahousaht, the Ohiet, the Clayoquot, the Nitinaht, the Ehattesaht, the

Hesquiat, the Kyuquot, the Nonchalant, the Hashanah, the Sheshaht, the

Uchucklesaht and the Ucluelet — which operate under the Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council —

and I don't think I'll ever be repeating that again. Also, there are

Italian, Croatian, East Indian, German, Ukrainian and, of course, Dutch

communities among the many ethnic groups. The first European that

appeared in Alberni was Adam Horne, whom Horne Lake was named after.

Although Horne was the first white man to walk into the Alberni Valley,

he didn't stay there. The first known settlers were families: the

Merrifields, Grandys, McKenzies, Hills, Taylors and Drinkwaters, who

settled in the Alberni Valley primarily to take advantage of its

excellent farmland. However, they soon started harvesting the abundant

forest, and logging and production plants sprang up. Over the years

fishing and whaling augmented the original settlers.

The

constituency I represent not only consists of Alberni but stretches

down the Alberni Inlet to the Pacific Ocean. It includes Nitinat,

Bamfield, Ucluelet, Tofino, Ahousaht, Kyuquot, Ceepeecee and Kildonan.

It has a population of 30,341, of which 18,771 are voters — mostly New Democrats, obviously.

would like also to pay tribute to past members who served the Alberni

riding in this House. John Squire represented the riding from 1952 to

1966. As a teenager I helped erect campaign signs for John Squire.

Little did I know then that I would someday take his place in this

House. Ironically, November 19, the day for which the Premier finally

called the election, was a special day in Alberni, not only because it

returned a New Democrat MLA to the House one more time but because it

was also John Squire's birthday. I think there was a message in there

somewhere for the members opposite.

Howard McDiarmid, the Social Credit member — yes, Alberni did elect a Socred member at one time — served

Alberni from 1966 until 1972. At that time the road to Long Beach was

paved. But without the ability to openly criticize the government he

was handcuffed in trying to provide major initiatives to the Alberni

area. So in 1972 the most recent, longest serving and probably most

notable MLA for Alberni was elected. I speak, of course, of Bob Skelly.

Bob

represented the riding from 1972 to 1988. During those 16 years he was

part of a government that in three years did more for the Alberni

riding than the previous government had done in the preceding 20 years.

Work was started on four-laning the Island Highway — something we

hope will continue one day. Electric power was brought to Ahousaht,

where native housing had been built complete with plug-ins and

electrical services, but unfortunately nobody had ever provided power

to Flores Island, where Ahousaht is located. Bob also helped get power

service to communities such as Nitinat and Bamfield, to replace the old

diesel generators that were so unreliable. Port Alberni built the

Harbour Quay, while Bob Skelly was in office, to celebrate its maritime

heritage. Port Alberni also put in the Clutesi Haven and China Creek

marinas. While Bob Skelly was the member for Alberni, Alberni moved

ahead significantly. I hope that I can fill his shoes.

Today's

cities of Alberni, Ucluelet and Tofino, and some of the smaller

communities that make up my riding, are involved in the same harvesting

and manufacturing industries set up by the original inhabitants. But we

are quickly becoming leaders in aquaculture and value-added lumber

products and paper production. MacMillan Bloedel's plants in the

Alberni Valley are among the most modern in the world. The fishing

industry also contributes greatly to the economic well-being of our

communities, with a large fleet harvesting salmon, cod, halibut, tuna,

herring, crab, geoduck and shellfish. Processing plants in the Ucluelet

and Tofino area are continually expanding.

This rosy

picture I have just painted for the members does have its downside,

however. I would like to point out some disturbing facts that face us

in Alberni today. MacMillan Bloedel's annual report for 1988 states

that the Alberni Pacific mill, with a capacity of 250 million

board-foot measure, produced only 179 million board-foot measure.

Similarly, the Somass division, with a capacity of 140 million,

produced only 97 million.

Plywood. The production plant in Alberni has a capacity of 175 million board-foot measure but produced only 117 million.

The Alpulp mill in Alberni fared much better. It has a capacity of 80K tonnes and produced actually 78K tonnes.

Newsprint and ground wood had a 350K-tonne capacity level, and produced 353K tonnes.

Shipping

showed a similar significant drop due to these low production figures,

with lumber down 48,530 tonnes over 1987, paper down 35,222 tonnes, and

plywood down 9,553 tonnes.

There has also been a dramatic

shift in where these exports went to. For instance, in 1980, 17 percent

of exports went to Japan; in 1988 this increased to 41 percent. Exports

for the year decreased from 15 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1988;

the U.S.A. went from 52 percent to 45 percent in the same period. In

fact, gross tonnage from Alberni decreased from 2,332,230 tonnes in

1977 to 1,719,500 tonnes in 1988.

Population figures

reflect the decrease in production and shipping. The central statistics

bureau of the Ministry of Regional Development showed that the

[ Page 5613 ]

population

of the Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot declined from 32,558 in

1981 to 30,341 in 1986, a decrease of between 6 and 8 percent. More

alarming, the same department predicts continued decreases over the

next decade. In fact, Alberni has the only declining population on

Vancouver Island.

I could continue to quote statistics

about declines in housing starts, increases in business bankruptcies

and a declining population. But the point I want to make, Mr. Speaker,

is that although Alberni has the lowest housing costs in British

Columbia, unemployed people cannot obtain mortgages.

Alberni

does have some major projects coming on stream. MacMillan Bloedel has

plans to spend millions of dollars to continue to modernize their

converting plants and ensure continued, although reduced, employment in

Port Alberni — at what are, I might add, good union wages.

The

marine station at Bamfield is planning a major expansion. Ucluelet is

applying for a Go B.C. program to build an arts centre. The harbour

commission has applied for a similar program to expand its fish

processing plant, and Alberni is planning a new intermediate-care home

for 100 residents, refurbishing its high school and hospital, and a

municipal airport.... Although cost-sharing and grants have been

promised for these projects, this government must appreciate that

communities with declining production and population bases will have

difficulty financing these necessary projects.

I would also

like to remind this government that when the original intermediate-care

home, Fir Park Village, was built in Alberni under an NDP

administration, it was financed entirely by the provincial

government — not as this government is proposing, at only 60 percent.

With

the machinery tax being removed from the mills in Alberni, and a 15

percent cap on industrial assessment, a reduced population is being

asked to come up with more money per capita to keep the infrastructure

in place.

I would also like to bring the government's

attention to other crucial matters affecting the Alberni riding. One,

as was just mentioned by the Minister Responsible for Environment (Hon.

Mr. Strachan), is the oil spill on the west coast.I , along with other

members of the communities affected by that disaster, would urge this

government to conduct an inquiry into the cleanup of that spill.

When

oil was first spotted on the beach on January 1, as Mr. Strachan

pointed out, at Carmanah lighthouse, it was shrugged off by both the

federal and provincial governments. It wasn't until a week later, when

the full extent of the damage was known, that governments took action.

The Minister Responsible for Environment first said that he didn't need

to go up to Alberni; he said it would be a waste of the taxpayers'

money. In fact, he did go, and I have to agree with him: it was a waste

of the taxpayers' money.

Still, little was done by the

provincial emergency program. Despite grandiose problems, the cleanup

was conducted by volunteers, by constituents of my riding. I'd like to

take the opportunity here to publicly thank them for that effort.

want to ask the government to push for an agreement with the state of

Washington for compensation for those affected in my riding for this

and future spills.

I will also be asking this government to

establish a royal commission on forestry. As you know by now, my

regional district of Alberni-Clayoquot put forth a resolution, which

was passed, at the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities

calling for a similar royal commission on forestry.

[3:30 p.m.]

I would also like to speak on my critic role of small business. Although, as

was pointed out in the House on Friday, small business is creating the majority

of jobs in B.C., there is no ministry of small business. Many business people

and entrepreneurs must wade through as many as seven ministries in order to

conduct their affairs. While big business is busy gobbling up one another in

mergers and takeovers and laying off workers with each of those mergers and

takeovers, small- and medium-sized businesses are creating the jobs in British

Columbia — while still paying the second-highest tax in Canada. And they're

still trying to wade through that mass of bureaucratic red tape.

Interest

rates are also on the rise, and I will be asking this government to

take a more aggressive role to see that those rates are reduced. As a

small businessman and former president of the chamber of commerce of

Alberni, I have seen the devastation caused by interest rates that

reached 20 percent during the great economic decline of the 1980s.

Business people in British Columbia lost not only their businesses,

some of which had been in existence for a lifetime, but they also lost

their homes and some even lost their families. High interest rates

affect business not only directly, through higher loan and inventory

costs, but these higher rates discourage capital spending by consumers,

therefore driving businesses even further down. Add to this the almost

$1,400 in tax and fee increases imposed by this government on average

B.C. families, and business inevitably slows down. This government has

to stop reaching into the paycheques and wallets of British Columbia

workers before they get a chance to spend their incomes on goods and

services in the private sector.

Although this government

takes pride in building a budget stabilization fund, I do not think the

average British Columbian wants the government in the savings end of

the banking business. In fact, the Canadian Federation of Independent

Business has urged the Minister of Finance to cap the budget

stabilization fund at $500 million and redirect surpluses to reduce the

province's more than $5 billion direct debt, much of it created by this

government. Failure to reduce this debt will only add to higher

interest rates for the rest of us.

Business cannot endure

another crisis such as that of the early 1980s, and although

bankruptcies are down in the last few years, Craig Bushnell, president

[ Page 5614 ]

the British Columbia Insolvency Association, states that they are still

up from the 1981-82 recession levels. Bankruptcies fell to 1,169 in

1988 but are still up from the 1,042 firms who declared bankruptcy in

1982 before the economic decline. Similarly, personal bankruptcies were

2,552 in 1988, still 2 times as high as the pre-recession 1981 figure

of 979.

As we can see, although the B.C. economy is moving

ahead, it is doing so primarily in the resource sector and in isolated

pockets, particularly in the lower mainland. Many communities like

Alberni are being shut out of the boom we now enjoy. Unemployment is

still in the double-digit figures, bankruptcies persist and the

government continues a policy of high interest rates and taxation. I

urge this government to open the doors of the economy so that all

British Columbians can share more equally.

We need a fairer

tax system in British Columbia and a more diversified economy. One of

the ways this can be achieved is surprisingly easy. The government

should purchase more of the goods and services it consumes at a

community level rather than by the centralized buying that now exists,

and return the tax dollars it collects directly to the communities that

pay them. We in the New Democratic Party will be urging the government

to move to more of this community involvement and consultation during

this session, and the recent by-election wins show that this is what

British Columbians want.

I would now like to address the

Premier, who is absent, in a language he might be more familiar with

and understand: Meneer Premier, de menzen van British Columbia. Heben

genog gehat, en ze nemen it neit meer. Translated, for those members

who don't understand Dutch — and I'm sure the rest of the Dutch

members of the House will be encouraging you all to learn that

language, seeing as we represent the largest majority of the House:

"The people of British Columbia have had enough, Mr. Premier, and

they're not taking it anymore."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member. The debate continues.

Interjection.

MR. LOENEN :

Indeed I do. No matter what language you use, they're the same tired

old clichs that the people of British Columbia have rejected time and

again, and they will continue to do so.

Interjection.

MR. LOENEN : I'm somewhat tempted to answer back in Dutch. I was born in Holland.

After

having said that, I do want to welcome the member. Having come from a

recent victory, you deserve the appreciation and, indeed, the esteem of

all people, and we do want to welcome you very sincerely.

would like to say a few things about the throne speech. After that I'd

like to say a few things that relate particularly to my constituency of

Richmond, concerns that people have expressed in our community. As far

as the throne speech is concerned, I believe it's an excellent

document. It's certainly the best I've seen. It's forward looking. It's

progressive. It has a clear direction. It sets the tone. It provides

positive leadership, and I think it will set the tone of the direction

of this government and of this province for the next several years.

such, it gives hope. It gives opportunity. It allows people to look to

the future with anticipation. I believe that it builds on a foundation

that was laid over the past number of years, one where we placed our

economic house in order. I believe that this document is a vindication

of the policies put forward by this government over the last number of

years.

I welcome the shift away from economic concerns to

social issues. It is a tribute to this government and to the people of

this province that we are in a position to shift the focus from purely

economic concerns to social issues.

I believe that this

document and the policies that will ensue from it are possible because

of sound responsible management, and we will continue to see that.

Having said that we will focus on social issues, this government

certainly does not mean that it will forget the economic concerns. As

the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) pointed out, there are many

areas and regions of this province that have yet to see the kind of

economic development and stimulation that has occurred in the lower

mainland.

Last week I had the opportunity to be in Lillooet

and Kamloops. I was told that the unemployment rate there is still 16

percent. We must address those concerns. We must address the concerns

of all the regions of the province. Of course, our government has been

very definite, very frank, very upfront about pursuing those goals and

those policies. That is why the throne speech talks about stepping up

job training efforts, particularly for those young workers and those

older workers.

We also have to combat illiteracy. I was

happy to see that the throne speech is pointing to that. To the degree

we're able to help people help themselves, to the degree we're able to

assist people in developing their resources, their abilities and their

talents, we will all benefit.

Of course, that also means we

have to extend educational opportunities to every part of the province.

In that regard, I'd just like to draw attention to the announcement

today by our colleague the Minister of Advanced Education and Job

Training (Hon. S. Hagen) regarding access for all. Those are not simply

words; that is putting our resources to the best use to meet those

educational needs of our people and making them available in every part

of our province.

I listened to the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Harcourt) with interest. He repeatedly said very emphatically that

somehow the people of the province are ahead of the government. I do

not believe that for one minute. In fact, the people of the province

are not ahead of us and neither are we ahead of the people.

[ Page 5615 ]

This government is with the people of B.C. That is very evident, again, from the throne speech.

fact, consultation has been a hallmark of this government. We consult

with the people on a greater scale and to a larger degree than perhaps

any other government on the North American continent. We do so in

economic concerns and in transportation. In terms of the needs of my

community, transportation is very important, and we welcome the fact

that the minister of state for our region has put together a very

comprehensive consultation process. We're here to listen to the people

and together with the people develop the needs and the resources of our

province.

In fact, there are many other ways in which we

continue to consult with people. Services to seniors, for instance, is

a very important area where we are going to reach out and ask the

seniors to sit down with us and tell us how it is that government can

better help them.

Education. What a wonderful way we were

able to bring together the professionals, the parents and those who

have a stake in our educational process. What a wonderful way that our

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has responded to that quickly

and forthrightly. In fact, the minister has moved so fast that even the

executive director of the BCTF has said: "Hold on, hold on; we're not

sure we can do it quite that quickly." Yes, we have responded very

quickly, and you know it.

There are other areas where we

have shown that we want to consult with people. The Workers'

Compensation Board and the justice system. We have appointed an

advisory body on multicultural concerns. I tell you, the people of this

community and the various ethnic communities have welcomed that and are

very pleased that they can have a say in the development of policies.

A task force on the economy and the environment was mentioned earlier —

waste management and all of these areas. We have consulted and will

continue to consult. In view of that, I think it's entirely misleading

to somehow claim that the people of the province are ahead of us. We

are with the people, and that is the strength of this government: to

listen, to draw our conclusions after listening and then to act on

them, and to draw on the best talents available in our communities.

would like to now turn to some issues that relate particularly to my

community in Richmond, and one of them has to do with housing. Housing

is one of the biggest issues in my riding currently, and it's for that

reason I am very pleased to support and look forward to the various

initiatives in the Speech from the Throne that deal with housing:

enlarging the supply of rental accommodation and making it easier to

attain home ownership. I was particularly pleased to see the reference

to the possibility of using Crown lands in order to make it possible

for people to own a home or for those of low income and meagre means to

rent. I would also be very much interested in any and every plan that

looks at some way whereby people can rent to own.

I believe it's very desirable socially — and in so many other ways —

if we can make it possible for people to look forward to the day they

can own their own home rather than be forever stuck in a rental

situation. I do believe that there are possibilities there, and I am

gladdened by the fact that our government is seeing this and is

responding over the whole width of the various issues that relate to

housing.

[3:45]

One further item that I'd like to raise relates to the foreign

ownership question. Whether or not that has had a detrimental impact is

a question that I believe we should study more fully. The impact of

foreign investment in our housing market is a question of concern to

many people in my riding. House prices in Richmond over the past year

have increased by at least 60 percent. The average in the GVRD is 47

percent, but in Richmond it's greater than that. This has led to

immense dislocation of singles and single parent families. Those are

the people less able to afford housing, particularly the seniors. The

rental units currently in our riding are rapidly being converted. They

are strata title and sold off as individual units. Right now, for

instance, on Ryan Road there is one complex of 246 units — just one complex — which

previously was subsidized housing units and has been converted, and all

of these people face the real possibility of not knowing where to go.

That

puts tremendous pressure on individuals, families, neighbourhoods, and

the social fabric of my community. Neighbourhoods undergo very rapid

change. This in itself generates a great deal of uncertainty; it

generates fear in people. In addition to that, it is quite evident that

our purchasing power is simply no match for the purchasing power of

offshore investors.

I've been told by some prominent real

estate agents in my riding that as much as 98 percent of sales are to

people of Asian origin. There are, of course, those who will say that

the investment is not merely foreign, that it does not all come from

offshore, that, in fact, a lot of the stimulation in the market is also

driven by migration. That is true if you look at the GVRD as a whole,

but it is not true when you look at the west side of Vancouver, at

certain parts of the north shore and at my community of Richmond.

Asian Influence is particularly strong in my community. You will not find it in Surrey — or at least not to the same extent —

or Coquitlam or areas further east. A recent CBC feature story claimed

that the downtown area of Richmond is the fastest-growing Chinatown in

North America. I don't know if that's true, but just looking at the

place, I believe it to be true. I do think that in view of all that

uncertainty and the things we see happening, it is very important for

this government, and perhaps for the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Couvelier) — who unfortunately just left — to take a hard look and to study and analyze the impact of foreign investment on our residential real estate market.

[ Page 5616 ]

Personally

I don't see anything wrong with putting some kind of limitations on

foreign ownership of residential property. When it comes to saving IWA

jobs in the forest industry, we very readily put severe restrictions on

the export of raw logs, and I see absolutely no difference between

doing that and putting some restrictions on the ownership of our homes.

This

government is not hung up on ideology. This government will respond to

real human needs as it has done time and again. The Minister of Finance

has been reported as saying that his staff had a cursory look at the

figures to determine the impact of foreign investment. I suggest that

the Minister of Finance ought to do more than take a cursory look. We

ought to settle this. We ought to have at our disposal some hard data

about the impact, particularly as they relate to communities such as

the west side of Vancouver and my own community of Richmond. We have

the figures and we ought to use that information.

People's lives are uprooted and the social fabric of our community is being torn, and that requires — demands —

that those people deserve more than merely a cursory look. Since

November our local constituency office has received 153 telephone calls

in support of some kind of restrictions on foreign investment in the

residential housing market. I've had only one call that spoke out

against it.

MR. CLARK : The Premier.

MR. LOENEN :

No, it wasn't the Premier, my friend. We are very conscious of what

happens in our community. We log the various calls and concerns that

people express, and I believe that in my community there is a lot of

fear and that we ought to investigate that with hard data.

believe it is possible for us to say to the world: "You're welcome to

come and buy into our plants and equipment, our offices, our shopping

centres, and we welcome your participation. But as far as speculative

dollars are concerned, do not touch our homes." I believe that need not

necessarily have a negative impact. In fact, a story in the Vancouver Sun

of February 23 relates that according to the people in Australia, there

has been no serious negative effect after they had similar measures

imposed. In short, I would urge the Minister of Finance to instruct his

staff to analyze the effect of foreign investment in our housing market.

There's

one further item. Many of these people who are asked to move out of

their rental units in order that they can be sold have a very difficult

time finding another place within the two months allotted. When we look

at legislation that affects renters, we ought to amend the provision

under which a landlord can get away with giving only two months' notice

to a renter should that landlord decide to sell the unit. I believe

that two months in a tight rental market such as we see today is not

long enough. It puts a hardship on many people. I would like to see

that amended to six months at least.

I do not believe that

going back to restrictions on rent increases will do us any good

whatsoever. It has been proven time and time again that freezing rents

does nothing to help renters. It's merely short-term gain for long-term

pain, because over the long haul it dries up the market; it dries up

the supply of rental units and simply makes it tougher on everyone.

This government is committed to increasing the supply of rental units,

and I believe that that's the way to go.

I was happy to

note that the Speech from the Throne talks about improving Vancouver

International Airport. Vancouver International Airport has a tremendous

potential, and we are here to stimulate the building of the

infrastructure in order to handle the potential trade that that

facility will be able to accommodate. For my community, I would just

like to say that I welcome that and look forward to the time when there

will be much greater local control over the administration and the

development of Vancouver International Airport.

Richmond

General Hospital has not kept pace with the growth in population. We

have seen, in the last number of years, a very rapid growth in

population, and I'm sorry to say that we have not been able to continue

to expand that facility to look after the increased needs of our

population. I would very much like to continue to work at providing

services at that facility so that our people do not have to go

elsewhere within the greater Vancouver regional district in order to be

given the basic health services that we have come to expect. I will be

speaking more about that.

In closing, I'm very happy to

note that we'll continue to look at the possibility of instituting an

employees' stock ownership plan. It's something I've been very much

interested in. I believe I spoke about this a number of times last

year. I hope we can revive it in such a way that it will see the light

of day. I believe that to the degree that we allow workers to be

partakers of the enterprise, to be participants in a more meaningful

way, to that degree will we strengthen our businesses, promote

harmonious industrial relations, and it will be to the good of all.

Having

said that, I do believe there are many positive aspects here and that

this document is indeed a blueprint that bodes well. It is a credit not

only to the Premier and the government, but to all British Columbians

in every segment of our society. We have here an opportunity to face

the future with a great deal of confidence.

MR. CLARK :

It's good to be back in the Legislature. Nine months is far too long a

period. I think it demonstrates again the lack of commitment to or

understanding of democracy that we see on the other side. I will deal

with that a little more in my remarks today.

The throne

speech was an interesting one for this administration. It's a kind of

deathbed repentance. After years of neglect in a whole range of areas,

the government claims now to have seen the light. After serious

underfunding of education, health care, post secondary education,

environment, housing, and on

[ Page 5617 ]

and on — virtually every social program that the government administers —

all of sudden the government claims it's in favour of more funding in

those areas. Now we even see a commitment to a ministry of women,

something we have long supported on this side and that is long overdue.

Of course, the government seems to have this newfound commitment,

although, given the track record of the Premier and other members, it's

certainly hard to believe.

Now we see more intervention for

battered children, which is something government cut severely in the

1983-84 period. Now we see a newfound commitment to restoring funding

in those areas. I'm a little surprised and disappointed that they

didn't have it in their hearts to fund a school lunch program, given

the extent of poverty and hungry children — certainly in my

constituency in Vancouver East. There's no commitment in that regard.

So they went a ways in their words, but not far enough in that regard.

The

throne speech really is an admission of failure and a kind of

repudiation for the last ten years of Social Credit. The failed

policies have been recognized by this administration in a desperate

attempt to resuscitate their standing in the polls. We will see in the

budget whether the financial commitment matches the fancy words that we

read in the throne speech the other day.

[4:00]

There are at least three problems I want to deal with today which

question the commitment of the government to the range of programs

they've announced in the throne speech. The first problem is the

underfunding of the basic services in a whole range of areas. Given the

kinds of cutbacks we've seen, the second is the ability of the civil

service to carry out some of these rather ambitious — at least on paper —

programs. And finally, I want to address the government's lack of

credibility in this area, which leads one to be skeptical of the

commitment they have in the social services.

With respect

to core underfunding, this goes to the heart of many of the problems of

the Social Credit administration in the last ten years. For example, we

saw the real cutback of roughly 20 percent in the budget for education

and only commitments to new funding that is targeted to political

priorities, which probably makes some political sense on the

government's part, but really doesn't deal with funding the basic

quality service that we need.

I think of the funds for excellence, for example, which were targeted for specific

government programs. But at the same time, the existing services were being

squeezed even further. We've seen huge increases in school taxes, and they'll

be even bigger in the years to come because of this underfunding of the basic

services. We've seen no increase in the homeowner grants over a similar

period and no increased funding for the basic level of services. Likewise —

and we'll see, of course, when the budget comes out — we've seen the

government's commitment to provide funds for implementing the Sullivan royal

commission on education. Certainly that's commendable in terms of implementing

royal commission recommendations, but when the basic service remains starved,

providing new funding for new programs doesn't make much sense. I think

we've seen that across the board in many ministries.

I've

talked to the presidents of two of the three universities, and we've

seen consistent underfunding of universities. For example, the

University of Victoria has $40 million worth of capital equipment and

furniture. Obviously to replace that, as an ongoing institution they

should be provided with maintenance budgets in the neighbourhood of $2

million to $4 million a year. Last year they were provided with roughly

$200,000 — clearly not enough to replenish the deterioration of

that capital stock. That's what has happened under restraint for the

last seven years. It's very easy for a government to cut maintenance

funds. It just delays the bill, and we'll see the bill come home now.

Of course, the government's announced commitment to increase funding in

that area really just tries to deal with the backlog of cuts in funding

that we've seen over the last seven or eight years.

The

second broad problem I see with the government's agenda is that the

civil service has been decimated during the restraint period by 25

percent, and because of the early retirement program, another 10

percent of the senior civil service has gone. This, I think, questions

the ability of the government to implement many of these new programs.

Do they have the staff? Do they have the human resources to deliver the

new social programs in British Columbia?

I think that can

be exemplified by looking at a few of the areas where they clearly are

understaffed. Virtually every ministry of government has been

understaffed in the last few years. The last auditor-general's report

documented that in the energy ministry we lost $7 million. We gave $7

million to mostly large — but not all large — natural gas

producers in British Columbia because of a failure of the ability of

the bureaucracy to monitor payments in that sector. They simply didn't

have the staff to monitor a royalty payment, so they asked the

companies to submit the royalties on faith. And of course the

auditor-general documented clearly that about $7 million was lost to

the taxpayers of British Columbia, given to the energy sector, because

they didn't have the civil service or the staff to monitor that program.

Likewise

in the environment we see that whole areas simply didn't have the staff

to monitor programs. We have some very good standards in British

Columbia, I think, with respect to certain areas of the environment.

But if you don't have the staff to enforce them, it makes it a bit of a

sham. I think we have seen that with cutbacks during the restraint

period, and also with the early retirement program, the ability of

government to move in that regard has been hampered by the lack of

staffing over the last seven or eight years.

In the Ministry of Social Services and Housing — I see the minister here —

clearly there is again significant understaffing. Virtually daily in

our constituency office we deal with problems with that min-

[ Page 5618 ]

istry

because of social workers overworked, dramatically in some instances. I

understand the ombudsman's office deals with over 100 appeals or

complaints a month from that ministry. About 80 to 90 per cent of them

are resolved in the clients' favour. So very clearly the ministry

failed in the initial steps to deal with those problems. If 80 per cent

of the claimants are winning the appeal, then there is something wrong

with the initial decision. That is clearly a problem that has to do

with systemic underfunding of the ministry by this administration and

previous Social Credit administrations.

Likewise with

Principal Trust we have seen.... The ombudsman will be coming out with

a report which I think will prove again that the ability to monitor

financial institutions in this province is simply not up to scratch. We

simply don't have the ability, the staff or the expertise to monitor

financial institutions in British Columbia.

We have

recently seen a small credit union go under, for example. It apparently

had only something like $7 million worth of assets. By the time the

ministry was alerted to a problem, the manager had absconded,

essentially, with $3 million to $4 million worth of the assets of the

credit union.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK :

Sixteen million dollars. I am corrected by the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). We wouldn't even have known about it if

it weren't for a clerk in the credit union alerting the ministry. We

simply don't have the staff to monitor, and people suffer as a result.

In the Principal Trust case we've seen thousands of seniors in British

Columbia lose their savings because of this government's negligence, in

terms of their regulatory ability to monitor financial institutions.

The

Vancouver Stock Exchange is another area where clearly the government

is not up to speed with respect to administration, regulation and

staffing to deal with the reality of the stock exchange in British

Columbia. Let's give one other example of that. We recently had a

company controlled by Ferdinand Marcos buy a seat on the stock

exchange — not by being traded or listed on the stock exchange,

but buy a seat on the stock exchange. That company, of only 49 members

of the stock exchange, was the forty-ninth. It bought a seat, was

approved to do business in British Columbia and underwrote 12 new

listings on the stock exchange. Then because of the federal grand jury

in New York indicting Ferdinand Marcos, one of the assets of his

associate Roberto Benedicto turns out to be this Vancouver company. The

regulators in British Columbia were as surprised as everybody else that

this company was controlled by Ferdinand Marcos. Clearly this points

out the fact that we simply don't have the regulatory ability in that

regard. Lots of people can suffer as a result of that inability to

monitor the stock exchange, or financial institutions, or a range of

other matters.

The stock exchange, of course, has a whole range of problems.

MR. WILLIAMS : You're assuming they're against Marcos.

MR. CLARK : That's right, I am assuming they are against Ferdinand Marcos. Excuse me.

Clearly, money — it could be drug money or it could be money from deposed dictators like Marcos —

can find its way onto the Vancouver Stock Exchange. The Tory government

in Ottawa and this provincial Socred administration have deregulated

the stock exchange; at the same time they haven't provided the staffing

to monitor what's happening. We have opened it up to foreign investment

and deregulated the stock exchange, and now we have crooks and cronies

and dictators doing business on the stock exchange, and we don't have

the regulatory ability to monitor that kind of thing.

So we see in a whole range, as I have talked about —

in the energy sector, in the universities, in the environment, in

social services and housing, with financial institutions and with the

stock exchange — we haven't funded adequately those core services.

It seems to me that new initiatives, which I agree with on paper and

look very good.... For example, creating a ministry with respect to

women is something that's long overdue in British Columbia. But I

question the ability of the government to follow through on that

commitment because of that systemic underfunding that we have seen,

because of their lack of attention to that matter in all these other

initiatives.

We see with the early retirement program close

to $100 million of taxpayers' money gone to pay off senior civil

servants to retire. We have this tremendous drain of human talent

leaving the civil service and the government's stated commitment not to

fill those vacancies — or not to fill many of them — in order

to save money. But it's false economy. I would suggest that when you do

away with middle and senior management and literally gut them, it

impairs the ability of government to deliver the existing services and,

I think, seriously questions the ability of government to undertake new

initiatives the likes of which we've seen in the throne speech. I think

that brings real problems in terms of putting the meat on some of the

words in the throne speech the other day.

The third problem

that I think the government suffers from in terms of trying to deliver

on some of these initiatives is a lack of credibility. I'd like to deal

briefly with that by reviewing some of the things we've seen over the

last year with this administration. When people review it, as I'm going

to do, it's amazing the kind of activities this government undertakes

and then wants to be taken seriously as being people prepared to

undertake social reform. As I said earlier, we have a government that I

don't think understands democracy very well; nine months between

sessions is a good example of that, but there are others. I've only

been elected for two and a half years, and I'm amazed at the disregard

for the institution of parliament that we see on the other side.

When

the author Martin Robin talked about the turn of the century in British

Columbia, he called it "a rush for spoils." I think we're seeing that

again in

[ Page 5619 ]

British

Columbia: a kind of public looting on a grand scale; friends of the

government; insiders salivating at the prospect of some private gain at

public expense. We've seen that over this last year with Socred

insiders getting special favours. Again, this questions the credibility

of the government to deliver on this newfound commitment to social

programs. It obviously didn't start with the current Premier, but I'm

convinced that it has been worse than ever in the last year.

I'd like to go through the first couple of years and remind people — and my voters —

the extent to which the government has, in my view, sunk, to step back

for a minute and review them. Let's start with the Coquihalla. I don't

think anybody disagrees with building the Coquihalla, and I don't think

anybody would be as concerned about the $500 million overrun....

Obviously everybody is concerned about it, but one could argue that

this happens in some difficult construction projects. I think it is

clearly proof of incompetence, but governments can survive some of

that. The problem in this case is that the previous administration and

this current administration systematically misled the Legislature or

clearly skirted the truth in some respects with respect to that area.

That's why we had questions in the House and debates on questions of

privilege in that area. It's really a foundation of parliamentary

democracy.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, I have a little problem here with the statement that the

Legislative Assembly was misled. Perhaps we can have some qualification

or an apology; one or the other. It certainly doesn't sound

parliamentary to me.

MR. SPEAKER : I'm sure that if

the hon. minister is offended, the second member for Vancouver East

will be willing to withdraw anything that was offensive.

[4:15]

MR. CLARK :

I certainly would be, Mr. Speaker. I was quoting the MacKay report,

which may in fact be in order, as opposed to a judgment. I may, if I

can, continue by saying that the MacKay report said categorically that

the government misled the House with respect to the funding of the

Coquihalla. I'll leave it at that and let people judge for themselves

whether the MacKay report is valid or not. Nevertheless, there were

areas of disagreement between the MacKay report and government

statements with respect to the funding or the problems of the overrun

of the Coquihalla Highway. I think that kind of questioning and

discussion around this overrun and why the overrun wasn't unveiled

earlier — for example, before the last election — leads one to question the credibility of the government in a whole range of matters.

Let's

look at the agricultural land reserve. The agricultural land reserve

keeps the price of farmland low as cities grow, because it's frozen; it

can't be used for other things. The price difference between farmland

and urban values is now quite dramatic as growth has taken place,

particularly in the lower mainland. In places like Richmond we see

dramatic discrepancies. If you get your land removed from the land

reserve, you earn millions of dollars in windfall profits. The Premier

know this, and he certainly hasn't done anything to resolve the

problem. In fact, the government seems determined to weaken the land

reserve, to make it easier to remove land from the land reserve. Of

course, the Premier had land removed from the land reserve and made

windfall profits in so doing. There's nothing improper about that.

Well, one might question whether it's proper, but there's nothing

illegal about it. One can't blame a farmer for wanting to get his or

her land removed from a land reserve because of these enormous windfall

profits. Clearly that's a problem. It puts pressure on agricultural

land, in my view, and it should be dealt with.

We saw a

contributor to Social Credit make around $29 million by getting his

land removed by cabinet from a land reserve against the views of the

Land Commission, the society of agrologists, every expert in the

field — the government's own commission, and cabinet removed it.

The result was that one individual made roughly $20 million to $30

million. Again, that questions the credibility of the government to

deal in a forthright manner with a whole range of things. I think that

lends to public skepticism with respect to this administration.

The

Expo lands. I am just going briefly through this litany of scandals

from the past year to explain why the public questions the credibility

of the government when it comes up with new initiatives such as we have

seen in the throne speech. Obviously the Premier personally intervened

ten times on behalf of an individual. Clearly, as the ombudsman said,

that was improper.

The Knight Street Pub. Again, licences

are granted by government. They are worth a lot of money. There are

obvious problems associated with that, particularly when there is the

inference of political interference. We saw again today the Premier's

former aide charged in that matter. We see other people associated with

the Knight Street Pub licence — very close associates of the government —

charged with wrongdoing. One wonders why people are skeptical of the

government's credibility in these matters; clearly that's another

reason.

The Dominion Bridge site. Again, an associate of

the Premier, Mr. Langas. Again the government tries to intervene and to

influence the outcome of a decision.

Westwood Plateau and

other Crown land is being flipped, given to, or perhaps sold to friends

of the government, if not sold in an incompetent way and then resold

for millions of dollars.

MR. WILLIAMS : Resold in a competent way.

MR. CLARK : That's right —

millions of dollars changing hands again. We see that the minister in

charge of Crown lands has had his own dealings in that regard.

[ Page 5620 ]

There

is a range of areas in which the government has suffered from a

credibility problem in the last year, and then we see a throne speech

which has a deathbed repentance and a new-found commitment to social

programs. The government wonders why people question their credibility

and their ability to deliver these programs.

As I said,

there are at least three problems in terms of their credibility. One is

the core underfunding of basic services. How do you provide new

programs on top of existing programs when the existing programs are

underfunded? Secondly, I question the ability of the senior civil

service to deliver. They have been decimated in the last ten years; in

the last ten years of Social Credit we have seen a brain drain from the

civil service. We have seen a contraction in a range of areas which has

resulted, as I have pointed out, in several ministries clearly being

unable to function in an optimum manner. The third area which I think

is a real problem for the government with respect to delivering on some

of these initiatives is the lack of credibility they have because of

the last sad year of scandal and problems associated with the Premier

and his colleagues in cabinet.

For those reasons —

while there are areas of the throne speech that I clearly support,

where the words sound very eloquent, and that we have promoted for

years — one has to question whether they simply have the capacity

or the political will to carry this out. We on this side will be

watching very diligently and trying to ensure that the commitment to

create a ministry with respect to women's issues.... In light of the

sorry record of this administration, we will be watching carefully to

see whether in fact the ministry means anything; whether in fact they

will deliver on this area, which is one area that we promoted for many

years.

HON. MR. VANT : Before I respond to some of the statements made by members

on the other side of the House.... Hopefully the direction will be focused on

the throne speech debate a little more. I have been trying to take notes here,

trying to find something of substance from the other side. I am sure glad I

didn't bank too heavily on what I heard from that side this afternoon.

First

of all, I want to mention that I am indeed very disappointed that, due

to his health, the hon. first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) can't

be in the House at this time. During a throne speech debate one

traditionally has the liberty to talk about one's own constituency. For

sure, the hon. first member for Cariboo has been very much a part of

the great Cariboo constituency, going right back to the time of his

birth in 1916. At that precise time his father, John A. Fraser, was a

Member of the Legislative Assembly for that great Cariboo constituency.

The current member has served with great distinction for the last 20

years. Thinking of his father, I note that John A. Fraser was also a

Member of Parliament in Ottawa, which, as you can imagine, was a long

way back: between 1930 and 1935. Currently we sometimes think Ottawa is

30,000 miles away. For sure we joined Confederation in 1871, and

British Columbia has certainly been a great plus for Canada since then.

Today, of course, as a province we've grown to in excess of three

million people. We can now boast that we have over 12 percent of

Canada's total population, and we're growing. I'm very happy to note

that because of the good government we've had in British Columbia, for

the most part, since 1952....

HON. MR. VEITCH : Except for the 1,200 days.

HON. MR. VANT :

That's right, the 1,200 dark days. Currently we have a net inflow of

over 30,000 people coming to British Columbia, and that's just to the

end of last year. Housing starts are now the highest in the province

since 1981. There was no problem with housing during those 1,200 dark

days between 1972 and 1975 because there were so many people moving out

of this great province at that time.

I want to say, too,

that we want to encourage the newly re-elected government in Ottawa to

continue to reduce their deficit, to become more and more responsible

fiscally. Canada's direct debt now is $254 billion. All of government

debt between 1977 and 1987 grew by no less than 255 percent. Of course,

many years of socialist rule in the province of Manitoba added to that

debt as well. In Ottawa, they should be mindful that when things are

good government shouldn't be running deficits; they should be running

surpluses to help pay off the debt, and also perhaps they could follow

our great example by establishing a rainy-day fund when times are good.

Recently

the Western Transportation Advisory Council's annual general meeting

was hosted right here in Victoria. One of the guest speakers was Dr.

Michael Aho, who is the director of economic studies for the Council on

Foreign Relations, based In New York. He said that very few governments

around the world have balanced budgets. As a percentage of gross

national product, Canada's debt is one of the highest of the

industrialized nations.

As I said, I want to compliment the

government in Ottawa for gradually reducing the federal deficit: in

1984, it was $38 billion; 1986, reduced to $34.4 billion; 1987, reduced

further to $30.6 billion; 1988, reduced to $28.1 billion. They are

definitely going in the right direction.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANT : I'll get to that, hon. member for Vancouver East.

the present time the federal government revenues only cover 74 percent

of their expenditures. For sure they need new revenues to reduce the

deficit, not to finance new spending programs. They certainly need to

downsize and perhaps privatize so that they can get on with things that

are needed and not spend so much money on interest on the national

debt. This throne speech addresses the need for sound fiscal

management. We in British Columbia certainly believe in a strong

private sector which can generate economic growth.

[ Page 5621 ]

The

Speech from the Throne mentions comprehensive highways redevelopment

programs. We have to not only get on with improving the present

transportation systems but also be mindful that in British Columbia,

because of good government and an expanding economy, new car sales

amount to over 140,000 per year. This makes a net increase, when you

retire older vehicles, of 70,000 vehicles per year on our roads. We

have to get on with that very necessary highway development program,

and also rehabilitation of bridges.

The Leader of the

Opposition mentioned that he wanted some concrete solutions to some of

our problems. As Minister of Transportation and Highways, I hope that

an awful lot of concrete solutions come into reality, in terms of

replacing some older bridges and developing some very worthwhile new

projects.

[4:30]

The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) mentioned the great

Coquihalla project. Everyone who drives that great highway is very

thankful for it; it has certainly been an instrument of economic

development for the interior of British Columbia. It allows many people

from all parts of the province, whether the lower mainland or up on the

northwest coast, to travel very safely to and from the interior of the

province.

I want to assure the members of this

Legislature that, subsequent to the MacKay commission report, I have

fully implemented new management concerning major projects. And we can

assure you that we will get full value for dollars spent. We'll have a

fully responsible manager for every project in excess of $50 million.

The

throne speech also mentions that marine transportation certainly needs

additions to it, especially the ferry system between here and the

mainland. The population of this island is now approaching that of the

whole province of Newfoundland, and our B.C. Ferry Corporation is now

moving over six million vehicles and 18 million people per year. It is

growing by leaps and bounds, so we have to get into a very definite

building-expansion mode.

Another area of concern addressed in the very thorough throne speech — which certainly has all kinds of very definite statements of substance —

is the Vancouver International Airport. This airport, of course, is the

of Transport. Recently I drove home the need for that third runway with

Maj.-Gen. Claude LaFrance, assistant deputy minister of aviation for

Transport Canada. This was in the context of the recent Western

Transportation Advisory Council annual general meeting.

want to emphasize to the members of this House the great cost of delays

at the Vancouver International Airport due to the lack of proper runway

facilities. I will give you the example of October 1988 — just one

month, but I can assure the members of this House that there were

considerable delays every month last year. There were no fewer than 4,

791 delayed departures at the Vancouver International

Airport

in the month of October 1988. In other words, no less than 44.8 percent

of all departures at that airport were delayed; the minutes of delay

numbered 52,713. Can you imagine the millions of litres of fuel

consumed on the aprons while those aircraft were waiting to take off?

The cost of those direct delays, at Vancouver International Airport

alone, was over $1,023,315.

AN HON. MEMBER : They don't think it's important.

HON. MR. VANT :

No, obviously they don't travel too much to the interior of this great

province. Many of my constituents in the Cariboo leave the Quesnel

Airport and have to get a connecting flight to somewhere else. To

ensure that they will be there in time, because of the delays at the

Vancouver airport.... Often the flights from the interior end up

three-quarters of an hour to one hour late. Many people in the interior

have to leave a day early and have the expense of staying overnight to

make darned sure they can get onto that plane going to Toronto or

anywhere else in North America, because Vancouver International Airport

is the main connector point for all flights in and out of our great

province.

I can't overemphasize the need for improvements

to Vancouver International Airport. This throne speech makes mention of

that and our government's commitment to cooperating with the federal

government in any way to see that the necessary developments take

place. Indeed, I soon plan to meet with the federal Minister of

Transport, Hon. Benoit Bouchard, with the primary purpose of addressing

that particular problem.

The member of the opposition mentioned — and I agree with that one statement —

that the forests are the backbone of our economy. Certainly for us in

the Cariboo, 75 percent of all the jobs are directly or indirectly

related to the forest industry. I am very pleased to see that in the

Cariboo we are gradually making progress on the non-sufficiently

restocked forest lands, with more and more seedlings being planted,

with brushing and with weeding.

MR. MILLER : What about FRDA II?

HON. MR. VANT . We are very anxiously working on FRDA II. I can mention

that FRDA I has been of great benefit and will continue to be, right through

to its completion in 1990. Many thousands of hectares of non-sufficiently restocked

land have been seeded, and there have been other projects of brushing and weeding.

I'd

like to mention in regard to forestry that we have entrepreneurs, like

Bill Kordyban of Carrier Lumber, who have invested very heavily in the

west Chilcotin to build sawmills and a planer mill, and they are

successfully harvesting beetle-killed pine. These over-mature pine

forests were not too many years ago regarded as weed trees. They are of

very small diameter; they are only about 30 feet tall. He has invested,

and he is getting valuable product from

[ Page 5622 ]

those over mature, beetle-infested forests. He is creating employment for the people in the west Chilcotin.

I'd

like to mention, too, that the hon. Leader of the Opposition was

referring to value-added forest products as though this was something

new. We have such firms in the Cariboo as C&C Wood Products. For

quite some time now they have been making panel boards with a very

high-quality finish — they are tongue-and-groove. They are

packaged and shipped to places all over the globe, such as Europe,

Japan, the Middle East and, of course, the United States. Indeed,

C&C Wood Products in Quesnel is not only processing local pine but

is also importing rough cedar from the coast, processing that and

shipping it all over the world. They make shelving, lattice boards,

furniture stock and all kinds of laminated wood products.

Mention

was also made of concern for modern pulp mills and controlling

pollution. I am very happy that presently in the Cariboo the Cariboo

Pulp mill at Quesnel is spending considerable money changing over to a

new bleaching process that will be chlorine free and therefore

dioxin-free.

The policies of the Social Credit government over many years.... The installation of a provincewide power grid —v thanks to the foresight and thought of great Social Credit leaders like W.A.C. Bennett — made

power available and made the pulp mills in the Cariboo possible,

especially the brand-new thermal mechanical pulp mill, the Quesnel

River Pulp mill, and its brand-new twin, with a very clean process,

which is, of course, both chlorine- and dioxin-free.

keep hearing about royal commissions on forestry, and yet this very

open, consultative government and its Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Parker) have just recently gone throughout the province with hearings

concerning forestry and tree-farm licences. It seems to me that with

just about every major issue — be it transportation or anything else —

we are always willing to go and consult with the people. My new

initiatives, of course, are entitled: "Giving the people of the

province the freedom to move." This involves every mode of

transportation, be it air, marine, rail or road and bridge. For sure we

want to have input from all the transportation committees in each and

every development region of our great province.

Each region

has its own unique character, issues and problems, and this government

is very consciously getting out there in the front lines, working with

the n-ministers of state and the people to get that firsthand

information to assist us in setting both short-term and long-term

priorities. The Leader of the Opposition kept mentioning friends and

insiders of this government. Well, the friends of this government are

the working people of B.C. We are open and accessible, always wanting

to consult with people from every walk of life, everywhere. So everyone

is an insider.

We also want to encourage the private

sector. We want to be very responsible with the funds that the

hard-working citizens provide to us through their taxes. We wouldn't be

like a socialist government and impose a terrible payroll tax, because

wherever they've been in power, and they've had the chance, they've

taxed the working person. So our friends and insiders are the working

people of British Columbia.

Another thing I'd like to mention is the mining industry of British Columbia. For many decades — indeed, since the beginning of the Cariboo constituency —

mining has played a major

part in our life. We're very happy that the

Blackdome mine, a fairly new mine employing over 120 people, is still

discovering ore and producing about 54,000 ounces of gold per year at

their location southwest of Clinton.

I'm very happy, too,

that the workers and management at Gibraltar Mines, just north of

Williams Lake, recently reached a collective agreement. The price of

copper is holding up, and the mine is happily back in production.

Also,

I'm very mindful of exploration and development work by Mosquito Creek

Gold Mining at Wells, near Barkerville, that famous gold rush mining

town. They have spent over $8 million at this point in developing the

haulage tunnel to their mill and in developing new ore bodies. That

certainly will give Wells the stability in employment that it needs. If

they are successful in locating sufficient ore, that mine should enjoy

a very long life.

Certainly this Speech from the Throne has

very detailed substance. There are many specific references to such

things as funding for building new schools. For example, it very

specifically mentions $1.5 billion to be spent over the next six years.

For sure that is something of very concrete substance. I'm very happy

that in my own part of the province there is currently a major addition

under construction at the 150 Mile House Elementary School. They've

just announced a very badly needed new school at Takla Lake, way out in

west Chilcotin, where Carrier Lumber is building another sawmill to

harvest over mature forest out there and create employment. So they

will be having the school that the children in that part of the

province deserve.

All in all, Mr. Speaker, I certainly support this Speech from the Throne 100 percent.

[4:45]

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, I was moved by the speech from the new Minister of

Highways, and while it maybe didn't bring thunderous applause in

here — it's very difficult in here — I'm sure it will read

very well. We're all looking forward to all these plans when they come

to fruition. My problem with the new Minister of Highways is that he's

always planning. And then he says that when I write him about a

highways problem....

The Coquihalla is certainly a wonderful artery —

I know, because we're still bleeding from it. The people in my riding

love the Coquihalla: it takes them to see all the unemployed in

Kamloops. Then he said not to worry about the Barnet. It's a gridlock —

that's the catch-phrase now — or constipation; it's not the

freedom to move. That's what we've got. So the minister had to address

that. But he said: "I can't

[ Page 5623 ]

anything about it. I've got to send it over here to our new regional

prince of Burnaby. He will decide for the whole region whether or not

my constituents can get to work." So it's a very serious matter.

I'd

like to congratulate all the new ministers, and even some of the old

ones, the old ward-heelers that have been around here for ages and

ages. It will be very interesting to see how the ex-ministers

behave — or misbehave; I don't know if they're going to. I

understand that they've papered over all their differences. The

revulsion that drove them out of cabinet last year seems to be all

forgotten now, and all is forgiven. Come home, John. Come home, Grace.

All is forgiven. Anyway, they would be terrific news, and I would like

to see them active. I hope they are.

There's an old joke

about Tommy Douglas. Apparently he was making a speech at some time....

Tommy wasn't a very bi