1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9023 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Game Farm Act (Bill 9). Hon. J. Savage

Introduction and first reading –– 9023

Electrical Safety Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 10). Hon. L. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 9023

Oral Questions

Abortion services. Ms. Pullinger –– 9024

Fraser Valley air pollution. Mr. Peterson –– 9024

Abortion services. Ms. Pullinger –– 9024

Supplies funding for diabetics. Mr. Perry –– 9025

GO B.C. grants. Mr. Sihota –– 9025

Golf course development on farmland. Ms. Cull –– 9026

Swartz Bay ferry terminal. Mr. Lovick –– 9026

Ministerial Statement

High-seas driftnet fishing. Hon. Mr. Savage 9026

Mr. G. Hanson

Tabling Documents –– 9028

Throne Speech Debate

Hon. Mr. Michael –– 9028

Mr. Miller –– 9029

Hon. Mr. Reynolds –– 9033

Mr. Guno –– 9038

Mr. Mowat –– 9040

Mr. Sihota –– 9043

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 9047

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I'm very pleased to introduce two representatives from the Republic of

Panama who are in the members' gallery today. Visiting us are Se�or

Alfredo Jimenez and Se�or Orlando Reyes. Please give them a hand.

well, we're very fortunate to have with us the potentate from Gizeh

Temple, representing among other Shriners the House Leader and myself,

Mr. Ed Billows and his wife, Thyin. Please give them a hand.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Dr. T.A.M. Peet, an Oak Bay

resident who's making a tour of legislative assemblies around the

world. Let's hope we put on a good show for him today. Accompanying Dr.

Peet is a colleague of many of us, an ex-cabinet minister of the

government and MLA from the Fraser Valley, Mr. Bill Ritchie. Mr.

Ritchie was one of that small army of Social Crediters who got more

votes than I did at the leadership convention.

MS. PULLINGER :

First I'd like to introduce to the House a friend and a constituent and

a long-time New Democrat party worker, Ms. Debbie Buxton. She is with

us today in the gallery. Would the House help me make her welcome.

would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge a birthday. A

member of the press gallery, Debi Pelletier, has her birthday today.

Would the House join me in wishing her happy birthday.

HON. MR, PARKER :

I'd like to introduce to the House constituents of mine from Skeena,

and I ask the House to make them welcome. It's not often we can get

people down from as far away as Skeena. I don't see them in the gallery

just yet, but in the precincts today are Vernon Smith, hereditary chief

of the Eagle clan of the Gitksan people, and Glen Williams chief

councilor at Kitwancool; Andy Johnson and Peter Martin are both

councillors on the Kitwancool council, and Richard Douse is clerk of

the council. Will the House make them welcome, please.

MR. SIHOTA :

In the gallery today is a friend who is active in my riding

association, Alexa Cartwright. Would all members please join me in

giving a warm welcome to Alexa.

MR. HUBERTS : In the

gallery today is a friend of mine, Marino Schicchi. He's also on the

executive of the Social Credit Party in South Saanich, and I would ask

the House to make him welcome.

MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to bid welcome today

to representatives in your gallery from the Canadian Diabetes Association. They

are here to participate with about 25 Members of the Legislative Assembly in

a campaign entitled "Give It Your Best Shot, MLAs." This campaign

is to help raise awareness of the problems and needs of the more than 150,000

people in British Columbia who are diabetics — one in 20 British Columbians,

one out of every 20 Canadians.

Would

the House please welcome Melanie Crombie and Tory Ross of the Canadian

Diabetes Association. In welcoming them I would like to express to all

MLAs on both sides of the House our appreciation of the association and

my appreciation to all of the MLAs who are cooperating.

MR. PERRY :

On behalf of this side of the House I would like to join the first

member for Vancouver-Little Mountain in welcoming the Canadian Diabetes

Association representatives. Members on this side are looking forward

to meeting them this afternoon and discussing some of the issues they

have to raise about diabetes care in B.C.

HON. S. HAGEN :

It is my privilege today to welcome to the House one of the fine

teachers from School District 71, Rick Rodriguez, and his wife Grace,

who are here with 22 grade 11 honour Students from George R Vanier

Secondary School in the city of Courtenay. Would the House please join

me in bidding them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

GAME FARM ACT

Hon. Mr. Savage presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Game Farm Act.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now. This bill, as

a lot of you will recognize, was in this assembly in a bit of a

different form during the last session. We have reintroduced the bill

with a number of changes, and I expect that the changes that have been

put in place by regulation will be supported by all.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill

9 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ELECTRICAL SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. L. Hanson presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Electrical Safety Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. L. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to introduce this bill today which

contains revisions which provide a role for regional districts in

electrical safety inspection. It provides them equal status with

municipalities in these matters if they so request. The amendment

clarifies some technical terms

[ Page 9024 ]

and prohibits persons from advertising as an electrical contractor without being certified.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill

10 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

ABORTION SERVICES

MS. PULLINGER :

I have a question for the Premier. Last week the Premier refused to

instruct the Nanaimo hospital and other hospitals that abortion is a

legal medical service that all women are entitled to. Now Socreds in

Nanaimo are recruiting candidates to contest elections for the hospital

board. Will the Premier confirm that it is now his policy to block

access to legal abortions by encouraging friends of this government to

take over hospital boards?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : All questions on policy matters related to health should be put to the Minister of Health.

MS. PULLINGER :

Supplementary to the Premier, Will the Premier agree to explain to all

British Columbians that his government recognizes that women in B.C.

have a legal right to abortion that must not be blocked?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I have already said the matter should be referred to the Minister of Health.

FRASER VALLEY AIR POLLUTION

MR. PETERSON :

I have a question for the Minister of Environment. The

Mainland-Southwest regional advisory committee, consisting of five

regional district chairmen and a sixth regional district

representative, at their last meeting raised the serious issue of the

growing problem of air pollution in the Fraser Valley. In view of the

fact that the combined population of Langley city and district

municipalities grew by over 23,000 people between the '76 and '86

census dates, and the growth rate of just under 50 percent.

Interjection.

MR. PETERSON : Listen. This is important.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I would ask the member to come to the point of his question.

MR. PETERSON :

My question is: what actions are being taken by his ministry to ensure

effective, long-range planning to monitor, reduce and eliminate air

pollution in the Fraser Valley?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

As the member may or may not be aware, I attended a meeting in

Chilliwack a couple of months ago with a number of my officials, and at

that meeting we promised that we would add two additional monitoring

stations to the Fraser Valley. I can advise the member that those

stations have been approved...

MR. PERRY : Is that your idea of preventive action?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : ...are in the process of being worked out with the municipalities and the GVRD and are being installed.

I am sure the member is aware, the major problem in the Fraser Valley

is car emissions from the GVRD — the lower mainland — and if the member

for Vancouver is so interested to know what we're doing.... We are

working with the GVRD in making sure there are emission tests in the

lower mainland so we will reduce the emissions going to the Fraser

Valley and the lower mainland by 1991. It is positive action worked out

between this government and the GVRD and a job that should have been

done years ago when the Leader of the Opposition was mayor of Vancouver.

[2:15]

Interjections.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : He was too busy trying to stop Expo instead of trying to solve the problem.

I would hope to be able to announce in a couple of weeks the exact locations for the monitoring stations in the Fraser Valley.

ABORTION SERVICES

MS. PULLINGER :

Given that the Premier refuses to answer my question, I would like to

put it to the Minister of Health. Given that the Social Credit Party in

Nanaimo is actively organizing to block women's access to legal

abortion services, will the Minister of Health confirm that it's now

his policy to block access to legal abortions by encouraging friends of

the government to take over hospital boards?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Speaker, the second member for Nanaimo posed this question last

week. I answered the question then that the opposition has trouble with

democracy. We put in place a board structure for hospitals in British

Columbia, and we expect them to exercise judgment in terms of running

their hospital.

The NDP thinks that's fine up to a certain

point. When it goes against what they believe in or their policies,

then the government must step in. They are also opposed to a referendum

structure because they feel that the people can't have the answers to

some of these problems and that the people can't decide what's good for

themselves. The policy of this government is to allow democratically

elected boards to function as boards of trustees for the hospitals.

[ Page

9025 ]

MS. PULLINGER : The minister seems to be skidding off into tangential issues and is unable to answer the question.

response to local democracy, we in the New Democratic Party are proud

to participate in local elections to defend individual liberty and

freedom of choice. Is the minister prepared to show leadership and

renounce any attempt by friends of this government to deny women access

to safe, legal abortion services in Nanaimo or elsewhere?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Speaker, I think I've answered the question. I'm not sure what I

have to do in terms of getting through to the other side. The second

member for Nanaimo was quoted recently in the paper saying that

abortion is a federal issue. I'm surprised that she's bringing it up

again in this House as an issue.

As you know, we set up

boards in this hospital to manage the affairs of the hospital. I am

surprised that the second member for Nanaimo and the Leader of the

Opposition would suggest that we should intervene when we don't agree

with some of their policies.

SUPPLIES FUNDING FOR DIABETICS

MR. PERRY : Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will recognize, in answering this question, more of his statutory responsibilities.

Diabetes

is a serious, chronic disease that affects somewhere between 100,000

and 150,000 British Columbians. My question is: has the minister

finally decided to provide full Pharmacare funding for the supplies

required by diabetics to monitor and manage their condition at home?

MR. SPEAKER : The question is out of order, but the minister may wish to answer it.

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Speaker, I was going to take the question on notice and indicate

that we are reviewing Pharmacare rules. We will respond to the question

at a later time.

MR. SPEAKER : A new question from the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. PERRY : It's a supplementary, but maybe I'll phrase it as a new question then, Mr. Speaker.

Diabetics

now must pay up to $1,800 a year to cover the costs of the supplies

they need to monitor their condition. The minister is in receipt of

numerous reports from his continuing advisory subcommittee on this

issue. Will the minister agree to table those reports in this

Legislature so that we can see the information on which he's been

sitting for the last two years?

MR. SPEAKER : When the Chair advised the member that a supplemental question

was out of order and the original question was out of order, I allowed the member

to put the question in the unlikely event that the subsequent question was in

order. That didn't come to pass, either. The matter is to be dealt with.

GO B.C. GRANTS

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Provincial Secretary now that

he's had a weekend to think about it. Will he advise the House whether

he knew, on that day in February when he had his press conference, that

the RCMP had recommended the laying of charges against his predecessor?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

I gave the answer to that question last week. I guess I have to repeat

it. Even after a weekend, the member hasn't done any homework or

studying. That certainly is a question he should direct to the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith).

MR. SIHOTA : We'll come back to the Provincial Secretary a little later on, in terms of questions along those lines.

this case, the RCMP has recommended that charges be laid against the

minister. One of the lawyers looking at it for the ministry did not

agree with the view to not refer it to the courts. Now the former

minister himself has requested that the charges be laid.

I have a question to the Premier. Will the government now comply with the request of the former minister and lay the charges?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, the whole matter is under investigation.

MR. SIHOTA :

The public inquiry is now looking at this matter. Let me ask the

Premier again, when he refers to the whole matter: is he now saying to

the House that the matter of laying charges against the former minister

is now under review, again, by the government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

The Attorney-General has explained it for the member a number of times.

I'm sure the member is aware that the matter as to process and

procedure is being investigated, and a report will be forthcoming. The

member has been advised of this; however, we'll advise him again.

MR. SIHOTA :

All of us understand that the matter of process and procedure is being

investigated by the public inquiry. This issue is not within the terms

of reference. I'm sure the Premier has looked at the terms of

reference. My question is: given the request by the former minister

that charges be laid against him, will the government now comply with

that request? Will you acquiesce to the request of a member of your own

caucus?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I, too, like many in the House, am aware that some statements were

[ Page 9026 ]

made

by a member across the floor about laying charges. I think he said he

was proceeding with them on the 19th, so we're all anxiously waiting

and watching. In the meantime, the whole matter is under investigation.

MR. SIHOTA :

The point the Premier should understand is that his government has the

constitutional responsibility and the mandate to lay the charges. If

you don't do your job, we'll do it for you. In this case we're asking

you: given the fact that the RCMP and now your own colleague have asked

that charges be laid, will you comply with his request?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I was just reminded that tomorrow is the 19th. It is with the Attorney General.

GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT ON FARMLAND

MS. CULL :

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Over 70 golf courses

have been proposed for farmland since the minister signed a cabinet

order allowing golf course development on farmland. The head of the

Agricultural Land Commission, the B.C. Institute of Agrologists and

even the minister himself have said they do not agree with golf courses

on farmland. Has the minister decided to rescind the cabinet order

pending a review before any further golf courses will be permitted?

MR. SPEAKER : The question is out of order.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but the simple answer is no.

MS. CULL :

The minister has actually said: "If it's good farmland, it shouldn't be

a golf course." How does the minister reconcile this position of his

with the order-in-council that he signed allowing golf course

development on farmland?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : As the question was out of order in the first place, I believe any supplement to that would also be out of order.

SWARTZ BAY FERRY TERMINAL

MR. LOVICK : I also have a question to the Minister of Agriculture — a very direct question that is indeed in order.

B.C. Ferries wants to expand....

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK : How fascinating! At last they heard something they understood.

B.C.

Ferries wants to expand the Swartz Bay ferry terminal onto agricultural

land, and wants to do so against the express wishes of the North

Saanich council. Can the minister advise us if it is indeed the policy

of this government to respect the wishes of the North Saanich council

in this matter?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I'll take that question on notice, since I have no knowledge of that particular correspondence.

MR. SPEAKER : Before we proceed to the next order of business I would like to just review question period.

Question

period only lasts for one hour a week, and the Chair is guided by the

wishes of the members. But if the questions themselves involve a long

preamble and a vaguely worded question, then a long answer with a

vaguely worded reply is sometimes in order. The whole House would be

better served if all members would review our Standing Orders and the

second edition of MacMinn, which clearly points out how questions could

be more productively put.

Ministerial Statement

HIGH-SEAS DRIFTNET FISHING

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to bring you a

summary of the

province's efforts and achievements surrounding the issue of high-seas

driftnet fishing by international fleets in the North Pacific.

July 13 of last year I spoke to you outlining the threat posed by

driftnet fishing to our salmon fishery, marine mammals, seabirds, other

non-target species of fish — indeed to the entire marine ecology of the

observers on the Japanese squid-fishing vessels during the summer of

'89 to collect scientific-based data on the by catch. We financed one

of those observers.

From July 17 to 19, I hosted, with the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, a North Pacific driftnet conference

at Dunsmuir Lodge in Sidney. Experts on marine biology, international

law and administration — from Canada and the Pacific states of

Washington, Alaska, Oregon, Idaho and California — met with their

British Columbia counterparts to pool their knowledge. A close working

relationship was established in the conference among delegates.

October I represented Premier Vander Zalm in Juneau, where an agreement

in principle was reached with Alaska's Governor Cowper on the wording

of the North Pacific driftnet declaration. And over the next few weeks

the governors of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, and Hawaii

joined us as signatories to this document. The declaration spelled out

six realistic, achievable goals to be pursued by the governments of

both Canada and the United States. Together we requested that our

federal governments increase pressure on Japan to reduce its high-seas

salmon fisheries and to find alternative fishing technologies which

will impact less strongly on the marine ecology. We asked that Canada,

the U.S., Japan and the U.S.S.R. establish a new convention to manage

the North Pacific fisheries in the high seas beyond the 200-mile zones

established by coastal nations and that they commit the financial and

[ Page 9027 ]

personnel resources for both research and management.

[2:30]

We also asked that nations begin negotiation of international

agreements to prohibit the sale, importation or trans-shipment of

salmon illegally harvested on the high seas. The North Pacific driftnet

declaration was presented to the governments of Canada and the United

States on November 6, 1989, just prior to the annual meeting of the

International North Pacific Fisheries Commission. Within hours the

governments of both Canada and the United States responded decisively

to the concerns of their Pacific coastal citizens and regional

governments. In the General Assembly of the United Nations, they joined

with nations of the South Pacific Forum to sponsor a major resolution

recommending a moratorium on all high seas driftnet fishing by June

1992. On behalf of the people of British Columbia and of the Pacific

Northwest, I compliment the governments of Canada and the United States

on their decisive and speedy action in this regard.

Since

that time there has been considerable activity on the international

stage surrounding the issue of high-seas drift netting. Japan has

agreed to a number of progressive measures. The most important of these

is a moratorium on all large-scale driftnet fisheries on the high seas

by June 30, 1992. British Columbia would at this time like to thank the

Japanese government for acknowledging the problem created by their

high-seas squid fleet. The Japanese have responded positively to

international concerns for the ecology of the North Pacific. In

February of this year, Taiwan agreed to phase out and ban driftnet

fishing by mid 1992.

Earlier this month, both the United

States and Japan agreed to increase the number of American, Canadian

and Japanese observers deployed on Japanese squid vessels. The total

has risen from 66 last year to 98 during the 1990 season. I am pleased

to inform this House that British Columbia will this year be financing

two of the ten Canadian observers.

In terms of a score card

for our driftnet declaration, hon. members, of the six objectives that

we set out, three have already been accomplished. Attitudes are

changing, but the battle is not yet won. Pressure must be maintained by

our federal government to ensure that commitments made by Pacific

nations are honoured and to encourage Korea to comply with the same

rules agreed to by Japan.

Over the next weeks and months,

maintain its vigilance and its pressure in the international arena.

Future generations of British Columbians are depending on us to

protect, conserve and sustain the fragile marine environment essential

to the survival of the fisheries. This government is meeting that

challenge. I'd like to thank the hon members for their attention. We

will continue to press for an absolute ban on driftnet fishing.

MR. G. HANSON :

Industry is so far ahead of this government that it is unbelievable.

StarKist Co. is now boycotting any tuna caught by driftnet. They will

purchase only tuna on the high seas that is driftnet-free.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON : The member from Burnaby Metrotown doesn't know that albacore is in the Pacific. Too bad.

The

fact of the matter is that the public has pushed industry into leading.

Now we have a document here.... Some modest changes have been made. The

fact is that thousands of miles of nets are going to be laid in the

north Pacific from Alaska to New Zealand every night for the next 800

nights. That is not enough. It's time for action.

This

government could provide some leadership. They could tell industry and

the institutions not to purchase any salmon or tuna from the countries

that still driftnet fish in the north Pacific.

Mr. Speaker,

it is not good enough to urge Korea. Korea must be told that to be a

responsible partner and friend of Canada and share the Pacific Rim....

We will no longer tolerate the nightly high-seas driftnet fishing of

Korea and of Taiwan. It is time for action.

That minister

sits there with his little prepared statement on how he's urged, asked,

hoped and pleaded that somebody would sign something somewhere for the

next 800 days, when we are literally losing thousands of processing

jobs up and down the British Columbia coast on the GATT agreement,

which allows the United States to take 20 percent and up to 25 percent

— of all our fish next year and for the next four years. Twenty-five

percent of what number?

When you read the last point in this — and I agree with it — you'll see the shortcomings in this statement. He says that....

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON : I'm caught in a high-seas driftnet myself.

Future

generations of British Columbians are depending on us to protect,

conserve and sustain the fragile marine environment essential to the

survival of Pacific fisheries. Who could disagree with that?

The

point of the matter is that this House.... These guys would rather be

playing golf on all those golf courses on farmland for the last nine

months while we've been taken to the cleaners up and down the coast.

We're losing.... The closure of the B.C. Packers plant in Victoria, the

closure of processing plants up and down this coast....

It's

fine for this minister to give us a

summary like a Camosun College

fisheries management 101 paper, but the fact of the matter is: if you

really want to do something, you'll stand up and urge industry in

British Columbia not to purchase salmon or any fisheries products from

countries that are currently driftnet fishing. It's time for action.

[ Page 9028 ]

Hon. Mr. Savage tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries for the year ending March 31, 1989.

Hon.

Mr. Couvelier tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Finance and

Corporate Relations for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989, as

required by

section 5(3) of the Financial Administration Act; the

annual report of the superintendent of insurance covering the year

ending December 31, 1988, under

section 351 of the Insurance Act; and a

statement detailing amounts remitted or refunded in the 1989 calendar

year under

section 23 of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act.

Orders of the Day

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. Could we have a little quiet, please? Those members who

wish to leave may leave quietly. Mr. Minister, you have 18 minutes to

go. Please continue.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Just prior to

lunch, I was reviewing the performance of the socialist government in

the province of Manitoba, I think it's fair we do that. I think it's

fair that the citizens of British Columbia familiarize themselves with

the actual results and actions of past socialist governments in Canada.

Look at Manitoba, with eight years of absolute disaster, leaving a

burden of debt on that province making it so they will never see black

ink in a balanced budget as a result of that inept government in the

province of Manitoba.

I would predict that for the rest of

this century we will not see the NDP either form the government in

Manitoba or even be the official opposition. The people of Manitoba

were so fed up that they never even put the NDP in opposition; they put

them right into third position.

I somewhat chuckle when I

listen to the members opposite talk about such things as reforestation,

recycling and agricultural land reserve policies. .

Do you

know, Mr. Speaker, that in this past year British Columbia planted 232

million seedlings? We planted more seedlings in 20 days in the fiscal

year 1989 than the NDP opposite did in 1,200 days of power.

Further

to that, I hear the members opposite talk about recycling paper. Let me

tell you that this province and this government is recycling more paper

in one month in government buildings than the opposition did in three

and a half years. I think we on this side of the House should be proud

of that kind of action and that kind of result.

I listen to

the members opposite talk about the ALR. You know, I look back to the

years 1972 to 1975 and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there was more

land taken out of the ALR in three short years by the NDP in my

community of Salmon Arm and the entire region of Salmon Arm than there

has been since 1975.

They talk about the protection of ALR land. It is somewhat of a joke listening to those kinds of results.

have to say that I am extremely proud of this government. I have been

extremely proud of the leadership that's been shown and extremely proud

of the throne speech.

I look at the results, the kinds of

things that are happening in the constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke.

Everywhere I look I see progress; I see advances being made. I see all

kinds of results beyond belief.

I look at Chase and I see

the new diagnostic and treatment centre. I go into the north shore and

I see the new Squilax Bridge about to be opened this coming September.

I look at museums. We have three brand new museums in the constituency

in the last three years. We have a new health centre in Salmon Arm and

a new health centre in Enderby. We have all kinds of improvements in

health care facilities. We have a new intermediate- and extended-care

facility being built right this minute in Armstrong. It will be

finished in the next few months.

We have a brand new

grandstand in the community of Falkland for the Falkland Stampede. We

have new agri-buildings in the IPE. There is planning underway for a

new hospital in Enderby.

We have downtown revitalization

brought in by the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs, the current

Premier of the province of British Columbia (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

We've got some of the most exciting downtown revitalization projects

that you could find anywhere in the province, thanks to the

forward-thinking vision of this government.

We've got park

improvements in all constituencies and all areas in the province of

British Columbia. We've got legacy projects. I look around the

constituency and the province, and I am just overwhelmed at the

success, the positive feeling, the positive attitude, the construction,

the growth, the prosperity and the cost-effective delivery of

government services.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Since

I've been in politics in 1983, this government has trimmed its

workforce. A lot of people ridicule our Premier for making statements

to the federal government that it should cut its bureaucracy by 25

percent. We cut our bureaucracy in seven short years in the province of

British Columbia not by 25 percent but by 31 percent, with it being the

fastest-growing province in the Dominion of Canada.

I think

we've got lots to be proud of. If the federal government would listen

to our Premier and our Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, I'm

sure it could go along way toward balancing its budget and not bringing

in this GST, which is going to have tremendous harmful effects on

tourism.

I wonder sometimes when I listen to the

opposition. I go back in their records and check a number of things

that they've criticized this government for. I think of the current

Leader of the Opposition, the former mayor of the city of Vancouver,

and his tremendous efforts to stop the construction of Expo

[ Page 9029 ]

86,

a shameful act. We look at their opposition to the Tumbler Ridge

project — the creation of thousands of jobs, hundreds of millions of

dollars of economic activity for British Columbia. I look back at the

Mica Dam or the Revelstoke Dam, and the opposition they put forward to

those massive construction projects that created thousands of jobs for

British Columbia. Their attitude towards the Coquihalla from day one;

their opposition to SkyTrain.... They were against the construction of

the Alex Fraser Bridge; they opposed B.C. Place Stadium.

just happen to have a release covering the B.C. Place Stadium. An

American magazine has just done a study of the ten top stadiums in

North America, and do you know what? B.C. Place Stadium ranks sixth as

far as volume and growth are concerned. It's sixth in all of North

America and number one in Canada. As a matter of fact, this year we

have some 234 event-days booked for that domed stadium, and I think

it's something we should all be proud of.

[2:45]

Every time we look at the record and listen to the opposition, it's

negative, negative, negative. Everywhere I go in the province, Mr.

Speaker, I see positive, good, solid economic growth; good social

programs; good hospital care; and good health care throughout the

province. I am ashamed to sit here and listen to the negative attitudes

of the members opposite.

MR. MILLER : I start by

offering my congratulations to the new Speaker and to you, once again,

as deputy. I've always appreciated your interest while you are in the

chair in listening to the remarks of members in this House.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER : I'm being heckled already, Mr. Speaker. I'm being accused by the Socred member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) of being too kind.

also want to congratulate the Premier.... I must admit there were a few

tense moments. I thought he might actually leave. Believe me, I was

worried, because it would have been unfortunate had the Premier decided

to vacate the office prior to an election.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER :

That's an interesting prospect, Mr. Premier, that you offer; I know

that we on this side of the House are quite eager to give it a try. If

you're feeling rather itchy, I invite you to drop the writ any time you

feel like it.

We were a bit concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier might actually vacate

the office, given the enormous pressure he was facing in his own party. I'm

glad to see he withstood that and that we will indeed have the opportunity to

review the record in the forthcoming election. I think a review of the record

is important, because after all, that's how we form our judgments — on the

basis of how a government has performed, what people have said. It's a far

more accurate Indication of a government than what they say they're going

to do. It's really what the record has shown.

One

of the features we — and, I think, the electorate — demand of the

administration in the government, hopefully, is some degree of

consistency. Certainly, in terms of administrative stability, there is

a requirement that we have that consistency in the process of

government; indeed, I think it's fundamental to good government. Yet

when we look back, we find that in fact there has been the opposite— a

great deal of inconsistency.

I want to go back and

highlight some of that, Mr. Speaker. The response to the throne speech

is an important and timely time to do that. I will refer to some

statements that have been made in previous throne speeches and try to

point out that indeed the government has a history of saying one thing

and doing the opposite.

Clearly, when we look at our

cabinet today.... Really, these aren't issues that will make the

government rise or fall; nonetheless, they illustrate a pattern. For

example, back in 1986 the Premier unveiled what he called a "new-look"

government. The new look government was described as being a leaner

government. The Premier, in his news release, took some pride in

pointing out that fact: "We have a smaller cabinet. We only have 18

members in cabinet now, and that's really a feature that I want to

promote as the Premier. It's better to have a leaner cabinet."

AN HON. MEMBER : What happened?

MR. MILLER : Now we have 23 members.

I said, Mr. Speaker, this little contradiction is not an issue that's

going to make the government fall, but it's illustrative. I might add

that despite the addition of five cabinet members, I don't think it has

really improved the performance of the government. But some of these

contradictions can be quite damaging to the province.

could cite another one where the Premier said.... I think it was in

that same release on Thursday, November 6, 1986, in those heady days

before they actually had to face an opposition and be accountable. The

Premier said that he will seek early approval by MLAs to have the

proceedings of the Legislature televised. Maybe the Premier had some

reasons, I don't know. But it's another little promise that was made

and that was not carried through. It makes you wonder. We see that the

House of Commons is televised, and I think it's quite common in

legislatures in other provinces in Canada to have the proceedings of

the House televised.

In my own small municipality of Prince

Rupert, the proceedings of council meetings are televised. It's just

one more way in which the citizens have access to their government. It

allows them to watch the proceedings and to see what was said, by whom

and in what manner. It's one of those little things, but one of those

important things. Again I'll make the point that I don't think the

government will fall on this

[ Page 9030 ]

issue, but it's illustrative of a series of statements that were made and then not followed through.

would remind the House that there really is some inconsistency in

Socred history with regard to making government more open and

accessible to people. It did take a New Democratic administration to

bring in the first written Hansard

in British Columbia — a fact I'm very proud of — and it will take a New

Democratic government to bring television into this House as well.

There

are other more important issues that I think need to be canvassed in

this debate today: some of the statements that were made and the

apparent contradictions in them. If I say they're apparent, I think

they will become crystal clear as I read them into the record in this

particular debate.

First of all, I want to deal with a

document that has as its title: "Opening Statement: The Hon. William N.

Vander Zalm, Premier, Province of British Columbia, First Ministers'

Conference, Vancouver, November 20-21, 1986. "

Mr. Speaker,

if I've offended the rules by reading from the cover of this

document, I certainly apologize; I did not intentionally mean to call

the Premier by his name.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : On a

point of order, Mr. Speaker. It's not the reading of the document, I

think it's the naming of a person sitting in this House. The title

should be used and not the person's name.

MR. MILLER :

I'd like to thank the Minister of Environment for that, Mr. Speaker. He

certainly has not forgotten the lessons he learned as Speaker.

Nonetheless, having gone through that....

MR. CLARK : What was the date of that again?

MR. MILLER :

It's the text of the Premier's statement to the first ministers'

conference in 1986. He was dealing with the fundamental issue of

fairness for British Columbia.

MR. CLARK : David Poole was there.

MR. MILLER : My colleague for Vancouver East reminds me that perhaps David Poole wrote this, but that's simply no excuse.

The

Premier was dealing with the issue of fairness for British Columbia,

and certainly that's in his purview. In fact it's a requirement of the

office that that issue be addressed. The issue is raised really, if you

examine the document.... It's rather remarkable In fact, you can look

at the document, and it becomes a testament to the failure of this

government to achieve the issues they had identified back then in terms

of their negotiations and dealings with the federal government. So

despite their very close ties with Mulroney's Tories — or as my

colleague the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) has referred to

Social Credit: "Tories in training wheels" — this government has had a

remarkable lack of success in achieving its objects and desires for

British Columbia.

Looking at the document, one particular

statement leaped out at me, and I want to cite it. On page 5 of the

speech, the Premier said:

"Federal government employment per capita is lower in British

Columbia than in all other regions in Canada, and as of December 1985, federal

employment in our province was 16 percent below the Canadian average. If it

was increased to that average, the result would be thousands of additional jobs

and an increase of more than $300 million annually in wages and salaries in

our province."

The Premier then went on in the next line to describe that this was a major

consideration. He was making a pitch to the federal government to increase federal

employment in British Columbia. I find nothing wrong with that. I find it quite

reasonable that the Premier would undertake to do that. It must be as much of

a disappointment to him as it is to the rest of British Columbia that he's

failed to achieve anything like what he pointed out as being desirable.

Having

looked at that record in November 1986, we follow the issue through to

the throne speech in March 1988, some 16 months later. The government

admitted in that throne speech that their efforts to establish a

Canada-B.C. council of ministers to improve the kinds of economic

performance in British Columbia that could come through better federal

cooperation had accomplished little. Those were the words in the throne

speech: they had accomplished little. The throne speech then went on to

really hurl an incredible amount of invective at the Mulroney Tories,

In fact, it was as if the Premier were having a temper tantrum.

want to complete the circle in terms of that particular issue. We go to

April 1989, when in a remarkable about-face — a truly outstanding

about-face — the Premier said that the federal government should slash

the civil service by 25 percent. You don't know whether to laugh or cry

when you're dealing with this kind of inconsistency. On the one hand,

having properly identified the fact that the federal government was not

committing its proper share of spending to British Columbia, and moving

from that to a bit of a tantrum because they were unsuccessful in their

negotiations, then coming around to the complete contradiction that the

federal government, instead of increasing their employment in British

Columbia to bring in those identified $300 million annually in benefits

and thousands of jobs.... The Premier moved to a position of asking the

federal government to slash the civil service by 25 percent across the

board.

In response to this conflicting and, I think,

contradictory series of positions expressed by the Premier, the federal

government weighed the two options presented by the Premier: on the one

hand, increase your spending, increase the federal civil service in

British Columbia; and on the other hand, cut it by 25 percent. It's

hardly any surprise as to which option they chose. They chose to follow

the Premier's advice and cut.

[3:00]

This is an example unlike the issues I cited with regard to televising the Legislature, or some others

[ Page 9031 ]

that

pop up to mind. I recall, in the early statements in 1987, the

government and the Premier issuing a statement that their cabinet and

their planning were going to make B.C. recession-proof. I now

understand that we have a fragile economy. Again, it makes me wonder

how the government seems to want to take both positions at once —-

contradictory positions. I'm sure I'm as puzzled as the average British

Columbian.

I see a very small matter. We talk about the

issue of Meech Lake. It's very important to us in terms of maintaining

Canada as we know it. It's very important to me, as a Canadian who was

born in and grew up in this country. On the one hand we have the

Premier pushing for Senate reform; and on the other hand we have the

first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) asking the

Senate to block the GST. I don't know: do they want the reform after

they block the GST or before?

Just one other minor

contradiction, I guess, if I could point it out. Despite the

overwhelming calls over the last two years for a royal commission on

forestry — the most fundamental underpinning of our economy in British

Columbia — it was turned down by the government. The minister said: "It

would take too long. We can't do it." They appoint a commission that

just now is starting to take action, a year later — just now starting

to get out on the road. They refused the royal commission despite the

fact that an overwhelming number of British Columbians thought it was

timely. Instead they call a royal commission on health, when there

really has been no call for one.

You wonder about these

contradictions, and whether or not the government is really prepared to

listen to British Columbians and the concerns that British Columbians

have.

I want to turn to what I think are the very damaging

effects of the contradictory positions put forward by the Premier in

terms of this issue of federal spending. I want to do that in the

context of the need to have a renewed forest resource development

agreement. I have said that I think this agreement is one of the most

significant that British Columbia could enter into. It is fundamental —

I repeat, fundamental — to the underpinnings of our economy.

have badly damaged our credibility in terms of the federal government

and our ability to negotiate with it. Like everybody else in British

Columbia who watched that news clip of the Prime Minister laughing at

the Premier's suggestions, I was offended, because as a British

Columbian I want statements made by my government to be taken

seriously. I don't want our positions to be tossed aside and considered

secondary because of their source.

I think it's worth going through a chronology of the forest resource development agreement — the acronym is FRDA — because it illustrates again the contradictory statements that have been made.

issued a warning back in May 1989 that we were in trouble with regard

to this second agreement. The signals coming out of Ottawa were pretty

clear to me. Anybody who had taken the time to read the stories coming

out of Ottawa and to talk to people in the industry knew that there

were some serious problems ahead. I said at the time that it was

unlikely that the federal government would accede to our request for a

second agreement. Despite that warning issued on May 12, 1989, to be

precise — on May 19, in response to the concerns I had raised, the

provincial Minister of Forests at that time tended to downplay any

suggestion that we might be in trouble. In fact, in a press scrum in

Victoria on Thursday, May 18, 1989, the Minister of Forests at that

time, the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Parker), indicated that, well, in

any event, if there is a problem with the federal government, British

Columbia is prepared to go it alone. Those weren't exactly the words

used by the minister. He said: "We will have to carry the can ourselves

provincially." Back a little less than a year ago the early warning

signs were there, and the position of the provincial government at that

time was: well, don't worry, we'll carry the can ourselves provincially

if we get into trouble.

On May 15 the then Minister of

Forests issued a guest editorial dealing specifically with the issue of

silviculture and reforestation. He described in that statement the

importance of the FRDA agreement and the work done to date. For

example, during the first three years of the past agreement, the

backlog of not sufficiently restocked land was reduced by 25 percent,

434,000 days of employment were generated throughout British Columbia

and the program had created 500 full-time and 15,000 seasonal jobs. But

he then went on to point out, really just to reinforce what he had said

in the newspaper, that they were aiming for a second five-year

agreement — the acronym for that was FRDA II — and that the province was ready to commit its share of a $700 million five-year agreement.

Later

on that year in a paper produced in the riding of the then Minister of

Forests, there was an interesting

article quoting both the provincial

and federal Ministers of Forests, again dealing with the issue of the

renewed FRDA program.

I think it's important, Mr. Speaker,

to also state that British Columbians receive their information in many

instances through these kinds of reports. This August 30, 1989, report

in the Terrace Standard again quoted the former Minister of Forests

that it was vital to have a second agreement. In fact, he went far

beyond the original outline of the agreement that British Columbia had

suggested— a $700 million agreement — and suggested that British

Columbia wanted a $1 billion agreement. The story referred to a

statement he had made the week previously about a $1.5 billion

agreement. It's significant to note that the federal Minister of

Forests was also quoted in the same article. The statement was made by

both of these gentlemen that talks — and I presume by that, negotiations —

on the new agreement were going well. The federal minister forecast

that a new agreement would be in place well in advance of the expiry

date of the old agreement. I should note, Mr. Speaker, that the old

agreement expired on March 31 and no new agreement has been negotiated.

[ Page 9032 ]

Again

in December 1989 the new Minister of Forests for British Columbia (Hon.

Mr. Richmond) circulated a letter. I received a copy, and I think all

MLAs may have received a copy, as well as other individual British

Columbians. Again, he emphasized the importance of the program, the

fact that by the end of four years in the original agreement, $212

million had been invested in B.C.'s forests, providing for more than

800,000 days of employment and the planting of 118 million trees. The

letter went on to highlight the importance of this agreement.

But

then things started to go sour, Mr. Speaker. Things became very

confused in terms of just what was happening. As we approached the

deadline, I and others in British Columbia started asking questions

about where we were, what was happening, what was the federal position

and what was the British Columbia position. There were some other

references made, in addition to the reference made by the former

Minister of Forests last year, that British Columbia would be prepared

to commit the $350 million that they had originally said they would

commit. They seemed to back off that. The Premier was quoted as saying:

"We're going to have to cut reforestation."

In looking at

some of the correspondence, it strikes me that there's again a real

contradiction between what has been said publicly and what was

subsequently said publicly. For example, on March 2, 1990, the Minister

of Forests wrote to the chairman of the federal standing committee on

forestry, saying he was very anxious to renew this critical

agreement — he called it a "critical agreement" — for at

least another five years. He asked, some 28 or 29 days before the

agreement was to expire, for serious negotiations to begin, completely

contradicting the statements made by the former minister in August that

talks were going well. So the public was led to believe in the summer

of 1989 that negotiations were proceeding, that talks were going well

and an agreement would be in place before the expiry date; and 29 days

before the agreement expires, the Minister of Forests writes, in almost

a pleading way: "Please, we have to get serious about these

negotiations; they have to start."

Again, despite statements to the contrary —

for example, the federal minister telling British Columbia not to hold

its breath for a new agreement, basically saying you're not going to

get it in February 1990 — the province wrote another letter on

March 12. In this case the Minister of Forests wrote to the mayor of

Vanderhoof. These small communities really understand, far better than

some British Columbians, the importance of forestry and the importance

of forest renewal, because they've seen the results of some of the

disastrous policies that this government has Put in place, particularly

in terms of over committing the resource that we do have.

In this letter the minister — again in almost a pleading way —

first of all described the agreement as critical and then said: "My

staff and I continue to press for the start of formal negotiations at

every opportunity." This is a little over two weeks before the expiry

of the agreement, and the minister has admitted in a letter that formal

negotiations had not even started. But he still insists that the

agreement is important, and he still insists that $700 million is what

British Columbia needs. After all, we continue to have very high

amounts of not sufficiently restocked land in this province. Over

500,000 hectares in British Columbia have simply not been treated. They

have been denuded through logging, fire or pests, and they have not

been treated.

Having come through this series of

contradictions, it's with some dismay that on March 27 the Minister of

Forests, in an interview with the Financial Post — which I assume the federal people read — described

British Columbia's position as "Utopia." In less than ten days he

abandoned his position in his letter to the mayor of Vanderhoof that

this is a critical agreement to which B.C. is fully committed, and went

to describing the agreement as "Utopia." In that respect, he is simply

parroting the words of the federal Minister of Forestry, who on March 1

described B.C.'s position as unreasonable.

[3:15]

Here we have sent the minister to negotiate a critical agreement for

British Columbia, critical to those small communities that are facing

timber shortages, and the Minister of Forests for British Columbia is

in full agreement with the Minister of Forestry whom he's negotiating

with; and the likelihood of our now receiving the kind of agreement

that can head off some of those timber shortages and that can continue

to maintain employment in some of our small communities is, I think,

dashed.

If we trace the contradictory performance of this

government back to its original source, we find it lies squarely at the

feet of the Premier, who in 1986 was prepared to call for increased

federal spending, to call for increased federal employment in British

Columbia and to say that that would increase benefits — specifically $300 million in benefits —

in British Columbia. We now come to this sorry stage where there is no

agreement, people are wondering what is happening, and the blame lies

squarely with this government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The opposition House Leader seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE : Although I haven't seen them, there are some 60 students here from Terry Fox Senior Secondary School in Port Coquitlam —

a school, incidentally, that was attended by Terry Fox and has since

been renamed. They're here with their host teacher, Mr. Provost, and

they have some guests from St. Paul, Quebec. I would be very pleased if

the House would welcome these students, who are here studying a little

bit about our history and learning firsthand a little bit about our

democracy.

[ Page 9033 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to be here.

Before

I start my remarks, I would like to congratulate the Speaker on his

election. It's a very honourable post, which I enjoyed myself for over

three years, and I know he will do this House proud, as Speakers in the

past have done. I would also like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker,

the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton), one of the finest members in

this House, on his re-election.

I would also like to thank the Clerks-at-the-Table for the good job they do in this House — and, I know, the good, impartial job they do for all members of the House.

I would also — seeing that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), the official opposition critic, is here —

like to congratulate the staff that works for the Ministry of

Environment. All 1,200 of them do a tremendous job for this province

and sometimes take criticism from the opposition which I think is

unfounded, because I know they are dedicated. I've met a great number

of them — not all of them yet, but I've made a point of going from

office to office meeting each one individually. If I hadn't stopped and

talked so long to some of them, I might have seen them all by now. But

I intend to see them all over the next few months, and I can tell you

they are dedicated. Their minds are set not only for the betterment of

British Columbia but also for Canada. I congratulate them for the good

job they do.

I would also like to mention something that is

important to all of us in British Columbia and the world: Earth Day,

1990, April 22, this Sunday, I'm participating with the mayor of

Vancouver in a hazardous waste operation, something we have been

working on for a long time, and a very positive aspect. I hope that all

members of this House will take the opportunity on Earth Day, 1990, to

sit down and think what they could do to help the environment.

It's

great for us to criticize; it's great for us to talk, as the socialists

do all the time, about the big corporations and what they're not doing.

But how many of them have hazardous wastes sitting in their houses? How

many are buying certain things in the store when they could be

replacing them with something more environmentally friendly? I commend

the people who are involved in the organization of Earth Day, and I

commend to all members of this House, their families and their

associates to make sure they get out and think on Earth Day of what

they can do to reduce a little bit the impact on the landfills we have

in our province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : There are lots of environmentally friendly protest signs. We've seen some of them; we've held some of them.

would like to talk a bit about the Leader of the Opposition, the man

who would be king. They talk about ethics; they talk about morality.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) talked in his speech about

contradictory statements. The NDP, as we get closer to an election, in

all the statements that they make, are only looking forward to the next

election. Everything they talk about is "to the next election."

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : The member for Prince Rupert says we're right. Yes, we are right: you only look to the next election.

This

government doesn't just look to the next election; we're looking to the

next generation. Because this government is always looking forward to

the next generation, we win election after election after election. We

don't just throw out programs the day before an election. We don't

throw ideas out that are maybe smart at the time. We don't throw ideas

out just to get the TV cameras. We don't go down to Oak Bay with our

hazardous wastes advising CKTV and all the others to be there so we can

make a little bit of a story. We're working with municipalities around

this province to solve the problems. Our success rate in working with

municipalities has been so good we get elected election after election

after election.

MR. MILLER : Oak Bay, Boundary-Similkameen....

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

The member for Prince Rupert can throw those names out, but I remember

a member from the Okanagan who got elected in a by-election. Where is

he? Defeated in the last general election in this province. We won

again. Right here, sitting on this side of the House.... The Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. L. Hanson) defeated the short-term

by-election winner of the NDP, because when it comes to the crunch, the

people know there is one party that doesn't just make pitches for

elections; they make a pitch for the next generation. There's a

responsibility on this side that isn't there on the other side.

Now

let's talk about ethics and what the members from that side talk about.

Let's give them some quotes from their leader, the man who would be

king. He has made lots of statements outside and inside this House

about the leader of this party, who has Christian ethics. He's proud of

those Christian ethics, and I'm proud of them too. But the Leader of

the Opposition and members of that side try to play games by painting a

name and number around it, saying that our party is a certain way. Just

listen: what did the Leader of the Opposition say in 1984, when he

wasn't in this House? What did the Leader of the Opposition say about

it? Well, let's read it: "My personal and political values have been

inspired by the social gospel contained in the Christian ethic, which

commits one to actively apply Christian ethics to society's problems

and issues." That was the Leader of the Opposition in the Vancouver Sun on October 22, 1984.

[ Page 9034 ]

Mr. Speaker, he says one thing, but the election's coming closer and he says another thing. Let's see what else suits him.

The

Leader of the Opposition says one thing to one group and another thing

to another group, and that's where this party across here — the socialists — is

going to have problems in the general election, because people will

start to look seriously at what the Leader of the Opposition is saying.

Listen to what he said to the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, which is the group he's trying to impress.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

It's hard to keep them quiet over there, I know, Mr. Speaker. But it's

tough to listen when you start to tell them the facts, because they

probably haven't heard some of these things themselves: what their

leader says when he's outside this House, what he says inside the House

and whether they match up.

What did he say to the Victoria

Chamber of Commerce on March 8, 1990? That's not that long ago; see,

the election's getting close. He says: "When did I ever sound like a

socialist? I've never been a socialist." That's a speech to the chamber

of commerce — the business people. That's the man who would be king trying to paint himself as the liberal — the nice liberal — not the socialist anymore; he's never been a socialist.

What

did he say in July 1987 right in this House? "As a successful business

person and a successful socialist...." Mr. Speaker, one day he's a

socialist; the next day he's not a socialist. It depends on whom he is

talking to. That's the Leader of the Opposition.

He also

gets up in this House and talks about what he would do about pollution.

He has made comments outside this House about sewage treatment, about

pulp mills and about Burrard Inlet. We'll talk about Burrard Inlet.

What did the Leader of the Opposition do in July 1985 when there was a

coliform count on the beach and pollution in Burrard Inlet and on the

beaches? What did he do as mayor of Vancouver? Not what he does in this

House; not what he does outside this House. He went for a swim with his

little son, and he said: "Come on in. The water's fine."

was a little cold and a little polluted, but he was the mayor of

Vancouver then. So he went for a swim instead of looking at the real

problem and instead of standing up at the time and asking the

provincial government: "Why aren't we solving the pollution problem in

Burrard Inlet? Why aren't we solving the sewage treatment problem from

Vancouver going into the Fraser River and into the ocean?"

What

does he do? He goes for a swim. He didn't want to solve the problem.

That's the Leader of the Opposition. He does one thing one day and

another thing the next day. He's not trying to solve the problem. He

was the mayor of Vancouver for an awfully long time. Why didn't he work

then, back in 1972?

When I ran in the federal election, I

ran on the issue of not putting sewage into the Fraser River and into

the ocean. But I was told by the Greater Vancouver Regional District

and the Vancouver city council that it was unnecessary; there was

nothing wrong with it. It's like Victoria. They go out and hire a

scientist who says: "No, no, it's all right to put raw sewage into the

ocean. It's good for at least 25 years." But he doesn't say what he's

going to do at the end of the 25 years.

We don't need rhetoric from the other side. We need an opposition who want to work with us.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Now let me tell the member over there.... He talks about funding

formulas. This government had a program for a period of time that gave

75 percent to municipalities, cities and villages that wanted to work

on sewage treatment. A lot of them did the programs around this

province.

But where was Victoria, and where was Vancouver?

No, it wasn't necessary. The ocean's a big cesspool. The Leader of the

Opposition was there then. He was an elected official in Vancouver and

did nothing whatsoever about that sewage.

Let me just talk a little about the man who would be king and about his own party and about a letter sent to The Democrat by Svend Robinson, the MP for Burnaby-Kingsway. His letter said:

"On

Thursday the Leader of the Opposition and the member for North Island

spoke to a group of 120 top business officials in Vancouver about the

economic policies of our party. Certainly we must get our message out

to as broad a spectrum of the B.C. community as possible, even though

we must be under no illusions that the corporate elite will be seduced

by the soothing nostrums about the creation of wealth.

"Clearly our priority as a democratic socialist party must be the redistribution of wealth and power."

He goes on to say:

"My

primary reason for writing is to express my concern and anger at the

offensive remarks by the member for North Island to that crowd.

Certainly the member for North Island was free to make his own

confession of youthful, political naivet� during the Barrett government

years, although this was certainly sad, coming from an MLA who at one

time articulated a thoughtful and serious analysis of our direction as

a government and a party."

MR. CASHORE : What is "youthful naivet�"?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : You'll have to ask Svend Robinson what he meant by that.

Mr. Speaker, they go out and say one thing, but they even write in their own papers something else — something totally different.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give you one other quote. When I was reading the quotes

about being a socialist one day and not a socialist the next day, I also picked

up one that he said to Vaughn Palmer. He said: "I'm a very pragmatic

person." I asked for the dictionary and looked up "pragmatic."

I don't know what

[ Page 9035 ]

dictionary this is. The Concise Oxford Dictionary — good

enough: "Pragmatic: meddlesome...." That, Mr. Speaker, I think explains

the Leader of the Opposition: meddlesome. He'll say one thing one day,

change it the next day, and the people of this province will know that

when it comes to an election. They're going to ask: "Is he really the

socialist or is he really the free-enterpriser?"

MR. MILLER : Is that your definition of "pragmatic?"

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : It's not my definition; it's the Oxford Dictionary 's. That's probably not good enough for the socialists, I'll have to find a socialist dictionary and see if it's any different.

AN HON. MEMBER : What does it say about socialists?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I didn't look up what it said about socialists, because I'm sure there are not enough pages.

I would also like to quote the Leader of the Opposition. This is a right-up-to-date one in the Vancouver Sun

today. It says: "Open, Honest Government NDP's Election Vow." I can

tell you there is no more open, honest government than this one right

here, and that's why it's been in power since 1952. You only have to

look at the number of commissions and task forces. This government is

more open than any other government in Canada. It's also the best run

government in Canada.

[3:30]

1 know it must be pretty tough when the New Democratic members

travel to the rest of Canada and meet some of their political

colleagues, because they're not in power anywhere. They must have a

tough time talking to them about the province they're in. They must be

able to sit back and say: "Boy, it must be lucky to be an NDPer in

Ontario where you can shoot holes in the Premier and his cabinet

because of all the money they owe and the bad economic state it's in."

It must be great to be a New Democrat in Manitoba where they've got a

deficit. And it goes on and on.

But in this province, the

New Democrats can't complain about those things. This is a well-run

province with no deficit, the best programs for the environment, the

best hospital care and the best education of any province in Canada.

Added to all that — and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) knows this — is the greatest scenery, the greatest ocean and fishing anywhere in North America, if not the world.

MR. MILLER : Did the Socreds create the scenery?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

The member for Prince Rupert asked: "Did we create the scenery?" No, I

won't give us credit for that. I will give us credit for preserving it,

because I remember.... The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)

looks at me, but I'll tell you that when you want to talk about

preserving the scenery and the environment, this government was the

first in Canada to bring in tough regulations on pulp mills, which

we're living up to and working to.

It was this government,

way back in 1972 to 1975, when that member's party was in power.... If

you want to go back and talk about scenery and what would have happened

if we'd had a socialist government for too long, back in '72 to '75,

the New Democrats wanted to put an oil refinery right in the middle of

Surrey, the fastest growing housing subdivision in Canada. That was

their policy. Who helped shoot that down? Do you know who the mayor of

Surrey was at the time — now the leader of the government of British Columbia, the great environmentalist? But there was no credit for that.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Let

me tell you what else those New Democrats wanted to do when they were

in power just for three short years. They talk about preserving the

scenery. They wanted to put a major project, a coal port, into

Britannia Beach right in the middle of Howe Sound. That was their

solution. Nowadays, it's preserve Howe Sound. They're the greatest tree

huggers in the world, but when they were in power, Mr. Speaker, there

were no environmentally conscious members over on that side of the House — none whatsoever. In fact, it was this government that created the Ministry of Environment after it took over power again.

This party across the floor — and I quote again the Leader of the Opposition in today's Vancouver Sun ,

where he's writing as a guest columnist for Nicole Parton: "British

Columbians can expect strong environmental action that serves the

public interest, not public relations, and action to reduce and recycle

garbage, curtail pulp-mill pollution and enforce clean-air laws." Then:

"A...government's top priority will be an 'environment and jobs

accord.' No longer will B.C. be told we must choose between jobs and

the environment."

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition — the man who would be king —

that he check with his environment critic who is going around this

province taking quickie tours of pulp mills, telling the people and the

schools that his government will close down the pulp mills. They won't

work with them to solve the problems like this government is doing.

This government is working hand-in-hand not only with the companies but

also with the unions.

MR. MILLER : I'll say you are hand-in-hand!

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Let me tell the member for Prince Rupert that I met this morning with

Woodfibre, which has met every condition that I laid down a few days

ago. I also met with the president of their union, who is as concerned

as the management of that company that it stays open and has jobs and

keeps this company moving. He doesn't want the pulp mill shut down, yet

he knows from the opposi-

[ Page 9036 ]

tion party that if they take over, they will just shut the mill down. They don't want to work with people.

What

does the Leader of the Opposition say? That no longer will we choose

between jobs and the environment. The Leader of the Opposition says one

thing; the critic says another. In front of the young kids In a school,

he says: "We'll shut the pulp mill down." But come into this House and

go out and make a speech to the chamber of commerce, and he says: "We

want to work with you business people." Mr. Speaker, you can't say one

thing in here and another thing outside. That's why this government has

been elected and re-elected since 1952, except for one sad, short

three-year term.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about a

"Georgia basin environmental action plan." He also talks about a

moratorium on increased oil tanker traffic and offshore drilling. He

doesn't know that there's already an offshore drilling moratorium. He

says: no more dumping of toxic wastes, etc. All these plans that he....

He started off his great campaign.... If you remember a few weeks ago,

he announced that he was going to tour the province and talk about what

his government would do when it took over. His first visit was to

Burrard Inlet, touring the harbour in a yacht, finding out what was

going on. Then he said to the media: "When we form the government of

this province, we will make sure that every tanker leaving this port

has a tug with it." He didn't realize that just six weeks before, the

Minister of Environment had met with the oil companies and agreed that

there would be four tugs with every ship going under the Second Narrows

Bridge, two tugs going under the Lions Gate Bridge and one tug going

right out to Victoria. Something he's promising after the next election

we've already done before the election.

The Leader of the

Opposition didn't realize when he called for a pilot that we already

announced six weeks before that two pilots would be in every ship from

the harbour in Vancouver right out to Victoria. Twice as many as he's

asking for, we'd already put on six weeks earlier. He's behind the

times before he even gets started.

Mr. Speaker, he also

asks that there be standby ships available. We've already got three of

them. The Vancouver harbour has done a superb job on oil. There has

never been a major spill, and yet he wants to talk about "there could

be one in the next two years." I ask him: where is he getting his

Ouija-board from? We're doing a good job in this province. Is he also

going to make sure that the oil going out of that harbour, the majority

of which goes to British Columbians...? He wants to place a moratorium

on it. He wants to stop production in this province.

The

Leader of the Opposition had a very sorry start to his election

campaign around this province. I can't wait until he makes a few more

announcements, because it is going to be very interesting, as he goes

around saying what he will do and then he finds out we've already done

it.

MR. MILLER : Call an election.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

The member says to call an election. I'll have an election anytime.

I've been around this province a number of times In the past few

months, Mr. Speaker, and the closer we get, the bigger our majority is

going to be again. I've been here enough to listen to the member for

Prince Rupert, and thank goodness the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Blencoe) isn't here today. I haven't made a speech in this House for

three years, but three years ago, every time I made one, he was here,

and he was very hard to listen to. Maybe he got tired, and after the

next election, if the member for Prince Rupert comes back here, maybe

he won't be here half the time either while we're making speeches,

because he'll be tired of saying: "Next time, next time." The

opposition learns, as tough as it is, that they can have lots of fun in

this House, but when it comes to the next election we'll win. We'll win

with a good majority, because this government has done a good job.

Mr. Speaker, I want to get to the critic for the environment, the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), who I hope is listening in his office.

In his speech to this House on the throne speech debate he talked about a number

of things in the environment, and I would recommend very strongly to him that

he take some time out of his very busy schedule, sit down with the staff in

my department and look at some of the issues he talked about. As a member of

the government, I want a well-informed opposition, one which will criticize

accurately. Good governments need criticism; none of us is perfect. But when

I read his speech and look at some of the things he said.... He said: "However,

what is Vision 2001? It's vague; it doesn't contain details." That's

interesting, Mr. Speaker, because we haven't released it yet, and yet he

knows it's vague and contains no details. I haven't even read the first

draft yet and I doubt he has, but already it's vague and doesn't contain

details. It will probably be the speech he'll make on the day we release

it. I would hope he would take some time and sit down with that staff I talked

about earlier that does such a good job in this ministry and works very, very

hard and doesn't deserve that kind of criticism.

said in his speech there was nothing on spills in the throne speech.

Again I recommend he sit down with our staff. Our government, in the

last two years, has increased our ability on oil spills to one of the

best in the world. In fact, when there are major oil spills in the

world, we get called in British Columbia for advice.

When there was an oil spill in California — and maybe the member of the opposition doesn't know this — it

was this government, this Premier's leadership, that got the task force

together between California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and British

Columbia. This Premier did it, not the Governor of California — one of the largest states in the United States — not

the Governor of Alaska, nor the Governor of Washington. This Premier

was the initiator; he put it together. It's working extremely well, and

they've had meetings up and down the coast, putting to-

[ Page 9037 ]

gether

a plan for the west coast of North America, not just British Columbia,

where we can all work together if there is a natural disaster. Nobody

in this House, no matter what side they're on, can have any effect on

those things happening.

We live in an area.... In fact I

was out this weekend in Bamfield on the west coast doing some whale

watching, and it was quite interesting. The fellow in our boat was

saying: "It's interesting to hear you fellows talk about oil spills; it

only happens maybe once in a while. I was here during the war when some

100 ships went onto the shore. Oil all over the place: it cleaned

itself up." And he said: "You're spending a lot of money." I told him

that we are doing it because we think it's important. We know that we

must be prepared.

I would suggest to the critic on the

other side that he might also want to spend a day with the Environment

Youth Corps, created by this government — one of the best, hardest

working groups of people you'll meet in this province. These are young

people getting experience in working on the environment. When I hear

the opposition talk, why don't they tell us what they'll do with those

kinds of programs? Maybe they don't like them. I'd like to hear from

them because we think it's a great program. It's working all over this

province — a thousand young people learning about the environment:

putting pathways through, cleaning up little rivers, doing tremendous

projects around this province. And I would hope over the next few

months, in working with private industry, we can even increase the size

of the Environment Youth Corps because it gives us a body of people who

are trained for six months on oil spills.

Anyone who had a chance to look at the oil spill in Sooke — and I was there,

as was the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser), within hours of it happening....

But the important part was that the Environment Youth Corps was there, and they

were prepared. I can remember the Coast Guard.... I can remember the local publisher

of the paper coming up to me and saying: "Boy, your people are prepared.

I can't believe how well organized they are." The Coast Guard especially,

who are professionals, had nothing but praise for these young people who were

there doing their job, cleaning up a disaster that we all wish wouldn't

happen. But disasters like that do happen, and I want to congratulate all those

youth corps members who were members in the past and those who will be members

in the future. I suggest to the critic on the other side that he sit down with

our staff and find out a little bit about oil spills, a little bit about the

Environment Youth Corps, and a little about what he should be saying.

mentions there is nothing about the cleanup of toxic lands and the Expo

lands. Well, where has the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam been?

We've been issuing statements on the Expo lands and the cleanup of the

Expo lands. We've made agreements with the federal government on the

cleanup of the Expo lands. I would remind that member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam that the Expo lands are in Vancouver, where for

twenty years the Leader of the Opposition has been on council and

mayor, He has as much responsibility for those lands as anybody on this

side of the House. It's a responsibility that we all have, but I would

suggest to him that the method we're looking at is the best method

there is to clean it up, and also that there are other areas in the

province that need to be cleaned up.

When we're finished

with this project we'll have the knowledge and the capability of

cleaning up these sites anywhere in British Columbia. I would remind

him that these sites are right across Canada, and I would congratulate

Superburn, a company in British Columbia which won the contract to

clean up one of the worst sites in Nova Scotia. I would also remind

this House — they know, of course, our federal government is always fair — the

federal government is paying 100 percent of that cleanup cost in the

Maritimes, and they are going to pay a very, very small amount of the

costs here. It will be done, it will be done properly, and it will be

well organized.

[3:45]

He mentions there is no mention in the throne speech of the

recycling agency, This government is leading Canada when it comes to

recycling. This government is the first one to have a garbage recycling

plant, the BRINI System, put into Nanaimo. And for those who say this

government only looks after their own constituencies, we don't have a

member in Nanaimo, yet we've given them grants and loans to start up a

system that other communities in this province would have liked to have

had first. But they're the first community we've chosen. For the member

to stand up in this House and say this government didn't mention

recycling in the throne speech, maybe we didn't put the word in because

we don't like to brag. We were just giving the facts in our throne

speech, all the good things that are coming up. Recycling we've done,

we're working on. We're leading Canada in every area. I defy that

member to stand up and tell me where else they are starting a de-inking

plant. We're also looking at a de-tinning plant; we're also looking at

two tire factories — one's already in operation; another one for

recycling tires and recycling plastics will be announced in the next

couple of weeks. This government is not only looking at getting the

products in; we're making sure there's an industry to look after the

products after they're collected. That's something the NDP don't seem

to know anything about.

I see my time is just about up, and

I know we have a couple of other speakers. I'm anxious to hear the

Premier talk. There are many other things I could talk about, and I

will talk on more detailed items in the budget speech about what we're

doing in the environment. There will be some programs announced there

that I'm sure will have these members so excited across the floor

they'll all have to vote for them, because if they don't, I think their

constituents are going to wonder why they're really here.

say again, the Leader the Opposition, the man who would be king, says

one thing here, one thing there. The people of the province are going

to realize it, and when it comes to an election, I look forward to

[ Page 9038 ]

the

day after the election. I hope, Mr. Premier, that after the election we

can call this House back within a week just to sit here for a day, just

to look at those members across the floor and have them get up again in

their negative ways. Nothing positive. That's the socialists for you.

MR. GUNO : Before I begin, Mr. Speaker, I ask leave for an introduction.

MR. SPEAKER : It's not normal, but in this case we'll let the member proceed.

MR. GUNO : I have a special guest in the gallery from Dease Lake, Linda Edzerza. I ask the House to join me in welcoming her.

Mr.

Speaker, it's a pleasure to speak today. First, I want to join the

previous speakers in congratulating you on your appointment as Speaker.

I know it's a most responsible role, which I have confidence you will

meet.

The pleasure I enjoy in taking

part in this debate

today is mixed with a certain sense of poignancy: the realization that

the opportunities for me to speak in this House are running out. I want

to say that I have enjoyed the experience. It's been challenging,

educational and at many times amusing and entertaining — like the last speaker — but

always with a great sense of responsibility. The only consolation I

have is the certain knowledge that after the next election a great

number of Social Credit members will be joining me in early — and in some cases, long overdue — retirement from politics.

agree with most of my colleagues' assessment of the throne speech: that

it is not a realistic, responsible blueprint for action to respond to

some of the pressing economic, environmental and social issues. I agree

with most of my colleagues' characterization that this throne speech is

all about this government's desperate search for an election issue.

Sometimes it is difficult to take a debate like this seriously, when

what is said here has little effect on a government bent on its own

political survival. This is evident in the growing hysteria from the

government side, the increasing demagoguery and the overreaction we

have witnessed in the last few days. There is an element of fear

emanating from that side of the House, and with great reason.

am reminded of a line from a poem written by a Spanish poet, Antonio

Machado: "People possess four things that are no good at sea: anchor,

rudder, oars and a fear of going down." We can take poetic licence and

restate that to suit the situation we have here in British Columbia.

Here we have a government completely adrift at sea with no rudder, a

helmsman who has no idea where he's at, let alone where he's going, and

a crew totally paralyzed with a fear of going down. To continue that

analogy, the people of British Columbia think that the time for a

change in the crew of the ship of state is now due.

There

are really two issues I want to deal with today. I think that our

leader and the rest of my colleagues have done a great job in dealing

with the inadequacies of the throne speech. They have dealt with the

lack of political foresight and will in environmental issues. I think

their sudden conversion on this sad matter is a deathbed conversion.

They have dealt with the strange myopia of this government when it

comes to conflict of interest. I think they have dealt very well with

this government's recent discovery of the concept of choices. I'm proud

to say that for the New Democrats choice is not a slogan; it is a way

of life.

What I really want to address are the issues that relate to northerners and aboriginal people. In Atlin — still there, I understand, until the next election — highways

remain a very important issue. The people in the Nass Valley are still

waiting for major upgrading to be done in the Nass system north of

Rosswood. I have tried at every opportunity to get a commitment from

this government to deal with this very urgent problem. It is probably

one of the worst highway systems in British Columbia, and I think the

people there deserve better from this government.

Highway

37 is a major route to the Alaska Highway. There is an increasing

volume of tourist traffic, but if we are going to maintain that volume,

we are going to have to address the need for major improvements to that

route, because I don't think any major economic development initiative

is possible without significant improvement being made in those areas.

the matter of health, I don't think the throne speech gives very much

hope for people from Dease Lake, Telegraph Creek, Stewart and the Nass

Valley that the high costs of health care will be alleviated. For

instance, aside from the aboriginal people who have Indian status, the

cost of receiving specialized care is enormous and is borne by each

individual who has to pay transportation and accommodation costs and

the disruption to the family. Yet there is very little done by this

government in meeting this very serious need.

Mental health

care is virtually non-existent in my part of the north. Both Stewart

and Dease Lake have been fighting for better facilities. Stewart has a

wholly inadequate diagnostic centre that needs substantial improvement.

They have been fighting for this and have not been responded to. There

is a desperate need in the Nass Valley for a second doctor to provide

more comprehensive health coverage.

In addition, the throne

speech does not address the need for better air medical evacuation in

the area of the Nass Valley. We need to have helipads established in

New Aiyansh, Canyon City and Greenville that will be equipped for night

medical evacuation. This is very serious because the Nass Valley can

be — and often is, in certain times of the year — cut off from the rest of the world due to flooding.

Education

remains a high-cost item in an area where the tax base is extremely

small. We have a situation in the Nisga'a School District where its

capacity would be extremely constrained to deliver equal educational

opportunities to its young people, They have no tax base so they have

to live within the very small budget that they receive from this

government, and many of the unique programs they offer

[ Page 9039 ]

are being threatened. This is another area where this government has reneged on its promise to the aboriginal people.

the area of forestry, overharvesting remains a very serious concern in

my riding. The pulpwood agreement, for instance, will invite

overharvesting that will result in over commitment of our

ever-diminishing forest resource. This is true in the northern Kispiox

TSA, in Cariboo-Chilcotin, and certainly Canfor has said that it will

result in overcommitment in the Prince George TSA. Pulpwood agreements

are non-competitive. Parties wishing to enter into these agreements

don't have to bid. Unlike TFLs, there is the prospect of low stumpage,

so I hope the government will rethink this disastrous and unpopular

policy

I want to turn to the issue of aboriginal rights,

There is nothing in the throne speech that would allay the fears of the

aboriginal people that this government remains steadfast in its racist

intransigent stance on this fundamental question. Yes, the throne

speech talks about a few programs that are high in rhetoric but low in

substance. In effect, they make virtue out of necessity.

want to refer to the remarks of the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis). They were gratuitous and

offensive remarks about the aspirations of a people whose plight equals

that of the poor from almost any Third World country, remarks that

reflect the total ignorance of this government when it comes to this

question. He talks about the totality of Indian land claims filed in

Ottawa exceeding 100 percent of the land area in B.C. He said "perhaps"

with tongue in cheek. This demonstrates an insensitivity that I think

is pervasive throughout this government about the whole matter of the

land claims. It seems to me that when it comes to facing the prospect

of negotiating this issue with the native people, suddenly the

government is cowed by the prospect of sitting down and negotiating

this very fundamental question, as if somehow we had super negotiators

who would obtain a land mass that would exceed the land mass we already

had. I think this is the same old rhetoric that they're going to trot

out election after election.

He talked about there really

being no difference between the rights of aboriginal people and those

of recent immigrants. This is a member who was once the Minister of

Fisheries some decades ago, who also oversaw some of the most

disastrous policies introduced in the whole fishing industry, who dealt

extensively with aboriginal people in terms of fishing rights and who

knows that under

section 91 (24) the aboriginal people enjoy — or maybe we should say suffer — a unique constitutional status in Canada This is a well-known constitutional fact that courts after courts have affirmed.

This is a minister who is a member of this Social Credit government which signed

the constitution of Canada in 1982. It includes

section 25, which talks about

the fact that nothing in the Charter will derogate or abrogate the rights of

the aboriginal people. This is a minister who is a member of the Social Credit

government which signed

section 35, which recognizes and affirms aboriginal

rights. Yet he stands there and says that the rights of aboriginal people and

recent immigrant arrivals are the same.

[4:00]

He's wrong on that count. There are certain rights that recent

immigrant arrivals have, but they certainly do not equal the rights

that we as Canadians enjoy under the Charter. I would challenge him to

produce any kind of court decision that would substantiate his

assertion.

The constitution does recognize certain rights

that all Canadians share. As I said,

section 35 recognizes and affirms

the rights of the aboriginal people. The minister and this government

may not like that fact. They may abhor it; they may say it is not fair.

But it is in the constitution of Canada, the most supreme document of

our country.

They may deny the fact that our people once

had a vibrant society, a vibrant sense of property and institutions,

and think that by just merely coming here and passing certain

ordinances we somehow do not exist anymore as people. That is why I

brand their stance racist, because I think it has no substance if you

read history, anthropology and international law. It ignores all these.

think that this government has to start realizing there is growing

public opinion that calls for some kind of accommodation. I don't think

any sensible aboriginal leader has said that it will result in huge

land transfers or somehow empty the public treasury. I think it is

really an attempt to renegotiate fundamentally a relationship between

the aboriginal people and the rest of Canada. I think it's going to

mean a certain amount of adjustment in terms of land base. It's going

to mean a certain opening up of opportunities for not only the native

people but the rest of British Columbians.

Certainly this

concept was examined at a recent conference held at the University of

Victoria on February 21 and 22 this year. The title of that conference

was "Reaching Just Settlements: Land Claims in British Columbia." Over

300 participants joined in the proceedings, and they represented almost

every part of Canada and many of the major interests in British

Columbia,

I was there and I witnessed that speaker after

speaker made it abundantly clear that they wanted a solution to the

land question in British Columbia. There were representatives from

business, labour, municipalities, environmental groups, the legal and

academic professions and the first nations of British Columbia. just

about every speaker said that there was a need for just settlement and

negotiations that might lead to it.

I think that they also

were able to identify the many forces that will eventually drive the

provincial and federal governments to the negotiating table in British

Columbia. I quote the

summary of this conference by Frank Cassidy, who

is a member of the public administration faculty of the University of

Victoria, wherein he says:

[ Page 9040 ]

"There is an accelerating sense that the absence of settlements

is causing uncertainty which is negatively affecting the economy. Developers

wonder who their real landlords are or will be. Investors are concerned about

the conditions that surround and will be surrounding development. Working people

worry about their jobs. Small businesses such as those in the fishing industry

are concerned about who will pay for settlements when they do come. Large businesses

are thinking about going or just staying elsewhere."

These are serious uncertainties that exist and will continue to exist as long

as this question is not met realistically by this government, and it is not

evident in the throne speech that it will be.

have to recognize that this question has been going on since the time

of contact. In fact, if you study our history, there was a period of

cooperation, coexistence and sharing. What happened when settlement

began? We talk about Christian ethics. I thought that two of the tenets

of Christian ethics were "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not

covet." Those are the very driving forces that eventually drove the

native people to reserves and to the kind of third world class they are

now in. As long as we ignore this question, not only in British

Columbia but in the rest of Canada, we can't point fingers at Mandela

and say: "Hurrah for your freedom." We have to address this problem at

home before we can start pointing fingers elsewhere in the world.

ss a problem that, as Mr. Cassidy has pointed out, is rooted firmly in

our history. It has been there since the beginning, and it's not going

to go away. This government's continuing strategy in trying to deal

with it in the courts is really just staving off the inevitable.

Mr.

Speaker, I don't really want to be lengthy today. I know that my

colleagues have covered many of the other areas in the throne speech

that I have concerns with, but I just want to conclude by continuing

the analogy I opened with. We have a captain, our leader, who is

experienced and knows where he's going; we have some very top-rate

navigators; and we have a committed and competent crew. I've been proud

to share this brief three and a half years with them, and I'm certainly

going to be there with them in the coming election.

I think

that the heat emanating from the other side is the passionate intensity

of the desperate, and they have every reason to be so.

MR. MOWAT :

I wish to take my place and speak in the debate in support of the

throne speech. As always, when I speak it's great to see the House full

with so many members.

I would first like to offer congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on your election

to the honourable position as elected Speaker of our House; to the first member

for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) as Deputy Speaker, a position he has filled so well

in the past; and to the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong)

on being elected Chairman of Committees. I would also like to welcome the two

new members to the Legislature this session: the second member for Cariboo (Mr.

Zirnhelt), an area which I have a great fondness for, and the member for Oak

Bay-Gordon Head (Ms. Cull).

Members

on both sides of the House have spoken to the throne speech and covered

many areas. Because of the time, my speech will be brief, but I would

like to focus on some areas that I feel very strongly about. I want to

speak on the "Freedom to Move" transportation plan, and in particular

how it will affect Vancouver-Little Mountain.

Vancouver-Little

Mountain is changing very rapidly in its makeup, from the exciting

development on the south side of False Creek and the continual

expansion of Granville Island to the development of higher-density

housing to the south of Broadway and the development of many highrise

office buildings all along Broadway. Many of our neighbourhoods are

being changed by the building of new homes.

My colleague

the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) has

already addressed the House on the role that transportation has played

In the past and will play in the future of our province, particularly

in economic growth.

SkyTrain, a project of this government

opposed by the Leader of the Opposition when he was mayor, has been an

unparalleled success and has by far surpassed the projected rides in

the planning stages. It has proven beyond a doubt that people like it,

that they are finally getting out of their automobiles. SkyTrain is

convenient, affordable, clean, safe, fast and efficient, and, on a

personal note, it is accessible to all citizens, particularly those who

have mobility problems and use walkers and wheelchairs as a means of

mobility transportation.

In Vancouver-Little Mountain we

are concerned that the proposed expansion of the SkyTrain to Richmond

will have a very strong impact on our neighbourhoods. The planned

extension to Richmond, we understand, will pass through Vancouver

Little Mountain on possibly two routes, and these two routes will be

the Arbutus Corridor and Cambie Street. My colleague and I want to

ensure that the needs of our constituents are protected, and we will be

addressing the transportation committee and asking that they review the

cut-and-cover approach and that it be investigated regardless of where

the rapid transit route finally goes. We want to ensure that both the

visual and noise concerns are well canvassed and that proper solutions

are attained before the commencement of this exciting and challenging

project, which will benefit the members of Vancouver-Little Mountain.

I'd

now like to speak in some more generalities. I wish to go on record as

supporting the following subjects covered in the throne speech. When I

was elected to the Legislative Assembly in 1983, it was just the

beginning of the restraint program. British Columbia led Canada, and

this government showed the leadership that brought about economic

growth, prosperity and benefits that we enjoy today. We know only too

well, by looking at the federal deficit and the amount of interest that

we as Canadians are paying daily on this debt, that unless the federal

government

[ Page 9041 ]

makes

dramatic changes by reducing the federal staff and readdressing their

spending allocations, the federal government will still continue to

increase. We know our children and grandchildren will be paying for the

mistakes that have been made and are still being made by the federal

government.

I commend the throne speech for pointing out to

the citizens of British Columbia that while our prosperity and economic

situation is the best in Canada — with a balanced budget — we

must ensure that we continue to present government's program of

financial responsibility and disciplined budgeting. We know that other

parts of the economy in Canada and in the United States are on a

downward trend, but with the sound financial planning of this

government in the past, the present and future of British Columbia is

ensured, and British Columbia will weather any economic downtrends.

[4:15]

The environment is on the minds and the lips of everyone today. I

believe our government has developed economic environmental programs

and has taken action to enforce these programs. The environmental

action program called "Vision 2001" will target our main environmental

problems and will be achieved with public input.

understand that the city of Vancouver is at long last starting a

testing program for curbside recycling, which I again state is long

overdue but a positive step to the problem of how a large metropolitan

city can handle its disposable waste.

Mr. Speaker and

members of the chamber, you know that I'm involved in the health care

field. Vancouver-Little Mountain has the majority of hospitals which

are provincial referral centres: the University Hospital, Shaughnessy

site; Vancouver General Hospital; the Children's Hospital; Grace

Hospital; Mount St. Joseph Hospital; St. Vincent's Hospital; and the

G.R Strong Rehabilitation Centre; plus numerous intermediate and

extended care units.

Our government expenditure in the past

year on health has been over $4 billion. I'm sure we would all agree

that the health industry could use the total provincial budget each

year. I believe that the Royal Commission on Health Care will be an

opportunity for all citizens to give input on the kind of care they

wish to have delivered through our health care system. It will also

allow medical professionals to discuss both the ethics of allowing

persons to die with dignity and the advisability of programs for those

who require heart transplants and other organ transplants.

we all know, there are concerns in the health care system. Often we

hear only about these concerns, and not about the many outstanding

achievements being made in the British Columbia health care system. I

know of a personal friend who ran into health care problems on Thursday

last, was operated on and given a triple heart bypass on Monday. We

have been told repeatedly by the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen)

that emergency cardiovascular surgery is handled very properly. It is

handled not only properly, but promptly.

We need more

technicians and more nurses, but the hospitals are meeting this

problem. I note that the University Hospital, Shaughnessy site, has

just recruited 75 nurses from Great Britain to help fill some of our

vacancies. With our government's policy on deinstitutionalizing

persons, many of our disabled persons are returning to the community,

in spite of their tremendous disability and the requirements for

attendant care and medical assistance, in order that they can have a

quality of life that was not available to them in health care

institutions. Many other persons with different medical problems are

now being returned to our community with the benefits of a very strong

and supportive in-home support service of home-care nursing, home-care

attendants and other programs such as Meals on Wheels. This government

has been a leader in North America in these programs. Again, many of

our citizens are returning to their homes in all areas of British

Columbia — not just in the lower mainland as some did in past years — to lead again a meaningful and productive life.

The

government has announced a home-support program for parents with

disabled children. The budget of $14.9 million that was brought forward

in our last session has allowed many disabled children to remain in the

family home with their parents and brothers and sisters. Many children

who are born with disabilities or become disabled through injury,

accidents or disease are now able to return to their homes and not

spend their years in health care institutions.

There is one

area that I'm pleased to report this government is addressing: the care

of persons with AIDS. I recently attended a workshop dealing with

persons with physical disabilities and also AIDS. This made me more

aware of this subject, and I'm pleased to congratulate the Minister of

Health on the new draft discussion paper on further development of the

provincial AIDS strategy. I say further development, because I believe

the public has been left with the unfortunate impression that little

has been done by the province to combat this dreadful disease. Quite to

the contrary, large sums have been and are being spent, not only on

testing and treatment but in a variety of other ways, both directly and

in cooperation with others, including the screening of the blood

supply, mandatory in-school education, the B.C. AIDS line, an excellent

pamphlet program which reached every household in the province, a

multilingual video program which has received wide distribution, and

specific outreach programs for high-risk groups, including addicts,

street people and inmates. Excellent guides have been produced on AIDS

in the workplace, and government staff and caregivers have been

provided with sensitive guidance on dealing with this extremely

sensitive and intimate topic.

As a Vancouver MLA, I must

say that the minister's initiative in bringing forward priorities which

include a truly comprehensive educational and prevention strategy and

his review of medication policies is extremely welcome and will go a

long way to meeting the great concern in our community. Homo-

[ Page 9042 ]

sexuality

and bisexual males form a significant and stable community in our city

and are by far the largest group at risk at the present time.

own background is in working with the disabled, and I can assure you,

Mr. Speaker, that this disease plays no favourites. We are finding

increasing numbers of disabled persons testing HIV-positive, mainly

from non-sexual forms of transmission. I hope the minister will ensure

that the unique problems of the disabled are also taken into

consideration in the comprehensive report.

I look forward

to the major expansion of AIDS funding to renew the educational effort

and to deal with the great range of relative concerns, not the least of

which is hospice services. There is a tendency for this issue to be

lost in the shuffle. We simply must not let this happen. AIDS is a

relentless killer which killed more of us this year than last and will

call for still more next year. It has already killed more Americans

than the Vietnam war.

I am delighted that our students led

Canada in a survey of those with AIDS knowledge. At the same time, I am

determined that we do not become complacent. For example, the level of

early teen-age sexual involvement has accelerated dramatically over the

past 30 years. It is a reality we must acknowledge, and it must be

dealt with. We must recognize that even awareness is not enough. Full

marks to the Minister of Health for his progressive effort in what we

know will be a long and brutal war.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to

speak of employment and the aspects and prospects for the citizens of

British Columbia. Only yesterday I was able to represent the Minister

of Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen) at a ceremony in

Vancouver at which this government, through that ministry, made a loan

of $200,000 to a company called Venture Technologies Inc. This company

has built and is marketing new computer hardware and a software program

that will allow disabled persons to interact with computers. This

device, known as Turbo Select, will allow persons who cannot speak or

cannot move their limbs to access computers to remotely control home

appliances. This will enable them to perform many tasks which we take

for granted, such as opening doors and turning switches, telephones and

televisions on and off. The machine will become a voice for those who

cannot speak. The product they have developed will be produced in

British Columbia and sold not only in Canada but exported to the United

States and then to the world.

I would also like to touch

briefly on education how well the Royal Commission on Education has

been accepted by the general public. I'd like to comment on the actions

of this government in already implementing the recommendations of that

royal commission. The members of the opposition and other persons in

the school system have stated that there are problems in British

Columbia's education system. I strongly believe the royal commission

will provide an in-depth look at education today and the needs for the

future, and those recommendations are now being put into action.

However, we find that some of these educators who complained in the

past are now complaining that this government is moving too fast.

The

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has informed the citizens of

British Columbia of the new funding formula. In this funding formula,

all dollars that were allocated to a district in past years will be

allocated in the same amount this year, plus a 6 percent increase, This

is outside the block funding. There are funding increases also for

expanding of mainstreaming of special-needs children, the provision for

computers and other programs brought to the attention of the minister

that are not in the block funding but have been agreed upon.

This

government has given citizens who wish to spend more funds on education

an opportunity to go to a referendum. The history in Vancouver since

the restraint program of the provincial government, which shows how

effective this program has been, is that Vancouver residents voted yes

for nine referenda since November 20, 1982, and no referenda were

turned down. I believe the citizens of Vancouver know how they want

their tax dollars spent, and the referendum allows them the choice.

Because we must all remember it is their tax dollars we are spending.

want to talk about the value-added forest programs, in particular one

firm, Norvik Timber, which has purchased the Fletcher Challenge mill on

Tilbury Island and is processing alder. This program is now underway

and the second phase will now take place where the value-added product

will be put into that mill. It will employ 70 disabled persons who will

be responsible for taking what was a weed wood and turning it into a

very value-added white wood which is used in furniture manufacturing

and will be exported to many areas of the United States and the Pacific

Rim.

I would like to talk about the pay equity programs for

working women in British Columbia. This will be fully discussed in the

budget speech, but I think it is a step in the right direction and long

overdue.

I want to speak about the British Columbia

Ferries. It is without a doubt one of the most unique ferry systems in

the world. It is very efficient and very effective. When we compare it

to the cost of other ferry systems in the world, it is relatively

inexpensive. The program for new ferries is an exciting one, and we

must commend the government for looking at that program. We must get on

with building those ferries as they are needed now and will be needed

more so with the continued growth of our province.

The

crews on board the ships and the crews in the terminals do an

outstanding job. This past Easter weekend they were tested again, but

again the ferry system came through with flying colours. We will note

very shortly, I am sure, that we have again broken the record for the

number of persons and vehicles transported on this weekend.

[4:30]

On May 1, the motor vessel Alberni will start to travel between Tsawwassen and Nanaimo, and this

[ Page 9043 ]

will bring a new and exciting transportation link to many users in this area and give additional service to the truckers.

Mr.

Speaker, we talk a lot about housing in British Columbia. I must say

that the B.C. Housing Management Commission has done and is doing an

outstanding job. Through that commission we are now bringing on stream

8,000 units of affordable housing. In the coming year there will be

42,000 new housing starts in British Columbia alone, as well as 20,000

new social housing starts. The Housing Management Commission is now

responsible for over 53,000 housing units for social needs persons.

There

are many more positive programs spoken about in the throne speech, and

I look forward to an exciting budget tomorrow which will lead us into

the nineties. I am very proud and pleased to be part of the team, and I

look forward to being part of that team for many years to come.

MR. SIHOTA :

On one hand it is a pleasure to rise and speak in this debate on the

throne speech, a debate which, of course, is broadly based and deals

with a number of issues.

During the course of my comments,

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a number of issues that are important

to my constituents, issues which have been left untouched by the

government's throne speech. I know many of my constituents are going to

be surprised to know that the issues that matter most to them were

either passed over quietly in the throne speech or not touched on at

all.

Before I get into that, Mr. Speaker, I want to say

that, in many ways, it's unfortunate that we are even here on this

April day discussing the government's throne speech. It's my view that

we shouldn't be here. It's my view that we should be out on the

hustings and that there should be an election. More than anything else,

my constituents want a change in government. They're fed up with this

current administration, with a government that imposes its moral values

on them, favours its friends and insiders, and will never admit it's

wrong. People in my riding are saying: "Enough is enough. We've had

enough of Social Credit, and we want a change in government. We want to

bring forward a government that is imaginative, that represents the

mainstream views of British Columbians and that is prepared to deal

with the issues that face us all in the nineties."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Please address the Chair. Would other members afford this member the courtesy that he afforded them when they were speaking.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, I know that some of the members over there — particularly

the one heckling the loudest, who's got his pension due on May 5 —

would prefer that we not be on the hustings, so they can secure their

pensions. Some of the others would prefer to maintain their current

status and not be out on the hustings. Members of the Social Credit

Party, in my view, are afraid to face the electorate. If they weren't,

we'd have an election right now. Instead, what we've got is an

unimaginative throne speech which has all the texture of pablum. It's

unfortunate when you take a look at the throne speech and note the

omissions and the things the government doesn't talk about and chooses

to overlook.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want

to talk about the things that are important to my constituents and what

my constituents want to have addressed. I'm sorry to see that the

Premier is not in the Legislature right now to hear our