1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

47 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Sechelt Indian Government District Enabling Act (Bill 4). Hon. MR. Rogers

Introduction and first reading –– 48

Boundary Act (Bill 3). Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 48

Dentists Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 2). Hon. Mr. Dueck

Introduction and first reading –– 48

Oral Questions

Wedeene River Logging Ltd. Mr. Miller –– 48

Strathcona Park boundaries. Mr. Gabelmann –– 49

Moneys under ERDA. Ms. Edwards –– 49

Indian heritage centre. Mr. Long –– 49

Impact of free trade on agriculture. Mr. Rose –– 49

Liquor policy review. Mr. Lovick –– 50

Doman Forest Products Ltd. Mr. Williams –– 50

Meeting of Forests ministers. Mr. Williams –– 50

Man in Motion campaign. Mr. Mowat –– 50

Presenting reports –– 50

Throne speech debate

Mr. Mercier –– 51

Mr. Jones –– 52

Mr. Messmer –– 54

Ms. Marzari –– 57

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 60

Mr. Clark –– 62

Mr. Parker –– 64

Mr. Miller –– 67

Mr. Chalmers –– 70

Tabling Documents –– 72

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We are often, in British Columbia, honoured

by distinguished guests. In the members' gallery today we have His

Excellency Tan Sri Datuk Thomas Jayasuriya, the High Commissioner for

Malaysia, and Mrs. Jayasuriya. Accompanying His Excellency is Mr. David

Johnston, the consul of Malaysia in Vancouver, and Mrs. Johnston. I'd

be honoured if His Excellency would stand. I'd be further honoured if

the House would bid him welcome.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the loyal opposition, I

welcome our guests from Malaysia and comment that the Commonwealth

Parliamentary Association meeting next August is in Kuala Lumpur. It is

usually attended by representatives of this House. If anyone doesn't

want to go, would they turn in their names to me?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, we have a very special 19-year-old

guest in the gallery this afternoon — your son Rob Reynolds, a student

at Purdue. He's six foot six, 270 pounds, and I'm sure that when I get

a chance to see him personally I will be saying "Sir." Will the House

please make him welcome.

HON. MR. REID: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to

introduce to the House today Mr. Mike Allan in the members' gallery, a

former administrator of the corporation of Delta, one of the best

administrative leaders in the province of British Columbia. He's now

retired, but he did represent the fine community of Delta.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce

to the House my mother Mrs. Evelyn Weeks and her friend Mr. Wilf Tomer

from Nanaimo, in the Speaker's gallery; as well, my wife and my

helpmate, Gayle Ballard, who is with them. I'd ask the House to join me

in making them welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, here we go again. If March 11

is your birthday, you're intuitive, a natural teacher, possess

extrasensory perception, can determine trends, cycles and public moods.

You'll travel this year and you could also gain weight, and popularity

will be on the rise. Would you please extend many happy returns to the

Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. Mr. Hagen).

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I have just noticed with some

delight the arrival of two of my constituents from Nanaimo, Mr. and

Mrs. Owen Kennedy, and I would ask the House to join me please in

welcoming them.

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, the first World Cup of Rugby competition will

commence in May of this year in Australia and New Zealand, the co-host countries.

Canada is one of only 16 countries invited to participate. As a person active

in that sport, though not as active as before, I would ask the House to congratulate

the 20 players from British Columbia named yesterday to the 26-player team chosen

to represent and play for Canada in this first-ever world rugby championship.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join with me in wishing these great ambassadors

for Canada every success.

[2:15]

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure all members would agree that

one of the great benefits of political involvement is some of the

wonderful, unselfish and dedicated people that you get to meet. I would

like to introduce to the House some of those people here today from

North Burnaby. I'd like to introduce Mrs. Anne Smith, with her sons

Howie Jr. and Doug; I'd like to introduce Mike Pelsar and Pat and Ernie

Beaucamp; and I'd like to introduce my constituency assistant and a

school trustee from Burnaby, Susan Reimer.

As well, I'd like to introduce somebody who I thought was taken out

a minute ago, but who I think should be a symbol for this House of the

future of our province and the tremendous work we have to make this a

better place in which to live. I'm speaking of Emery Andrew Hart Jones,

born December 9 last year. And with him, nourishing and nurturing him

as she has done me for many years, my wife Jennifer. I'd like the House

to welcome them.

HON. MR. HAGEN: It is indeed a pleasure for me to have a

couple of introductions this afternoon. The first one is to welcome to

this House — and I'm sure the rest of you will want to join me — a

gentleman by the name of Bill Maximick, who was born and raised in

British Columbia and has spent many years working on tugboats and in

the logging camps on the B.C. coast, and now spends his time painting

the scenes. He has become a very successful artist and has his works on

display at the Emily Carr gallery and as part of the Royal Bank of

Canada display. Please join me in welcoming Bill Maximick from

Courtenay.

Also, it is a great pleasure for me to have in attendance the

members of the Student Financial Assistance Review Committee which I

appointed a couple of months ago. I would like to list quickly those

names for you: Dr. Les Bullen, the chairman, Mary Browning, Robert

Clift, Erling Close, Byron Hender, Don Holubitsky, Jim Reed, Heather

Dickson, and Harvey Oram. Would you please make them welcome also.

MR. MESSMER: I am very honoured to be able to introduce the

mayor of the city of Penticton, Her Worship Dorothy Whittaker, and the

administrator, Mr. George Paul. The mayor was elected in the December

1986 election and is here on municipal business.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to introduce my wife, Marge, who for

the past 32 years has supported me in all my business ventures and also

my political endeavours.

Would the members please welcome them.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, may I introduce to the House a friend and

neighbour from Point Grey, Mrs. Clara Robbins, who is a former director of Victoria's

own crisis centre.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to beg leave of the

House to associate myself with the introduction put forward by the

member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) when he introduced his son, Emery

Andrew Hart Jones. The remarks he made are certainly ones I would like

to be associated with, to welcome his three-month-old son — thereabouts

— to the

[ Page 48 ]

Legislature. He certainly has the right name, and I know he'll do well.

MR. VANT: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure

to introduce two very distinguished gentlemen in the Speaker's gallery.

Mr. Tom Mason is the former mayor of Williams Lake. Indeed, he was the

mayor of Williams Lake when it first became incorporated as a city, so

it would be proper to introduce him as the first mayor of the city of

Williams Lake. With him is Mr. Arne Bryan, who is the founder and

national director of Prayer Canada, an institution dedicated to

upholding in prayer every person throughout Canada who holds public

office in every level of government. I know the House will join me in

welcoming these two very distinguished gentlemen.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to

introduce two former colleagues of mine from the great constituency of

Yale-Lillooet: the Merritt city administrator, Leo den Boer, and

alderman and deputy mayor Tom Newell. Would the House please give them

a warm greeting.

Introduction of Bills

SECHELT INDIAN GOVERNMENT

DISTRICT ENABLING ACT

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

a bill intituled Sechelt Indian Government District Enabling Act.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, there is a traditional period of about two minutes

when I can make some introductory remarks on this particular bill. Members may be aware

that a federal act involving the Sechelt Indian band was passed in June of last year.

This is concurrent legislation that we have introduced today, which will cover those areas

of provincial jurisdiction. The federal law anticipated a complementary provincial legislation,

and that's what we're introducing.

Under this bill, British Columbia will recognize the band's council as the governing body

and ensure that the various provincial laws that are normally applied to municipal governments

apply to their government. The bill also provides for the phasing out, under certain conditions,

of provincial taxation of non-Indian Act occupiers of band property in favour of district-imposed

taxes to provide local services. It provides for the establishment of an advisory council,

to be elected of all residents of the Sechelt lands.

Negotiations are expected to take place with the band in the next few months, and a precise

package of municipal benefits and provincial legislation that will apply to the band will be

brought forward under this bill.

Bill 4 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.

BOUNDARY ACT

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

a bill intituled Boundary Act.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, this Boundary Act replaces the former Boundary Act

of 1979 and is consistent with

section 43 of the Canada Constitution Act. The Canada Constitution

Act says, in part, in

section 43 that any alteration to boundaries between provinces must be made

by proclamation issued under the Governor-General's seal of the Great Seal of Canada; as well,

by authorization of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.

This does not change boundaries, Mr. Speaker; it simply puts into Canada Constitution

language our ability to set those boundaries and to resurvey them.

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

Bill 3 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.

DENTISTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

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

a bill intituled Dentists Amendment Act, 1987.

HON. MR. DUECK: To give a short explanation, Mr. Speaker,

this act would make various amendments to the Dentists Act, which

empowers the College of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia to regulate

the practice of dentistry in this province. These amendments are the

result of full cooperation and consultation between my ministry and the

college. The amendments would give the college a wide range of specific

rule-making powers to deal with all aspects of administering the

Dentists Act; in the current act those powers are derived from the very

general provisions.

Bill 2 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

WEDEENE RIVER LOGGING LTD.

MR. MILLER: I gave notice of my question to the Minister of

Forests earlier this morning. Some three years ago, Wedeene River

Logging was given a licence to cut 125,000 cubic metres per year of

timber, conditional upon a sawmill being built in Prince Rupert. That

mill was supposed to open last year. It didn't. It was supposed to open

in February this year. It didn't. Could the minister give me some

assurance as to the fact that that mill will open and provide some much

needed jobs in Prince Rupert, and that we can begin to process some

timber on the north coast instead of exporting it all?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'd like to thank the hon. member for Prince

Rupert for the extension of the question ahead of time — the courtesy

extended to me. Wedeene's forest licence requires that they construct a

timber processing facility at Prince Rupert, as you have stated. It

also provides for reasonable extension privileges in order to meet this

requirement. To date, construction of buildings and installation of

whole-log chipper has taken place. Two extensions have been

[ Page

49 ]

granted beyond the original deadline. In the meantime, Wedeene is exporting logs offshore.

The regional manager in the Smithers area has recently advised

Wedeene that a processing facility producing lumber and chips must be

operational by August 1, 1987, or their licence will be subject to

cancellation.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Minister, the fact is that we've passed two

significant deadlines, and I wonder if the minister can give any more

assurance to this House that we won't pass a third deadline on this

project.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I wish to take that question on notice.

STRATHCONA PARK BOUNDARIES

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

Environment and Parks, notice of which I gave to him in the hallway

yesterday. Late in January, cabinet passed and the former minister

announced a decision to change park boundaries in six provincial parks.

In its recommendations concerning Strathcona Park last year, the

Wilderness Advisory Committee recommended that public hearings be

conducted prior to any boundary changes. In August of last year the

former minister, the now member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), also promised

in a letter to me that public meetings would be held before boundary

changes. In September of last year another former minister, the current

first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton), also promised me in a letter

that public hearings would take place prior to boundary changes. In a

letter to a member of the Friends of Strathcona Park dated November 18,

1986, the last former minister, the current Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Rogers), also promised that public

meetings would take place prior to boundary changes in Strathcona Park.

Will the current minister assure this House that prior to

implementation of any boundary changes in Strathcona Park public

hearings will take place?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, as the member stated,

government policy was set with respect to boundaries in the latter part

of January. I have not seen fit to change that government policy; the

boundaries are set. However, I can advise the House and the member for

North Island that there will be a full series of public hearings,

beginning in May, regarding management within those established

boundaries.

MONEYS UNDER ERDA

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture.

It deals with a cultural subagreement to the economic and regional development agreement between Ottawa

and the province. As I understand it, there was an agreement in principle that $34 million be made available

to the province under this agreement. That was done last summer, Mr. Minister, and as I understand it,

that agreement has not yet come to fruition. Will the agreement be signed so that the province of

British Columbia will be able to have access to that $34 million?

HON. MR. REID: Inasmuch as the member hadn't consulted me in the

hall, I wasn't aware the question was going to be asked. I'll take it

on notice.

[2:30]

INDIAN HERITAGE CENTRE

MR. LONG: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of

Tourism, Recreation and Culture with regard to an

article in the

Vancouver Sun which reads: "Native Leaders Spurn Heritage Centre." Is

it your intention to proceed with this heritage centre for our first

citizens?

HON. MR. REID: To the member for Mackenzie on his first

opportunity in the House to ask a good question: the question of a

native Indian heritage centre in the province of British Columbia is

certainly a high priority within my ministry. I was, to say the least,

a bit surprised at the comments made in the media this morning. I don't

have it officially, only by transmittal of the newspaper, and that's

sometimes not absolutely correct. So I'll wait until I get an official

statement that relates to that, because I don't think our ministry

intends to withdraw our process of encouraging a native heritage centre

in the province of British Columbia.

MR. ROSE: I think that the first time he's heard a good question.... He's entitled to a good answer.

IMPACT OF FREE TRADE ON AGRICULTURE

I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns a

reference in the Speech from the Throne to free trade and how the

government is solidly behind it. I think the minister is well aware

that while the government may be lusting after free trade, some of the

commodity groups under the umbrella group of the Federation of

Agriculture, especially those in supply management, are not quite as

enthusiastic. They don't see a net benefit. They see their industry at

risk by this. I wonder if the minister has had a chance to do any

studies — or have them done — that show a net benefit to B.C.

agriculture from free trade. If so, will he table those in the House?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The question that the hon. member asks is:

have we done any studies? A number of studies are under-way relative to

agricultural trade as it relates to the bilateral agreements with the

United States that we're trying to draft on the tables in Ottawa and

Washington. Let me assure you that not only the supply management

products.... We have a very grave concern relative to what happens on

the trading table to a number of commodities that you referred to. It

is very inherent in the discussions that if we put them on the table,

even so the hon. Prime Minister of this country has indicated some

supply management products or commodities will not be put on the

trading table. We are still very cognizant of the fact that the U. S.

may well ask that they be put on. So we're very up to speed on what is

going on around us, and we're going to be on top of all issues as they

relate to either supply management products or those in ordinary

commodity trade.

MR. ROSE: Well, I'm really pleased and relieved that the

minister is up to speed. But it's interesting to me that the decision

to proceed with free trade has been a policy of this government, as

announced in the throne speech, before the studies are completed, which

is — to use an agricultural expression — putting the cart before the

horse, I would think.

[ Page 50 ]

Would the minister assure the House that he will not proceed or

pursue the free trade option unless he has full cooperation and

agreement from the basic commodity groups that operate in British

Columbia?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, I would say no. What we are

doing is going through discussions with the commodity groups, as I said

to you just a few minutes ago. The program we have to deal with is the

time-frame in the trade talks. We will constantly be in contact,

through the SAGITs across this country as well as within the province.

So that is the procedure we are following.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister would mind repeating that.

He said that unless he gets agreement from all commodity groups, he is

prepared to go ahead anyway, even without their agreement, or a net

benefit. Is that it? The minister nods, but it is hard to get a nod in

Hansard.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I answered no,

LIQUOR POLICY REVIEW

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Labour and Consumer Services. It is regarding the liquor policy review

commission recently announced by that ministry.

We all listened with enthusiasm and eagerness to the throne speech

references to open and consultative government. If my memory serves

me....

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: I realize the question may be a little complex,

but please bear with me, members opposite. Attention span may be a

problem, Mr. Speaker, but I would ask them to please bear with me.

My question concerns whether they will be consistent with the

message given in the throne speech, namely to accept good ideas from

whatever source and allow the spokesperson on consumer services from

the opposition to sit on that committee.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Nanaimo,

first, the review that is going on is a cooperative review between the

two ministries, certainly mine and the Ministry of Finance. But second

of all, the committee has already been struck, the agenda has been

struck, and we certainly would invite any of the members of the

opposition to make submissions to that committee for their

consideration.

MR. LOVICK: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps my question

was indeed more complex than I had anticipated, given the answer. What

I was asking was simply whether the minister will give us assurances

that to be consonant and consistent with the point made in the throne

speech they will change the terms of reference for that committee and

let an opposition member serve on that committee.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the commission is already formed, and that is the commission that is going to continue with that process.

DOMAN FOREST PRODUCTS LTD.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a question to the acting Minister

of Forests. In view of his answer to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Miller) on the question of non-performance by Wedeene in the Prince

Rupert area, could the minister indicate whether he will take action

with respect to the Doman operation? Ten years of non-performance on

the central coast is the case in terms of the lack of a pulp mill at

Duke Point. Could the minister indicate that similar deadlines and

requirements have been made of Mr. Doman?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice and bring an answer forward.

MEETING OF FORESTS MINISTERS

MR. WILLIAMS: That's good news, Mr. Speaker. I should have asked the question of the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).

A further question of the Minister of Forests, Mr. Speaker. This

Monday there was a major meeting of Ministers of Forests in Ottawa with

respect to the transfer of the export tax back to the provinces in the

form of stumpage — an important meeting. Could the minister explain to

the House why his meeting in Delta was of higher priority than the

meeting in Ottawa?

MAN IN MOTION CAMPAIGN

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. As we know, Rick Hansen, who has been

traveling around the world, will be entering British Columbia on

approximately March 20, and I'm wondering what provisions the minister

has made to ensure that there will be safe, clean highways for Mr.

Hansen when he comes in at the Alberta border.

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

question, and I can assure him and all members of the House and all

residents in the province that a directive has gone out to senior staff

in all regions in which Rick Hansen will be traveling to keep the road

both clear of snow and sand and gravel.

Presenting Reports

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the 1986 Assessment Appeal Board annual

report; the B.C. Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority

financial statements and auditor's report for the year ending March 31,

1986; the B.C. Housing and Employment Development Financing Authority

financial statements and auditor's report for the year ending March 31,

1986; a statement detailing the amounts remitted or refunded under

section 23(l)(2) and 23(l)(3) of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act; the

annual report of the liquor distribution branch for the period ending

March 31, 1986.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the annual report of the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia for the year 1986.

[ Page 51 ]

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, just prior to the adjournment of

debate yesterday I said that in comparison with most parts of the

world, our government services are tops. It is a fact that the people

of this province have, for most of the past 34 years, elected Social

Credit governments. Consequently and notwithstanding opposition claims

to the contrary, the vast majority of excellent legislation for

providing health, education and social services for our people was

developed and passed by Social Credit governments. Our Premier has said

in the throne speech that this government shall continue that excellent

record.

With the upward swing of forestry, mining and other resource

industry products, we can increase the funding of the previously

mentioned ministries and programs. We know there is, in everything we

do, room for improvement, but by comparison with the vast majority of

countries in the world we will be fine-tuning excellence. It is a

challenge that we remain at the forefront amongst the developed

nations, a challenge this government shall meet.

The greater challenge will be met in the area of encouraging the

manufacture of export products for sale at a profit to world markets.

We will also encourage the manufacture of products directed at reducing

imports to retain that spending in our province. This government

believes that management and labour in British Columbia have the

ability and the resolve to increase productivity and wealth. The

government is determined to provide the stability and services required

to assist those objectives. For instance, the government can assist

producers by coordinating the promotion of British Columbia products in

a specific market, such as California, whose purchasing power is

immense and whose 1984 gross national product has been quoted as

ranking just behind Great Britain and seventh in the world, compared to

Canada's gross national product which ranked tenth in the world.

Therefore one of the largest markets in the world lies just a long

drive to our south.

The social, health, education and similar programs in place are

dearly valued by myself and our Social Credit government members. With

respect to projects that have become of special interest to me in

Burnaby-Edmonds, there are cooperative programs with the Burnaby

Association for the Mentally Handicapped, housing and community centres

for seniors, programs for the learning disabled, the Kenneth Gordon

School for dyslexic children, the continuing expansion of hospital

services at the Royal Columbian Hospital, and extended care facilities

in the lower mainland. All of these and many others are receiving and

will continue to receive the enthusiastic financial support of our

government. I am pleased the throne speech indicated even greater

support for independent schools in our community such as Kenneth Gordon

School.

[2:45]

While we talk of economic matters, it is clear the objects of our affection

and the sole reason for developing the provincial wealth is to support this

government's social programs I have mentioned. Apart from maintaining law

and order, why else would we be here? It was the enthusiasm of the Premier that

drew me from a five-year retirement from politics to want to serve with him

and the Social Credit members in this House.

Everything is fresh and new, especially to those of us who are

rookies. We feel we have the potential to do well. We have an excellent

team in place to accomplish the tasks ahead. Like the formula for most

winning teams, it will be the extraordinary effort by individual

members of the team, coupled with outstanding leadership, that will

result in achievement of the goals that have been set by the Premier in

the throne speech.

The opposition has claimed that only they understand or are

concerned about youth unemployment, welfare recipients and the poor.

That is not so. The Social Credit governments of the past have an

impressive record with respect to programs to help those in need. Those

Social Credit policies have been endorsed, as the opposition must

surely notice, by the resounding victory of the Social Credit Party at

the polls October 22 last. As indicated by the Premier in the throne

speech, this government intends to continue and increase assistance to

those in need.

I have interest in certain of the programs, based on past personal

experience. Firstly, my mother as a single parent many years ago

required and received government assistance to raise her young family

of three children that was helpful and appreciated. I am happy,

therefore, that the throne speech has announced greater assistance for

single-parent families. I know that it is an important program.

Secondly, when my friends and I graduated from high school in 1957, it

was just in time to be part of the unemployed youth in the recession

which I recall lasted for a few years after 1957. We have heard in the

throne speech that the youth today have every reason to be optimistic.

The youth today can go on with diligence and hard work to achieve their

goals. The government has, in the throne speech, set a positive scene

for our youth to move ahead, with a particular emphasis on reward for

individual initiative,

With respect to earlier opposition comments regarding

multiculturalism and the ethnic communities, let me say that our Social

Credit government will treat every resident in our great province with

great respect, and in every respect equally.

In conclusion I wish to again thank the constituents of

Burnaby-Edmonds for electing me to serve them. I also wish to share

some closing thoughts with you. It has been currently reported that a

significant archaeological find has been made in British Columbia which

provides evidence of visitors, perhaps from New Mexico, hunting mammoth

and bison in northeastern British Columbia perhaps 100,000 years ago.

As an aside, I would guess that those hunters must have been our first

tourists.

Nevertheless, that historical find makes our allotted time for

service seem insignificant. In terms of the life of this province we

have only a minute time to make our contribution, but we must do what

we can to make a better life. There are indications that we are on the

threshold of improved opportunities. It is our responsibility to grasp

those opportunities and properly manage them. I don't, and I'm sure

many in this House don't, expect to be considered a great person for

having the privilege of serving, but I do hope the service we all

provide will make British Columbia an even greater place to live. That

is the objective of our Premier and this government.

Thank you to the members for permitting me the opportunity to speak my thoughts in this House.

[ Page 52 ]

MR. JONES: I would first of all like all members present to

know how very proud I am to be replying to the throne speech here

today. It's an opportunity to tell you some of the brief political

history of my riding, some of the problems that my constituents face

and some of the problems that we share with the rest of the province.

I'm very proud also to speak in this chamber, with its long

traditions and history in our democratic system. I'm proud to be here

too with my colleagues, who belong to a party that also has long

history and traditions of fairness, equality, social justice, honesty

and integrity.

But I'm most proud to be here representing the citizens of North

Burnaby — all the citizens of North Burnaby — and serving those people.

I want to assure them that I'm going to do everything possible in my

power to serve them well. North Burnaby is the community that I grew up

in, that I've lived in for 40 years, and I hope to continue to live in

it and raise my family there.

I'm very proud as well, Mr. Speaker, to follow in the footsteps of a

most significant British Columbian, who coincidentally, like me, was a

schoolteacher and a school trustee prior to becoming the MLA for

Burnaby North. I'm speaking, of course, of Eileen Dailly, who served

Burnaby in elected office for over 30 years. She was our MLA since the

inception of that riding in 1966. She was elected at a time when the

political and economic opportunities for women were much less than they

even are today. In six elections as a New Democrat, she was deemed to

be the best choice to speak on behalf of the citizens of North Burnaby.

In addition to her long record of service and electoral success, she

will also be remembered as Minister of Education and Deputy Premier,

serving as Premier in the absence of Dave Barrett. I've had the

opportunity on a number of occasions to review the record of Mrs.

Dailly as Minister of Education. I'm always amazed when I do at the

tremendous amount that was accomplished in such a short period of time.

I would like to take this opportunity to share some of those

accomplishments with this House. Mrs. Dailly and her New Democratic

colleagues, in their desire to increase the individual attention for

students in this province, reduced the pupil-teacher ratio from one of

the worst in Canada to one of the best. Unfortunately, because of the

cutbacks in the last five years, we've seen that PTR slide back to one

of the worst again.

She restored collective bargaining rights and automatic membership

in the BCTF for teachers, and this reduced the tremendous amount of

confrontation that existed prior to 1972. But sadly, we see the

collective bargaining clock rolled back again. Now, thanks to the

review of the Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) and the agreement of

trustees and teachers around this province, the government has a great

opportunity to bring some sanity back to the collective bargaining

system.

Eileen Dailly removed operating and capital referenda, the

construction freeze and budget restrictions that were tremendous

barriers to the appropriate funding of education in this province. But

here too we see the clock being rolled back, with an arbitrary over

centralized budget process in Victoria. As minister, she increased

local autonomy to school boards in allowing them to hire local

superintendents, to have local choice of textbooks and to introduce

locally developed courses for the students.

Mrs. Dailly and her New Democratic Party government assumed 100

percent of the capital costs for community colleges and provided for

the introduction of colleges in all regions of this province. They were

colleges that had board members who were locally elected. This is a

structure, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a government interested

in decentralization would definitely reintroduce.

She introduced new programs of financial assistance for

post-secondary students. This increased the access of students, their

ability to attend post-secondary institutions, and it also prevented

the tremendous debt load we see students facing today. Unfortunately,

those grants were eliminated in 1984, and I hope the Minister of

Advanced Education (Hon. Mr. Hagen) listens to the pleas of those

students and reinstitutes that program for all post-secondary students.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

As well, as Minister of Education Mrs. Dailly enhanced the public

school system of education by encouraging alternatives within the

system to meet the tremendous variety of needs that our students have.

She restructured the boards of governors of universities around this

province to make them more democratic by introducing student and

faculty representation on those boards.

Mr. Speaker, she also established the Universities Council of B.C.

In order to depoliticize and decentralize decisionmaking in the

planning and funding of our universities. This government has seen fit

to abolish that without any meaningful consultation, and I'm sure the

university presidents in this province are unhappy to have their job

descriptions changed so they now include lobbying the minister for

funds.

As Minister of Education she provided increased assistance in many

areas: in work-study and work-experience programs, in libraries for

students with learning disabilities and for native Indian children. The

list goes on and on and includes so many things that we take for

granted now and are proud of in our school system.

But there are three other areas where I think Mrs. Dailly showed the

greatest vision and the greatest leadership in her role as Minister of

Education. One is the establishment of the first native Indian school

district in this province, the Nisgha School District. This was a great

advance in the education of our native Indian children, and it is a

travesty that so little has been done since 1975 to meet the needs of

native Indian children.

Another provision Mrs. Dailly allowed for was the provision of

kindergarten to all five-year-olds around this province as a regular

part of the school system.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest accomplishments of Mrs.

Dailly was the abolition of corporal punishment in our school systems

to remove violence from that system. This was an outstanding record of

achievement in her three years as minister, the kind of record that a

government can achieve when it cares about education, when it views it

as an investment in the future of our children and an investment in the

future of our province. She believed in an education system that was

humanistic, universally accessible and responsive to the needs of all

people in society, and I know all members will join me in wishing her

well in her retirement. She kept the public in the public system, she

put the community in the community colleges, she made universities

accessible to all people in British Columbia, and will be remembered as

the best Minister of Education this province ever had.

[ Page 53 ]

Mrs. Dailly represented Burnaby North well, and it's such an

attractive riding to represent. Rich in its ethnic and cultural

diversity, nestled by the North Shore and Burrard Inlet between

Vancouver and Coquitlam, it has dramatic geographical features like

Capitol Hill and Burnaby Mountain, home to Simon Fraser University and

my home.

But it is not a riding without its problems. The topography that I

just mentioned makes it particularly prone to air pollution. This is a

serious problem in North Burnaby, because we are home to the petroleum

industry. Within the last year, residents in my community were exposed

to an explosion at one refinery; at another, to a malfunction in a

catalytic cracker that spewed white dust in a large area of the riding;

and experienced serious discomfort in the cleaning of some storage

tanks. All of this was followed by a summer of extreme discomfort due

to the loading of sour crude at the Westridge terminal in Burrard

Inlet. Oil spills in Burrard Inlet also kill birds and foul the water

that I swam in as a child. In addition, there is a serious potential

health danger due to the ozone created by nitrous oxides emitted by the

Burrard thermal plant,

[3:00]

I raise this, Mr. Speaker, in the expectation that the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) will institute stricter standards in this province

and more rigorous monitoring methods and enforcement of pollution

permits. Let's forget all this business about getting the government

off the backs of industry; let's adopt a pro quality-of-life attitude

on the environment in this province and follow Ontario's lead in

cracking down on polluters.

I would like to raise two other concerns on behalf of my

constituents, one of health care and one of traffic congestion. The

Minister of Health recently visited the Burnaby hospital, and I commend

him for that; but I doubt he heard many of the concerns of ordinary

citizens which they have expressed to me. For example, when the

minister viewed new equipment at the hospital, like the CAT scanner,

was he told that no new staff was hired to operate this new equipment?

Was he told that it appears there are adequate numbers of management

staff, but that the hospital is tremendously understaffed in terms of

nurses? Was he told that in the last six months five head nurses have

quit due to the heavy workload, a heavy workload that sadly has

produced documented cases of errors in dispensing of medication? I

doubt the minister was told of many of the shortages in some of the

basic necessities of the hospital, such as pillows and pyjama bottoms.

I'm sure the minister wants to do a good job in his portfolio, and I'm

hopeful he'll look into those shortcomings and see that they're

rectified.

I would like too, on behalf of my constituents, to ask the Minister

of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael) to end the disruption

of our quiet neighbourhoods in North Burnaby by commuter traffic. The

municipality of Burnaby has done all they can to deal with this

problem, but the minister's predecessor dragged his feet on one

possible solution: that is, the implementation of the Cassiar

connector, one of the busiest intersections in Canada. I look forward

to working with the new minister to expedite these solutions and to

find ways somehow to solve the congestion of the freeway north of the

Port Mann Bridge, one of the longest parking lots in this country. He

should also look into completing the improvements starting on Hastings

Street so that they go right through to Sperling Avenue.

Also, the minister and his government should be more creative and

look at less expensive solutions, such as implementing a commuter rail

system on the CPR line along the Burrard Inlet. I know that Mr. Rose

has raised this matter in the past. I look forward to a fresh start

from this government and will be pursuing this matter in the future.

The residents in my community pay among the highest property taxes

in this province, and they should not have to put up with the danger

and the pollution that reduces their quality of life. Nor should my

constituents have to put up with the tremendous problems of commuter

traffic cutting through their neighbourhoods, when it's within the

power of this government to rectify those matters.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure all members see daily in their constituency

offices the tremendous number of British Columbians who are hurting

today: the unemployed, the poor and the elderly. However, a number of

constituents that I'm concerned about are not elderly; in fact, they're

not even old enough yet to vote, particularly in this province with a

voting age of 19. You know, we all value, in our families and in our

personal lives, the young people, but when we extrapolate this caring

in our families to the province, what do we see? We see that we ignore

the need for improved day care; we cut back on our school system; and

we make it more difficult for the young to participate in our

post-secondary education system.

Because of past government policy, Mr. Speaker, it appears that

British Columbians value their children less than other provinces in

Canada. I believe all of us want to see as much individual attention as

possible for our children in school. I think we might agree that a

number like 25 might be a reasonable expectation for a classroom in

British Columbia. Can you imagine 25 young people in your living room,

trying to have them accomplish some task? And yet the secondary school

not two blocks from my constituency office has 80 percent of their

half of the social studies classes in that school have over 30

students. The history and consumer education classes have as many as 37

and 38 students, and teachers teach as many as 247 students.

The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) was right

on when she said recently that education isn't consumption funding;

it's investment funding. The government will get the money back from

increased taxation that will flow from extra industry and commerce.

This is an investment in our future leaders, an investment in our pool

of skilled labour for industry and an investment in the people we will

be relying on in the future to keep us in our old age.

There is, as well, Mr. Speaker, a tremendous shortage of

availability of vocational programs for the mentally handicapped in

North Burnaby. As institutions such as Woodlands are closed,

replacement services must be made available in the community. This is a

serious matter, and I have written the minister, as has the Mayor of

Burnaby, and I expect that my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds has as

well. And I hope our pleas in this matter are not falling on deaf ears.

There are other serious matters affecting young people in my riding.

Simon Fraser students are suffering in many ways. Enrolment is

increasing at a tremendous rate, and unfortunately the university's

funding is not increasing at a commensurate rate. There is a tremendous

overcrowding, with some classes having over 400 students in them. The

university appears to be looking into land development as a

[ Page 54 ]

method of paying for much-needed facilities on

campus. The board of governors has just increased student fees, which

were already among the highest in Canada.

The economic plight of students is so serious that some of these

young people are living in tents in the woods in Burnaby Mountains and

are using the food bank. Mr. Speaker, these students are merely trying

to better themselves and better this province, and they're forced to

assume staggering debt loads of between $10,000 and $13,000. One in

five new cases handled by the debtor assistance program involves

student loans. This is a disgraceful way to treat those people we will

be relying on for leadership in the future. The president of that

university is quoted as saying that if we are to remain a highly

accessible university, then we really have to get planning and funding

commitments from the provincial government. It's my hope that these

commitments, as indicated in the throne speech, will be forthcoming in

a significant way.

I believe that even more critical than those students in school are

those young people who have fallen through the cracks. Although my

district of Burnaby does a good job in prevention and retention, in

this province in 1985 there were 250,000 young people between 13 and 18

— 14,000 of these dropped out of school and 8,600 failed to complete

grade 12. We know many of these young people came from homes that could

be characterized by adjectives like "poor," "welfare," "non-stable,"

"non-supportive," "minority," "single-parent" and "native Indian." They

are parents who in general are not active in lobbying government for

their children, because many of them are too busy trying to put food on

the table. But we know that every year 10,000 of these teenagers are

charged with crimes; 9,500 run away from home; 5,000 attempt suicide;

and 12,000 are injured in car accidents, often where alcohol is

involved — and this figure is going to be much higher if this

government decides to sell liquor privately in grocery stores. We also

know, sadly, that 200 of these youngsters die.

Each youngster who drops out of school costs us approximately

$200,000 in lost taxes and social services. It's about time we began to

practise preventive medicine. We can educate ten young people for the

price of keeping one in jail. The throne speech was shockingly silent

on the problems of youth in B.C. today. Nor does that speech indicate

any intention to replace the thousands of staff who worked with young

people in education and in social services. These are staff who were

dismissed in the last couple of years and are much needed today, Mr.

Speaker.

Nor is there any attempt being made to seriously address the

problems of youth employment. It is incredible that in the province of

British Columbia we can accept an official unemployment rate for young

males between 15 and 24 of 27 percent and, I submit, a real

unemployment rate for youngsters between 15 and 17 of 70 percent. When

youth unemployment in Ontario hit 14.7 percent — half of what we see in

British Columbia today — Ontario recognized the gravity of that

situation and decided to focus on youth unemployment by increasing

expenditures, introducing new youth-in-training programs and creating a

new position, the Ontario youth commissioner. They appointed Ken Dryden

to that position, to coordinate and oversee these and other youth

programs. We need to follow Ontario's example and stop the exodus of

our young people from this province.

We know these young people, Mr. Speaker. They are the last hired and

the first fired; they can't get a job without experience and they can't

get experience without a job. They have the energy and they have the

enthusiasm. They have been asked since they were very, very young:

"What are you going to do when you grow up?" Their self-esteem, their

self-worth and their attitude to society is on the line, and the future

well-being of this province is on the line. Last year the Leader of the

Opposition proposed to this House a constructive alternative, the youth

guarantee. It was not a radical proposal; it was not a proposal that

had not been done successfully in other jurisdictions. This is the kind

of proposal that this government should adopt to get young people back

on track again in this province. If we do one thing in this session,

let's do that. Let's begin to get the young people back on track. Let's

give them some hope — some hope that they are not worthless and

useless, some hope that there are avenues for them to take their place

in society.

Mr. Speaker, we have a great opportunity in this session to address

the problems of young people in and out of our school system; a great

opportunity to improve our education system, as Eileen Dailly did; a

great opportunity to address the multicultural nature of this province;

and a great opportunity to solve some of our urban problems, such as

traffic congestion and pollution. I want to believe that there is a new

spirit of cooperation in this House and a political will to tackle some

of these problems. But frankly, Mr. Speaker, in these important areas I

see little hope for British Columbians in this throne speech.

[3:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before we proceed, hon. members, I would like to bring something to your attention.

Over the past couple of days on a number of occasions references

have been made to sitting members of this House by name. This is

something we do not do; we do not refer to sitting members by name in

this House. I am not meaning to chastise anybody. But I can recall very

clearly, as if it were only yesterday, the first time that I stood to

say something in this House and how nervous one is. So this is just a

general reminder that we just don't do that in the House. If you would

be really interested as to one of the reasons why, you might one day

take a look at standing orders 19 and 20. Now we will continue with the

address and reply.

MR. MESSMER: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride and honour that I rise to speak to this House today.

As a newly elected member for the constituency of

Boundary-Similkameen, I know that all of us who are here today on both

sides of the room have come to listen, to learn, to work and to do the

very best for British Columbia and its people. I would like to extend

my greetings to all members of this distinguished assembly. Let me

begin, Mr. Speaker, by congratulating you on your election as Speaker

of the House. I would also like to extend those wishes to the first

member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) on his election to the position of

Deputy Speaker.

This is indeed a day for respect and gratitude, an opportunity to

commend those individuals who have worked so hard so that we could be

here today. First, I would like to thank my constituents, the people of

Boundary-Similkameen, for supporting me and for entrusting me with the

responsibility of representing them in this House. I want to assure

them that this is indeed a responsibility I assume with great pleasure

and dedication.

[ Page 55 ]

I want to thank my colleague, the first member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) and to congratulate him on his

re-election. I was proud to have served as his campaign chairman during

the 1975 election when he was first elected to the Legislative

Assembly. The first member for Boundary-Similkameen has earned an

excellent reputation in our constituency, and we will continue to work

together to give our constituents the best representation possible.

To my tireless campaign workers and to my ever-patient and

supportive family and friends, I also say thank you. In fact, none of

us would be here today without the support of our friends and

neighbours, our constituents and the people of British Columbia. The

people of British Columbia have very clearly expressed confidence in

our Social Credit government's pledge of a strong, positive future for

B.C. Our citizens believe in and want the fresh start for British

Columbia to which our Premier is committed.

This brings me to a most important point, Mr. Speaker. I want to

congratulate our Premier for the strong mandate which British

Columbians have given him and our Social Credit government. His strong

leadership is providing all British Columbians with a renewed

confidence in the future of this vast and great province.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

I am very proud to live in and represent the Boundary Similkameen.

The riding covers 13,246 square kilometres, from Summerland in the

north to the American border and from Hedley in the west to Christina

Lake in the east. It is a riding with a diversified economy as well as

a diverse landscape. In the Okanagan Valley the major industries are

tourism, agriculture and forestry. In the Hedley, Grand Forks,

Greenwood and Midway area, the forest industry, mining and agriculture

predominate.

Boundary-Similkameen is one of the major tourist areas in British

Columbia, which we fondly refer to as the Hawaii of Canada. Tourism

plays a very major role in our economy. We offer year-round

playgrounds. Apex near Penticton and Mount Baldy near Oliver offer

excellent skiing in the winter. The warm spring temperatures and the

outstanding displays of blossoms delight visitors in the spring. The

summer offers endless sunshine, inviting warm lakes, ripe fruit and

numerous community and cultural events. The fall offers ripe apples and

exciting fall colours — truly Utopia.

I would like to encourage all of you to take in some of the exciting

community events which take place throughout the year. Keremeos, the

fruit-stand capital of British Columbia, has the Keremeos Rodeo.

Osoyoos offers the Cherry Festival. Oliver welcomes you to its Oliver

Fairview Days celebration; there's also the Rock Creek Fair and the

Summerland Action Festival. Penticton offers the Peach Festival, the

Iron Man Canada triathlon and the Square Dance Jamboree, where people

come from all around the world to square dance in the streets, at the

convention centre and of course in the lake.

The Okanagan Summer School of the Arts is an established institution

which also draws people to our area during the summer. Grand Forks and

Greenwood will be hosting special events this year as they celebrate

their ninetieth birthday. Of course, we should not forget that

Christina Lake near Grand Forks is an excellent resort and one of the

finest lakes in British Columbia. While we have many excellent golf

courses in our area, Christina Lake's new 18-hole course is one which

is a must to play on your tour.

All of the communities which I have mentioned above have hundreds of

events going on during the summertime. I would like to point out that

all of the events that I have mentioned are produced by volunteers in

cooperation with Tourism and the private enterprise operations within

Boundary-Similkameen.

I am very pleased that the Ministry of Tourism is promoting

Boundary-Similkameen in a number of advertising campaigns, including

the "Inside B.C." advertisements, which encourage home-made vacations

and a number of circle tours such as the Valley Vineyard Tour, the

Kettle Valley Railroad Tour and the Border Circle Tour.

The Peach Bowl in Penticton has been a major attraction for

conventions and host for large local gatherings since it was first

built in 1967 by the taxpayers of the city. The people of Penticton

were very pleased to have received an Expo 86 legacy grant which will

enable the Peach Bowl to be doubled in size during the 1987 year.

When the project is completed, Penticton will have the

second-largest convention centre in the province next to Vancouver, but

we will continue to be number one in hospitality. The enlarged

convention centre will be able to attract more conventions, which will,

in turn, benefit the economy of our whole constituency. Expo legacy

grants are also assisting in other communities in Boundary-Similkameen,

and we take pride in having people at the local community level working

with the provincial government to make these projects possible.

We have just experienced the results of the greatest invitation ever

made to visit British Columbia — Expo 86, a successful world's fair

that invited the world to our doorstep. I want at this time to offer my

congratulations to those who were involved, and especially to the

government of the day. The majority of our summer tourists come from

the lower mainland, and many stayed home to see Expo and to host their

own visitors. I am sure that this summer all of our usual visitors from

the lower mainland will return to Boundary Similkameen, and they will

be joined by many from the United States and other parts of Canada who

will come to experience a little more of our B.C. hospitality.

I urge the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mr.

Reid) to continue his fine work in our area, and I look forward to

working with the minister to promote the Okanagan-Boundary area and to

invite tourists to the greatest holiday adventure that they have

enjoyed since Expo. As I have already mentioned, agriculture is one of

the major industries in our riding and also one of the reasons tourists

are drawn to our area. Boundary-Similkameen is blessed with the

warmest, driest climate in British Columbia, and the conditions are

ideal for the early crops of vegetables, tree fruits and grapes, as

well as cattle ranching.

Our agriculture potential was realized as early as 1863, when apple

trees were planted by Father Pandosy at the Okanagan Mission, and by

the turn of the century private orchards were bearing fruit on ranches

scattered throughout the valley. These early settlers quickly dubbed

the Okanagan "the California of Canada" and formed new communities with

names like Summerland and Peachland. We produce an enviable supply of

quality ground crops, including potatoes, tomatoes, cucumbers, melons

and corn. Vineyards from Osoyoos to Naramata produce some of the finest

table grapes available for fresh market and supply top-quality grapes to

[ Page 56 ]

our wineries. We are quickly becoming known and

recognized as the Napa Valley of Canada. I'm sure that all of you are

familiar with the fine-quality wines produced by wineries in

Boundary-Similkameen, and I would like to remind you of the Okanagan

Wine Festival, which will take place from October 2 to October 16 this

year.

I'm also very pleased that the American Bus Association has

recognized the Okanagan Wine Festival as one of the top 100 events in

North America for 1987. I would encourage all of you to attend the wine

festival or to enjoy a wine-tasting tour of our wineries and sample

some of the award-winning products produced right here in our province.

From the day in late June when the first cherries are picked for

market in Osoyoos, to the time when the last apples are picked from the

trees in October, the orchards provide fresh fruits for our markets,

jobs for our constituents and a lure for our tourists. People often

mistakenly think of orchardists as working only during the summer

months, but I appreciate their hard work throughout the year, from

pruning during the winter, fruit-thinning during the spring and cleanup

during the fall.

I want to say loud and clear that the farmers of this province: are

hard-working individuals who make an outstanding contribution to this

province, and they deserve our support.

The decision this February by the Minister of Agriculture and

Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) to increase the maximum limit of

agricultural land development assistance program loans was good news

for the farmers of Boundary-Similkameen. Farming is an expensive

proposition. To produce a good-quality product, farmers must constantly

rejuvenate plant stock, make improvements to their land and keep up

with technological innovations. The increased ALDA loans will enable

many farmers to undertake a broad range of projects which they may not

have been able to afford, including the development of a farm water

supply, upgrading and replacement of existing irrigation and drainage

systems, orchard replanting, grapevine removal, improvements on Crown

range land, manure storage reservoirs and single enterprise

floriculture and nursery operations.

I intend to work with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to

pursue new markets for agricultural products produced in our valley,

and to develop and encourage new products. I applaud programs such as

the food industry development program, which encourages the use of B.C.

produce and food products in restaurants, hospitals and other

institutions, and which encourages the expansion of food-processing

capacity in the province.

I am pleased that plans are already underway for Food Pacific '88.

Thanks to our government's efforts, Canada's first international trade

show on food — Food Pacific '86 — was a tremendous success with over

13,000 registered trade visitors representing more than 60 countries as

exhibitors, buyers or guests. Food Pacific '86 opened up new markets

for agricultural products, improved trade relations and provided a

boost of more than $122 million to the economic output of Canada.

The retirement industry plays a very important role in the South

Okanagan, Mr. Speaker. Our area is often referred to as one of the

finest places in Canada for retirement, due to the dry, warm climate,

excellent retirement centres, affordable housing and top-quality

hospital facilities. I believe that our constituency has one of the

highest percentages of retired people in British Columbia. The 1981

census figures show that the provincial average percentage of the

population aged 60 or over is 15.25, compared with 40 percent of the

population in Oliver, 31 percent in Osoyoos, 34 percent in Keremeos, 23

percent in Grand Forks and Greenwood, and 25 percent in Penticton.

[3:30]

I appreciate the role our senior citizens have played in building

this province, and I am proud to be part of a government which is

committed to enhancing the independence, health, and well-being of

B.C.'s senior citizens. This January, I was very pleased to announce

that the Haven Hill Retirement Centre in Penticton will receive

$350,000 to cover 50 percent of the cost of upgrading the 76 beds to

current intermediate-care standards. This kind of cooperation between

the government and private enterprise will ensure that we meet the

housing needs of our senior citizens, whether they require long- or

short-term care.

I've just mentioned that the excellent medical services offered in

Boundary-Similkameen are one of the reasons the area is considered a

retirement haven. I'm very pleased that health care continues to be our

government's number one priority — that we are committed to preserving

B.C.'s medicare system and to ensuring that every British Columbian,

regardless of income and geographic location, has access to medical

treatment. I support the Minister of Health's decision to discontinue

hospital user fees for acute care as of March 31. The well-being of our

seniors in long-term care will also continue to be protected. Our

province provides excellent extended and long-term care facilities

which are second to none in Canada.

While we are on the subject of health care, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to say a few words about a subject dear to the heart of my

constituents: locating the province's proposed third full-service

cancer clinic in Penticton. In 1985 the Ministry of Health asked for

submissions on locations for the establishment of a cancer clinic

outside of the Vancouver area. As mayor of Penticton at the time, I was

pleased to work with the Penticton Regional Hospital in presenting the

province with a brief entitled "Penticton as a Site for the Third

Full-Service Clinic in the Province of British Columbia." We believe,

because of the environmental concerns within our valley, and it's a

very tight valley, with a shortage of available land, that this project

is ideal for our riding and could become a major economic boost to the

stabilization of our economy. Due to better cancer recognition and

diagnosis and better overall treatment, as well as an aging population,

there are increasing numbers of people requiring cancer therapy.

Penticton's "Third Full-Service Cancer Clinic" committee has shown that

this clinic would serve 500,000 people in the interior of British

Columbia. The clinic would also attract the Canadian Red Cross blood

donor depot and the blood-storage facility.

The city of Penticton and the Penticton Hospital Society jointly own

2.7 acres of land designated for medical use which is located next to

the hospital. They are prepared to offer this land, with an appraised

value of $355,000 in 1985, to the Cancer Control Agency of British

Columbia for the purchase price of $1. This project would provide

needed jobs for the people of Boundary-Similkameen, as well as

providing a needed service to the people of the interior without

requiring them to travel to Vancouver or Victoria. I intend to work

hard to ensure that when plans go ahead to build a third cancer clinic,

the Minister of Health will give Penticton's proposal his full

consideration.

[ Page

57 ]

Mr. Speaker, I consider our educational system to be second in

importance to health. Our government has a fine record for providing

all British Columbians with the opportunity for acquiring a quality

education and developing their individual potential to the fullest.

I support our Premier's decision to combine all educational training

and employment programs under the newly formed Ministry of Advanced

Education and Job Training. I believe I speak for my constituents when

I say how pleased I am that the provincial government has been able to

provide the necessary funding for a permanent campus in Penticton. The

Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. Mr. Hagen)

announced in December 1986 that approval had been given for the

planning of a new $2.5 million campus. The new campus will enable the

college to expand and improve its services to the community.

Although my riding is served by Okanagan College, it is still

difficult for some of my constituents to attend a postsecondary

institution on a full-time basis. I would like to commend the

government for their foresight in creating the Open Learning Institute

in 1979 and the Knowledge Network in 1980. By bringing quality

education into the home, every British Columbian can now reach their

educational goals.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Premier for his

efforts to foster a spirit of cooperation and consultation in our

province. The Premier has personally demonstrated his commitment to a

new spirit of openness and frankness in government through his monthly

open-line shows, his series of town meetings, his Vancouver meeting

with 400 local government representatives in January, his efforts to

improve relations with the official opposition and by remaining

accessible to the public and the media.

I would also like to commend the government for taking the

consultation process to the local level. Examples include: the recent

hearing into the Labour Code amendments; the first provincial-municipal

committee on decentralization; and the formation of a Cabinet Committee

on Native Affairs.

I am very pleased to see the concept of decentralization of

government being discussed. The Premier's Conference on

Decentralization which took place in Vancouver this January resulted in

the formation of a joint provincial-municipal committee on

decentralization. I agree with the Premier's view that greater local

autonomy and efficiency will result from this sort of consultative

process. Having been the mayor of Penticton for six years, I found that

local governments with local employees are able to fulfil the needs of

the public and still work on a balanced budget, even during difficult

economic periods. I believe that matters such as taxation are best

handled at the local level, and I applaud the efforts to decentralize

government.

I would also like to express my support to the Minister of Labour (Hon. L.

Hanson) for taking the issue of Labour Code changes to the people through a

series of hearings in January and February. The fact that hundreds of briefs

were received from business, labour and other interests demonstrates the interest

throughout our province in creating a positive labour climate. I feel that the

review of labour legislation which is taking place is a positive step toward

resolving one of the most important issues facing our government. By involving

labour, employers and the public, we can work out an effective way to reduce

the number of strikes and lockouts in our province and to shorten the duration

of conflicts when they occur. It is senseless to have long crippling labour

disputes which directly hurt the people forced to walk the picket line, their

families and their employer. It is not just those directly involved in a labour

dispute who suffer. The community often suffers, particularly small business,

who may be forced into bankruptcy, and the province suffers because investor

confidence is affected.

Single industry communities, such as Midway in our constituency,

which depend almost solely on the forest industry for employment, will

take many years to recover from the latest labour conflict. If we are

to establish ourselves as a place to do business, then we must improve

our labour climate in order to bring continued labour peace to British

Columbia. We must work together to create a positive investment climate

and tell the world that our province is the place to do business.

We must work together to create a positive future for British

Columbians. The Minister of Labour will be introducing changes to the

Labour Code during this session. I strongly urge all Members of the

Legislature to support changes that will allow us to have a stable

workforce.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I believe in a strong economic future for

our province under the leadership of our Premier. I support the efforts

being made to bring industry, labour and all levels of government

together in order to create jobs and further economic development. I

look forward to my new duties as a Member of the Legislative Assembly.

I believe my most important duty is to serve the people of

Boundary-Similkameen responsibly and effectively. I promise my

constituents that I will do my best to fulfil that mandate. My remarks

have addressed just some of their concerns. I am looking forward to the

opportunity to address the hon. members of this House again.

MS. MARZARI: Madam Speaker, may I be the very first person to

congratulate the very first woman Deputy Speaker in this province. It

changes my speech around quite substantially.

In examining the throne speech I find myself turning to its intended

purpose in an effort to rescue that venerable ritual from being reduced

to mere rote. It is customary that the throne speech is a general and

not especially detailed statement by the government of its aspirations,

its directions and, in perhaps even broader terms, its legislative

plans for the people of British Columbia in the months to come. The

danger, of course, is that such a discourse can easily degenerate into

vagueness, vacuous good wishes and florid rhetorical flourishes. In

fact, Madam Speaker, as you know, it is almost a part of the tradition

that the opposition criticizes the throne speech for its impossible

vagaries, its failure to provide a detailed plan to save us from

ourselves, and its stubborn refusal to immediately table an easily

debated legislative package.

The throne speech ought to be a statement of the government's

general philosophical positions and how they apply in the present and

medium terms to the real problems faced by the people of British

Columbia. We should be able to look to the throne speech, and

subsequently to the budget speech and the legislative package, to spell

out at first, and increasingly in concrete proposals, how we will go

about providing opportunities in British Columbia at a time when more

than 200,000 of us are unemployed and less than two out of ten of our

young people are enrolled in advanced education. We seek from this

procedure reassurances of security for British Columbians in a period

when the use of the term "recovery" as applied to the economy has

become a parody of reality.

[ Page 58 ]

Our concern encompasses the protection and

disposition of our resources and lands. Equally, it addresses the

quality of individual and family life as expressed in policies that

ensure care of our children as well as guard our dignity as we grow

older. Thirdly, we expect from these proceedings a clear demonstration

of the commitment to integrity in public life and public institutions.

It is the task of the opposition to indicate those areas where we

find ourselves in philosophical agreement with the directions charted

by the throne speech, and where consequently the government can expect

cooperation in the passage of legislation. Equally, it's our duty to

signal areas of philosophical disagreement and to offer good reasons to

our hon. colleagues and to the people of British Columbia for our

differences. This opposition will go further, Madam Speaker. It will,

as it develops its own legislative agenda, be presenting positive

directions to the House.

[3:45]

There is a tendency on the part of politicians to want to bypass

fundamental intellectual work in favour of attending to the more

pressing or more spectacular issues of the day. Our collective failure

to debate fundamental principles, I believe, accounts for much of our

present situation — whether we're talking about the precarious fiscal

state of northeast coal, the crisis in education, the decline in

investment or the now admittedly confused state of development at B.C.

Place.

What I and my constituents in Vancouver-Point Grey are looking

forward to, Madam Speaker, is a system of competent and thoughtful

public administration. Now that we have formally embarked upon the

session, we expect from the government a basic respect for the public

process. It's our belief that there must be respect for this House,

that it must be regarded as the appropriate forum for public

accountability. There must be respect for the civil service, whose

record during particularly trying times has been admirable. And there

must be respect for public intelligence.

We are sympathetic to the government's efforts toward openness,

public consultation, and availability to the media. However, we must

caution that the press scrum is not the forum for decision-making, and

that consultation with the public is not the place to exacerbate

uncertainty by suggesting that the government's policies will be

explosive and controversial; that openness ought to be the occasion not

for the mutual blowing off of steam but for the creation of

opportunities for participation.

Point Grey, the constituency I represent, understands participation.

For example, in ten years of an open planning process, Point Grey has

come to a consensus plan on the boundaries for the University endowment

lands regional park. It has taken a long time to arrive at this

consensus, Madam Speaker, and I would ask that the government proceed

with haste to ensure that the park, as it has presently been agreed to

by both sides of this House and by the cabinet in the last session, be

promoted and signed over to the GVRD parks branch for its twentieth

birthday, in May of this year, intact.

If there is one area of fundamental philosophical disagreement

between ourselves and our hon. colleagues, it concerns the value we

place on education. From the evidence available in the throne speech,

there is little indication that the fundamental differences between us

that developed during the ill-fated restraint program will be

significantly modified. Let me serve notice, Madam Speaker, that it

will be my responsibility this session to bring this matter to the

attention of the House, on behalf of Point Grey, and to offer

alternative proposals in those instances where the policies of

government fall short. From our perspective the provision of adequate

educational opportunity is the foundation of a democratic society. I

offer this not as a shibboleth to which we can merely not assent or

offer lip-service; rather, I present this proposition as one of

fundamental philosophical importance, It is in that sense qualitatively

different from the provision of this or that government service.

During the lengthy period of restraint the government of the day

made clear that philosophically it regarded education as equally or

more subject to ferocious fiscal cutbacks as any other operation of

government, irrespective of priorities. The sorry results of that

policy are now plainly visible in my community.

Since my election I have made it my priority to visit the schools in

my constituency. I have seen the damage. I shall not offer simplistic

remedies. It is not simply a matter of budgetary allocation. We have to

take into account such sociological complexities as this: even in those

schools located in districts of the highest socio-economic status,

where an image of social stability often prevails, it is estimated by

professionals that as many as a third of the students are from recently

troubled families or families in transition. When we look at how we

spend the moneys we allocate, such facts must be fully appreciated. If

we take away child-care workers from the schools, as we have, we are

but contributing to real grief and disarray that exists in families, in

kids, in classrooms. Some teachers in Point Grey have even suggested

that the child-care workers were as important as class size, so

dependent are they upon the helping professional to deal with kids in

grief and in trouble.

Last week in Kamloops, when the human services committee of our

caucus went to visit with community agencies, I was told by a doctor,

when I visited the E. Fry Society, that a seven-year-old boy had been

expelled from school in Kamloops. I could not believe it. Our next stop

on our tour was a stop at the school board, where I asked a school

trustee, who knew of the child involved, and said that the teachers

could not carry any more load. The class sizes are unbearable, and the

child was removed from the class. When I went to the child development

centre and asked what could be done, I was told the child development

centre handles children to the age of six. When I asked where the

psychologists were, or other helping professionals, I was told there

was a waiting-list of five months before this child could see somebody.

That evening, when I met with the child-support worker from the

Ministry of Social Services, I was told that unless the child was in

need of protection, unless the child was being abused in some way,

Social Services could do nothing. A seven-year old child in Kamloops

has been expelled from school.

What we are witnessing is the gradual transference of Social

Services treatment services to juvenile services for court — children

not treated in the community but treatment at the juvenile services

centre serving the court. This is because the money available for

treatment comes through the federal government under the Young

Offenders Act. That should be our court of last resort; it has, in

effect, become the place where kids can receive treatment — in other

words, the first place they receive a helping hand.

From my experience in surveying our schools and my conversations

with administrators, teachers and students, it's clear that budgetary

uncertainties have brought havoc upon

[ Page

59 ]

the system and that much of the responsibility lies

with us in this House. We're faced with the demand for computer

literacy as a necessity for living in the technological world of the

immediate future. Yet may I remind this House that to have computer

literacy we must first have literacy. Literacy, I'm told by

professionals in this field, is at least partially a function of class

size. Hon. members, Madam Speaker, this is job one.

In my riding the largest public institution is the University of

British Columbia, which, as you know, has just held a successful

three-day open house attracting thousands of British Columbians to its

campus. Yet that university and the rest of the post-secondary system

are in desperate straits. I'll hold most of my specific comments for

more appropriate elaboration when we're discussing the budget, but let

me offer these preliminary observations. What I see in our

universities, especially in lower division, undergraduate education,

where hundreds of first- and second-year students are jammed into

amphitheatres, verges on scandal. This is clearly a result of our

present inadequate and skewed funding policies.

I welcome the government's intention to increase funding for our

post-secondary, and I'm looking forward to the elaboration of that

commitment in the budget. But a necessary corollary to increased

funding is a funding formula that is founded on a systems basis that

takes into account the actual core needs of our universities and

colleges. What we have now is a system that is skewed in a number of

directions, as federal funds are earmarked, or pet projects are

undertaken, without full consideration of their real costs in the

overall budgetary picture. I want this House to give serious

consideration to the direction and coordination of provincial and

federal funds meant to support and enhance our post-secondary

institutions, whether that be from CEIC or whether it be from the

National Research Council.

I applaud the establishment of a Premier's science and technology

council; it is long overdue. We might find some coordination in that

body. More needs to be done, and I would encourage the Premier to

consider a series of provincial conferences devoted to our vision for

post-secondary education. We must also pay attention to the regional

importance of colleges, paying special attention to regional needs and

accountability. This House must finally attend to the needs of British

Columbia's students.

It is with some apprehension that I observe the government does not

address in the document before us the real crisis in student aid. The

current loan program is a major obstacle to educational opportunities.

The conclusion is well documented, Madam Speaker, in the recently

concluded review conducted by the student aid task force — which was

here today, by the way. In fact, the Canadian Federation of Students is

also here today, and I introduce them- with your leave, Madam Speaker.

Klaus Mulert, Marg Fartaczek, Paul Keet and Rob Clift, all the

executive of the Canadian Federation of Students, are here, and they

have brought me literally thousands of postcards from thousands of

students — this is one-tenth of what I could bring up from the office —

asking and expressing concern about debt load that students are faced

with under the present loan program. Considerable effort has gone into

developing these and sending these, and I think that we cannot let this

day go by without drawing attention to the literally thousands of

students.

Madam Speaker, it has now become a matter of common wisdom to view

our post-secondary system as a long-term economic investment, to see

advanced learning as a productive unit in an overall economic

development strategy for the 1990s. This is all in its way well and

good, and if that's the context in which the system must be seen in

order to move this government to recognize the priority of education,

so be it. But perhaps more important, what I want to impress upon this

government — you will hear this from me again and again — is the

question of values: the value of education as a fundament of democracy

whose importance is not simply encompassed by economic discourse. If

this is not appreciated, then, as someone has noted, we will be a

society that passes from barbarism to philistinism without ever

experiencing civilization.

It's clear from the throne speech and from the remarks made in the

last two weeks that this government intends to make the term

privatization its new buzzword, much in the manner that restraint and

recovery were used on previous occasions. Since this is proposed as a

philosophical cornerstone by the government, it cannot be passed over

in silence. Other speakers preceding me and several who will follow

will no doubt examine the concept, but there are two observations that

seem pertinent here.

The New Democratic Party is not, in principle, opposed to the

general concept of privatization where it can be demonstrated that the

public is better served by the provision of goods and services through

the private enterprise sector and where such privatization is

beneficial to the public interest and public finances, an issue that we

regard as seriously as anyone in this House. Our cooperation can be

expected. But what is worrisome to the public is the troubling manner

in which the government has seized upon this notion.

[4:00]

If privatization is merely an enthusiasm or is offered as a cure-all

intended to distract us from solutions to our real problems, then

British Columbians will be ill-served. It is imperative in a matter of

such potentially weighty consequences that the government display a

sensitivity to the philosophical and practical dangers inherent in the

ideology of privatization. At its core, it threatens the removal from

the public forum of consideration of matters, whether goods, services

or policies, that belong in the public realm. The solution to the

problems raised by public issues is not to make these issues

conveniently disappear.

Secondly, even if we can come to agreement about what's appropriate

in this area, haste, instant policy and a game show atmosphere in the

order of "Let's Make A Deal" cannot serve as a substitute for sound

planning. I can only hope that privatization is not simply a substitute

for concrete action which supports and encourages business enterprise.

Business, especially small enterprise, has specific requirements.

Please forget the one-stop shop. Entrepreneurs are very grownup and

brave and aggressive people. They want equity. They need capital, not

one-stop shops. The federal government has tried that and failed.

The priority is the need for equity, for guarantees, for the kinds

of risk-taking the big five banks won't tolerate here in British

Columbia — but they tolerated it in Ontario very nicely. It would be

tragic if the government was paralyzed by its own anti-government

rhetoric. Get on the backs of small business; give them what you give

to the big guys and the foreign investors.

Earlier I touched on the matter of integrity and the case of the B.C. Place project. I believe I see an instance where the

[ Page 60 ]

concerns I have voiced about privatization converge with our interests in maintaining standards of integrity in public life.

Again, Madam Speaker, I must serve notice that it is not our

intention to allow this matter to go unexamined. Because of earlier

miscalculations about this project by the government, B.C. Place — by

the minister's own admission — has been allowed to slip into a state of

fiscal disarray. To make matters more serious, serious allegations have

been brought before the courts that the debt load of this Crown

corporation has been artificially inflated by the transfer of debts

incurred by another government operation. This has raised doubts about

the fiscal integrity of both operations.

In the midst of understandable speculation about the issue, the

government has announced its intention to restructure this corporation

and to relocate the unexamined debts into a holding company for which

taxpayers will be directly responsible. Mr. Speaker, can there be any

surprise that in the wake of this sleight of hand there is public

criticism and suspicion of these operations, especially when the

chairman of the Expo Corporation's finance committee is now chairing

the review panel which is creating the new enterprise? Can there be any

doubt that the prudent course in this matter is a public inquiry, as we

have advised? We will reiterate our call for a public inquiry from a

concern for maintaining the integrity of public administration in

British Columbia.

Similarly, with respect to B.C. Place, we must voice our concerns

about the future of this project as indicated by the government in the

throne speech. I will return to the matter at the appropriate time, but

now let me alert the government to questions in the public mind. B.C.

Place is an opportunity for public-spirited, planned development that

will recover debt for the province if properly handled, and answer the

city of Vancouver's dream for a well-designed residential and

commercial extension to its downtown core. Will it be reduced to a

chance to make a few quick bucks?

Finally, Madam Speaker, I wish to identify one more area that has

been touched on in the throne speech and which you have raised

yourself. This is a question of the family, a matter close to the

hearts of hundreds of thousands of our citizens. The family is directly

affected by what we in this House do about providing opportunities. for

employment and education and is dependent upon our ability to ensure

security for its members. It's inseparable from the great issue of the

status of women in our society. The question of the family, it will be

appreciated, raises philosophically complex issues, because of the

intense interrelationship of the elements. A common error made in

approaching the question,"What is a family these days?" is to mistake

the changes and transformations of the modem family for its decline.

Ironically, many who most insist on the abstract value of family do so

without taking that institution fully seriously.

No better example of this can be pointed to than the neglect of the

last decade with respect to the provision of adequate, affordable child

care in British Columbia. The astonishing formulation of child-care

needs contained in the throne speech strikes me as a parody of logic.

Clearly our direct concern and responsibility must be for the

well-being of our children. Some 137,000 children are being cared for

outside the family dwelling on an almost daily basis in this province,

and we currently provide licensed spaces for a mere 19,000. That is the

simple reason why adequate, affordable child care ought to be a

government priority.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In light of initiatives currently underway at the federal level

there can be little doubt of the relevance of introducing good child

care now. Mr. Speaker, I call on the government to take the initiative

and take advantage of new federal programs which will be announced at

month's end, and to set a realistic goal of universal, affordable child

care within 36 months. Do it now. Seize the opportunity.

In sum, Mr. Speaker, I understand your government's efforts to wrap

old pioneer rhetoric around new and emerging values, but its efforts to

define a list of objectives that can be ticked off like notches on John

Wayne's gun miss the point. I want to remind the government that

complex people living complex lives do not always fit into the simple

categories of public or private or economic versus social or revenue

versus expenditure. It's not a question of getting government on or off

the backs of private sector people; rather we must be prepared to

pioneer new ways of planning to deal with the very real needs of real

people grappling with unemployment, changing family structures, poverty

and aging. If we persist in looking to the economic language of the

past, we will miss the opportunity to be pioneers of the future. As new

pioneers we can be stewards and managers of a mixed and versatile

economy. We can marry the hierarchical structures of our bureaucracies

and our committees and make them match real people in real communities.

There has never been a greater need for this House to think big and

think comprehensively and think compassionately, using the tools and

the mandate given us by twentieth-century management and the people to

create opportunities, develop economic and social securities, and

maintain the integrity of our democratic values. Our future well-being

depends on it, and a seven-year-old in Kamloops depends on it as well.

HON. MR. DUECK: Hon. members, I am proud to be a Canadian. My

father, when I was just a little boy, decided to come to this country

because he taught school, and taught geography and history, and he had

heard and learned about the freedoms of this country. My fortune was

that he came to this country to live.

But that's not all, Mr. Speaker. I am also proud that I am a British

Columbian, where we have beauty, tremendous climate, natural resources.

We have everything that anyone in the world would wish for and would

like to live in. So it is my pleasure that I live in British Columbia,

the best province in the world in the best country of the world.

But there is more. The Central Fraser Valley, which is a rural

community, is however close to the city. It has all the amenities of a

city, and yet we live in the country with fresh air and the lifestyle

that goes with a community of that size. So I am very fortunate to be a

resident of the best constituency in the best province of the best

country of the world.

But there is more still, Mr. Speaker. The people in this community

in this constituency are traditional-lifestyle people, family-oriented,

frugal, loving and caring for their neighbours, and I am so proud to

represent the people of the Central Fraser Valley. So I represent the

best people in the best constituency of the best province of the best

country in the world.

I must say also that these people in my constituency are very

intelligent. They generally vote the right way. There are very few that

ever vote funny, although this time they may have had their discernment

impaired when they voted for me. However, I won't hold that against

them.

[ Page 61 ]

Mr. Speaker, I am both pleased and proud to be able to speak to you

today, both as the MLA for Central Fraser Valley and also as the

Minister of Health. Let me begin by reflecting on the community and the

people that I have been elected to represent. The Central Fraser Valley

and its people are my roots. An understanding of my origins and my

community will go a long way towards explaining my philosophy and

vision for our health system.

The Central Fraser Valley is a beautiful part of British Columbia

nestled between metropolitan Vancouver and the rugged countryside of

the Fraser Canyon. It is a rural area with country fairs, fresh air,

rolling fields and farm-fresh produce, and yet it has also thriving

cities and towns with quality shopping, excellent restaurants,

first-class schools and accessible medical and hospital services. But

it is the people of this area that are the real strength of this

community. They are tremendous, hard-working and industrious people,

but always with enough time for family, friends and enjoyment of life.

They are self-sufficient, but always willing to lend a hand to those

that need help to become more self-sufficient. They are responsible and

frugal in handling their money, and yet exceptionally generous to those

that are less fortunate. While fiercely independent as individuals,

there is a harmony and cooperation which always puts the community

first. They are established families with many generations of history

in the Fraser Valley, and they are also recent immigrants wanting to

plant seeds in their new homeland.

But the really common thread which is woven through the fabric of

Central Fraser Valley is the belief in basic values: belief in the

family, belief in honesty and integrity, belief in each other. Mr.

Speaker, I am proud to be the MLA for this area, because it stands for

all of those values which I feel are important to our society.

[4:15]

What does all this have to do with the health care system in British

Columbia? The health care system is a complex, dynamic system on the

one hand; yet fundamentally its cornerstone will always be one

individual humanly caring for the needs of another individual. It is

high tech, but it is still high touch. It is an expensive $3.2

billion-a-year business, supporting over 70,000 jobs. Yet it is a

system that would not be what it is without the thousands of volunteers

who make such a major contribution at all levels: on community boards

and on hospital auxiliaries; neighbours helping elderly neighbours in

their homes; support groups for cancer patients and heart/stroke

victims. Not only do these volunteers represent a critical and valuable

component of our health care system, but they also dramatically

illustrate that people do not want government to do everything for

them; they want to do things for themselves, with government acting as

a safety net for those times when it is really necessary.

I am rapidly learning more and more about this health care system.

While it is a business, there are some aspects of the system which are

unlike any other business that I have been involved with in the past.

Where else do you find a consumer totally isolated from the financial

consequences of receiving a service? Even British Columbia's

long-standing tradition of hospital user fees, which provided a small

reminder of health care costs, has been removed in response to the

federal government's Canada Health Act. The service providers are also

isolated from the financial consequences of their decisions to order

services. Providers of care do not compete with each other in an

economic fashion. I'm raising these points for two reasons: first,

because I think they help to shed some light on why the system has

become expensive; and second, to point out that traditional solutions

may not always be appropriate. We have to be creative and innovative in

our approach to solving health problems.

As a new Minister of Health, I'm also becoming more and more aware

of the limitations of our health system. Despite its being a

first-class system which ranks favourably with any in the world, it can

only go so far in contributing to our goal of good health for all

British Columbians. The fact of the matter is that some of the major

determinants of good health are beyond the control of the health

system. For example, a healthy lifestyle, with plenty of exercise and

sensible eating habits, is crucial to good health. Similarly, a

smoke-free environment and responsible use of alcohol are tremendously

important. Of course, heredity plays an important role in our ability

to maintain good health. I am mentioning these facts because, on the

one hand, they provide a healthy, balanced perspective on the

responsibilities and limitations of any health care system and, on the

other hand, they provide some clues as to future directions of the

system.

Mr. Speaker, earlier in my presentation I asked about the basic

values held by the people of Central Fraser Valley, values which I

proudly share. Well, despite the complexities of this health care

system, I'm convinced that those values have just as much meaning and

application in my new role as Health minister, and to some degree I

have shaped my vision of the health care system on these values. I

believe strongly that people want to be self-sufficient. They want to

be responsible for their own physical and mental well-being. We must

encourage people to be responsible for their own health. Not only do

they want to have control over their own lives, but also, such personal

responsibility leads to a judicious and efficient use of our health

care system, so that there is a more accessible and high-quality

service for those truly in need.

We must continue to support and encourage the informal part of

health care, the volunteers at all levels of our system and the

day-to-day helping and support of our neighbours. I believe that people

genuinely want to help and enjoy helping others, and receive great

satisfaction from the rewards of their activities. Such people are the

unsung heroes of health care. They teach us daily that we can and do

solve so many problems on our own without professional help and without

government intervention.

With dozens of competing interests, different professions, different

kinds of agencies, different levels of service delivery, it has amazed

me how remarkably well our service works. I believe the reason for this

is the unifying goal of quality health service for all British

Columbians. I would like to promote even better cooperation and

coordination among all sectors of the health system. To this end, my

personal objective is to obtain open and honest two-way communication

between the ministry, health service providers and the community at

large. I may not always agree with every viewpoint, but I will do my

best to listen with an open mind and to try to understand the other

person's perspective.

In addition to people and groups communicating with the ministry, it

is equally important that these groups and individuals communicate

among themselves. Nurses should be talking with doctors and

physiotherapists about common problems, doctors and chiropractors

should openly discuss any difference they might have, and so forth. As

a former trustee of an acute-care hospital, I know that communities

have a genuine interest in decisions that may impact on them. We should

make maximum benefits of the services, knowledge

[ Page 62 ]

and energy that exist in every community in British

Columbia. Local people and groups are in an ideal position to identify

health issues in their own community and to suggest solutions which

reflect the unique characteristics of that community.

You may have noted that I have made very little mention of words Re

cost-saving and efficiency. This is not to say that they are

unimportant to health care. On the contrary, they are vitally important

to its ongoing survival. But if we steer the health system in the

directions that I have described, then an efficient and effective

system should be a natural byproduct of these directions. As you may be

aware, my ministry, at the request of the Premier, is conducting a

review of all its programs and services. With this review scheduled for

completion by this summer, it is difficult for me to provide detailed

specifics on priorities for the health system, but let me share with

you some of my preliminary thoughts.

First and foremost, I can assure everyone that this government will

continue to make health care its number one priority. While

professional revenues may not always be at the levels that we would

like, residents of British Columbia can be sure that essential health

care services will not be cut or eliminated.

In addition, we must attempt to improve the distribution of services

and manpower in this province. In many cases we have an oversupply of

health practitioners in metropolitan areas and other desirable parts of

this province; concurrently, we sometimes have great difficulty in

recruiting and retaining manpower in northern and isolated communities.

People in these communities are no longer accepting traditional

inequities and are demanding that government take positive action in

rectifying these differences.

We must learn to effectively harness new technology and use it to

optimum benefit, rather than becoming a slave to it. I believe we can

do this by introducing new technology in a careful and systematic

manner, ensuring comprehensive evaluation before we introduce such

technology as a permanent feature of the health system. Such a strategy

in no way compromises our position among the leaders in Canada in

technological advances.

We must continue to emphasize the importance of prevention in our

health programs. One way that we might do this is to place a high

priority on services to children. This has to start with high-quality

prenatal programs and early childhood screening and detection programs,

through to immunization programs, treatment programs, no-smoking

programs, programs aimed at minimizing substance abuse. Unquestionably,

this is an area where we should get our biggest bang for the buck.

We must, in cooperation with other ministries, support programs

aimed at strengthening the family unit. This might include measures to

minimize child abuse and family violence, or it might include support

to family care-givers who are caring for an elderly parent or

grandparent. I have not tried to be exhaustive, but simply to give some

of my own views on areas that should be among our priorities.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me state very clearly that I'm

becoming increasingly aware of the tremendous complexities, issues and

challenges that face the health care system of British Columbia, and I

would in no way attempt to minimize them. However, like any of our

successful enterprises, I believe that you must be clear on what

constitutes your core values before you can even attempt to tackle the

problems. In this regard I feel particularly fortunate in coming from a

community and family which has provided me with a clear sense of

values, personal responsibility, helping others, working cooperatively

with others and communicating openly and honestly with all concerned. I

believe that these values will help us to maintain and improve our

firstclass health system.

I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, and the Deputy

Speaker, and I would like to congratulate the MLAs on both sides of the

House. I would like to congratulate the cabinet ministers for their

appointments. I would like to congratulate my colleague the second

member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong). I would like to

congratulate the Premier for winning the, election, and I believe our

Premier will go down in history as one of the finest that this province

has ever seen.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to

speak in this throne speech debate of the thirtyfourth parliament. I am

thankful that so many of my colleagues could attend as well.

As I begin my first speech in these chambers I am conscious of all

those in Vancouver East who have gone before me. My riding has been

represented by truly great individuals, truly great socialists, who

were dedicated to advancing the cause of social justice and economic

democracy, from Dr. Lyle Telford, the city of Vancouver's first

progressive mayor, to Arthur Turner, Harold Winch, Dave Barrett, Alex

Macdonald, and now of course the current and very able first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). The people who have been elected for the

NDP and the CCF before it in Vancouver East have served not only as

critics; they've also helped to build this province by developing

constructive and imaginative policies which have contributed to the

wealth of this province.

I would like to make special mention of Alex Macdonald, my immediate

predecessor. Alex was clearly the best Attorney-General this province

has ever seen. But I think one of the most significant contributions

was the creation of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. That agency gained

for the Crown a share of the revenue generated by the natural gas

industry. We — the people — are the owners of that resource and we

deserve a share. It earned for the province millions of dollars, and

ironically, this government now seems poised to abolish this agency. I

think that would be a tragedy, and as the energy debate leader for the

NDP I'll have more to say about that later.

Mr. Speaker, I've lived in Vancouver East my entire life. I'm proud

of the outstanding tradition we have had, and I am conscious of the

burden on me to follow in that tradition and in those footsteps. I am

indeed honoured to represent the constituents of Vancouver East. My

constituents are working people. They are confident people and

self-reliant. They have consistently supported the New Democratic

Party, because they believe that this great province of ours can be

managed infinitely better. They believe that the tragedy and waste of

unemployment need not continue, and they have hope for the future.

[4:30]

Mr. Speaker, there are many issues I could discuss today, but I'd

like to concentrate on the problem that is most on the minds of my

constituents: the economy of British Columbia. It is really hard to

believe how inept the government of this province has been over the

last ten years. This rich and

[ Page 63 ]

magnificent province now has an unemployment rate

only equalled by Atlantic Canada. The latest unemployment figures

demonstrate the severity of the problem. In January over 220,000

British Columbians were without jobs. That's over 15.3 percent of the

workforce. Some regions of the province are worse than others. In the

Kootenays, the Okanagan, the southern interior, and of course in

Vancouver East, unemployment ranges near a staggering 20 percent.

Perhaps even worse, however, is what is happening to our young people.

As the youngest member of the Legislature, I feel a special need to

speak out on their behalf. There are over 69,000 young people between

the ages of 15 and 24 out of work. That represents over 24 percent of

the youth in our province; a quarter of the young people are out of

work. Among young men the figures are a shocking 27 percent.

The throne speech says nothing to young people who are unemployed

and who have lost hope of finding a job. The statistics have been cited

so often that many people become bored with them. Certainly members of

the government seem bored with them. The press have heard them so often

that they're barely newsworthy. The problem is that these statistics

represent real people — real human beings that want desperately to work

and contribute to society. As I walked door to door during the last

election, the human face behind the statistics became clearer to me. In

my riding alone there are over 8,000 households that contain someone on

social assistance. Think about that. If they live side by side, that's

the equivalent of 400 city blocks. It's like going from the University

Endowment Lands to Surrey.

I encountered in my door-to-door travels single mothers trapped in

poverty — the overwhelming majority of social assistance recipients;

proud men who, at the age of 50 and after 30 years in the sawmill, were

suddenly thrown out of work; new immigrants who are struggling to adapt

to a strange country with a strange language; and young people back

living with their parents and slowly giving up hope of finding a job.

In my riding today, nearly one out of every two houses has someone on

social assistance or unemployment insurance.

What happens to a society that allows such high levels of

unemployment to continue? We face a lost generation of young people,

lost to productive work and doomed to a life of poverty. The human

waste of unemployment, in terms of lost potential, is enormous. The

social costs of unemployment are evident all around us: family

breakdown, emotional strain, suicide, alcoholism. Recently in Vancouver

East we've had a couple of very tragic incidents that highlight the

kind of strain that unemployment and poverty bring to people in this

province. The economic costs, in terms of lost production, is like an

anchor holding back the potential of the province.

Unemployment is a provincial scandal sapping the natural strength of

British Columbia, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is fundamentally

immoral. I would like to quote the head of the Catholic Church, Pope

John Paul, who said: "It would be false and deceptive to consider the

distressing problem of unemployment as a product of passing

circumstances or as a purely economic and socio-political problem. It

is really an ethical problem, a spiritual problem, because it is a

symptom of a moral disorder existing in society when the hierarchy of

values is broken." He goes on to say: "The state must not resign itself

to having to tolerate chronic high unemployment; the creation of new

jobs must constitute for it a priority." Well, I fully agree with those

remarks.

The problem we have today with this government is that it places

other values above those of work. It promotes the accumulation of

capital by a few. It wants to reduce government regulation in business.

It constantly confuses private and public business. This is the moral

disorder the pope refers to. Taking those words, the Canadian

Conference of Catholic Bishops have tried to translate that message

into the Canadian context, and they argue for two overriding moral

principles to guide government.

The first principle concerns the priority of labour. Human work

gives special meaning, dignity and worth to life, as Bishop Remi de Roo

of Victoria has stated. It is through the activity of work that people

exercise their creative spirit, realize their self-worth and develop

their personalities. By interacting with their fellow workers in a

common task, women and men participate in the development of their

society and give meaning to their existence as human beings. In this

context the tolerance, and indeed acceptance, of continued high

unemployment by this government is immoral.

The second principle the bishops talk about has to do with the

preferential option for the poor and the oppressed. This means that the

needs of the poor take priority, or should take priority, over the

desires of the rich. This does not simply mean more handouts. In my

view, it calls for a more equitable distribution of wealth. Mahatma

Gandhi once said that he judged every government program or initiative

by how it would help the poorest of its citizens. On that basis again,

I think this government fails, and the throne speech really does

nothing to deal with the problem. There are few concrete government

initiatives to create jobs, and there is clearly no commitment to full

employment. In this rich province unemployment cannot, should not and

need not be tolerated. The government should, in my view, use as a

basis for formulating policy the two moral principles articulated by

the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

But, Mr. Speaker, what is the Social Credit solution to unemployment

and to the sorry state of the B.C. economy? It's not a new solution but

rather a very old one, and one that simply never worked: it is, put

simply, to follow the Holy Grail of the private market, to get on their

knees and genuflect to Milton Friedman, to remove government regulation

and reduce taxes to corporations. But this is precisely the direction

followed by the Bill Bennett government. It's the same old story: the

rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That saying has been around

for a while, and it sounds a bit trite, but I think it's the reality in

British Columbia.

Let me demonstrate. Taxes have been cut to corporations for the last

couple of years by several hundred million dollars. The tax burden has

shifted dramatically in this province away from corporations and onto

individuals. In 1979, 38 cents on every dollar received by government

came from taxes on people, primarily from personal income and sales

taxes. In 1985, however, such taxes accounted for 49 cents of every

dollar received by the province. In the same period corporate taxes

fell from an already low 8.5 cents of every dollar collected to an even

lower 6 cents. Natural resource taxes dropped from 23 cents to 9 cents.

We all know that the rich don't pay their share of income taxes. In

fact, there were a thousand wealthy families in British Columbia which

paid no income tax last year. It is hard-working, ordinary British

Columbians who pay the taxes in this province — people like those in my

constituency of Vancouver East. So the tax burden has shifted away from

[ Page 64 ]

corporations, away from the natural resource sector, and onto working people.

This government says in the throne speech that it wants to further

reduce this already-too-light burden on the corporations. This

trickle-down theory of economic growth has not worked. If it was going

to work, surely it would have worked by now. Surely we would have seen

some evidence that the unemployment rate would have come down with

these massive tax cuts to corporations.

What's even worse, Mr. Speaker, is that the government doesn't only

want to give a free ride to B. C. business, but it is pursuing a

strategy of promoting foreign investment. Let's give them a free tide

as well. What was the first thing that the Premier did when he got

elected? The first thing the Premier did was turn down a request by

Sylvia Russell of the Vancouver food bank because he was too busy. What

did he do? He met with Glenn Babb, the South African ambassador. He

said: "We want money from South Africa. We want investment." It doesn't

matter that everywhere around the world governments have severed ties

with this racist regime. It doesn't matter that the Canadian government

has applied sanctions against South Africa. We want their investment,

and we are prepared to take that kind of money. I think we're a

national embarrassment when it comes to South Africa. It is appalling

that in this rich province the government has resorted to begging for

investment from an apartheid regime.

The next thing the government did was intervene to assist the

Hongkong Bank to take over the Bank of B.C. While Vancouver City

Savings Credit Union, an institution required by law to invest only in

B.C., was attempting to purchase t