1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3483 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Privatization in Energy ministry. Mr. Clark –– 3483

Mr. Gabelmann

Health pilot project for seniors. Ms. A. Hagen –– 3484

Voter enumeration for Boundary-Similkameen by-election. Mr. Harcourt ––

Mr. Barnes

Stumpage rates. Mr. Miller –– 3485

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. Reid –– 3485

Ms. A. Hagen –– 3489

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 3492

Mr. Blencoe –– 3495

Mr. Vant –– 3498

Mr. D'Arcy –– 3501

Mr. R. Fraser –– 3504

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Today, we have arriving in British Columbia

two very distinguished visitors, King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden and

Queen Silvia. They will be here in the Legislature tomorrow, and this

evening they will be hosted by His Hon. the Lieutenant-Governor. I know

that all members of the Legislative Assembly will want to wish Their

Majesties the very best in British Columbia.

As well, we have in the gallery today two future leaders of British

Columbia: the president of the Burnaby Young Socreds, Glen Helmlinger,

and Matt Schwanebeck, vice-president. I would ask the House to bid them

welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this

afternoon are several very active women in the province of British

Columbia, members of our Social Credit Women's Auxiliary. I would now

like to recognize them: Eva Matheson, Coquitlam; Myrna Gething,

Hudson's Hope; Bunny McDonald, Coquitlam; Edrie Jackson, Coquitlam:

Jeanne Eddington, Surrey; Jean Hobbs, Prince George; Joyce Martel,

Terrace; Aggie Flett, Nanaimo; and Gwen Honigman, Gabriola Island. And

we have two visitors, Amanda and Florence James, from Nova Scotia. I

would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. HARCOURT: I have some very pleasant news for the

Legislature. On Tuesday, March 15, at 12:13 p.m. precisely, James

Roderick Barnes-McCansh was born, ten and a half pounds — and three

feet long. [Laughter.] He was born to Constance Maxine Barnes-McCansh,

daughter of the second and senior member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Barnes), and Robert McCansh. The proud new grandfather assures me that

this is just the start of a new role for him, because he has three

other children, Beverli, Craig and Deborah, who are going to be

following suit. Congratulations.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the first member for

Vancouver Centre for expressing my genuine excitement over this big

event. Not only do I have a new grandson, but I must say that he has

two inches of coal-black hair, and I understand his hands resemble two

Deep South sugar-cured hams — small ones.

With that, I would just say that it is with great excitement that I

look forward to the new generation, which will be his. Let's keep that

in mind in our deliberations from time to time.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, our congratulations to the newest

grandfather in the House, and I would hope that the child keeps his

backfield in motion like his grandfather.

It's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce to the House

today, from the Association of Book Publishers of British Columbia, the

executive director, Mrs. Gerry Tubin, the president, Ralph Maurer, and

Howard White. Would the House please make these people especially

welcome here today.

Mr. Speaker, while I have the floor I'd also like to introduce two other

special guests of mine in Victoria today, the president of my constituency of

Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale, Mr. Tom Ivanore, who is in the members' gallery.

With him is one of the strongest Social Credit supporters in my constituency,

Mr. Rick Clough. Would the House make them welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the members' gallery today is a distant

relative of mine by marriage visiting from Winnipeg. His name is Arthur

Simpson. He's been taking the warm climes of Victoria for some time and

tells me that within a month or so he'll feel a lot better about going

back to Winnipeg. Would the House please make him welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, somewhere in the gallery today

is a very special, lovely person. This person happens to be my wife,

and she's spent many years putting up with me. I would like the House

to please welcome her.

MR. JANSEN: Two special guests and friends are in the House

this afternoon. Mrs. Sylvia Brown and Mrs. Mary Smith. Would you please

make them welcome.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker. in your gallery are members of the

Langley Memorial Hospital board: Richard Holinaty, David Dreyer, Page

Wheatley, Dr. William Esdale, Iris Mooney and Gary Walker. Would the

House please make them welcome.

MR. LONG: Being a member of the House and a director of B.C.

Ferries, I would like to ask the House to join with me in

congratulating Dolores Gladstone from Prince Rupert on the birth of her

new daughter aboard the ferry Queen of Prince Rupert; and I would also

like to thank the crew who helped with this birth who showed up and

really did a good job for these people.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It is that time in our legislative calendar when we remember those former members of this House who have passed on.

At this time I would like the House to remember Mr. Harry Cartmell

McKay, who died May 17, 1987. He was elected in 1960, Fernie

constituency, as a Liberal; re-elected 1963, Fernie constituency, as a

Liberal. Mr. Arthur James Richard Ash, who died January 15, 1988,

elected 1948, Saanich by-election, member of the coalition, Liberal;

reelected 1949, Saanich. Coalition Liberal. I would ask the House to

remember these former members.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION IN ENERGY MINISTRY

MR. CLARK: A question for the Minister of Energy. Does the

minister agree that under this new, privatized version of his ministry

there is a direct conflict of interest between the goals and objectives

of the petroleum industry, which are to make profit presumably, and to

maximize sales volume, and the goals and objectives of the owners of

resources, the Crown, which are to protect consumers and to get the

maximum return for the treasury for the resource which is, after all.

owned by the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne

there was reference to the establishment of what was termed joint

venture operating boards. There is a community of interest between the

people of the province and these

[ Page 3484 ]

industries, and input from the industries certainly is welcomed by this government.

The employees in a number of divisions of this ministry who have

been doing jobs closely akin to those carried out in the industry, like

assaying and mine reclamation, policing and so on, will continue but

they will continue under boards — two boards, both of which will be

within the ministry. Those employees will continue to work here in

Victoria, but there will be a board and the board's directors will

include those who have a close working knowledge with the industry —

but, of course, not a conflict of interest.

MR. CLARK: Can the minister confirm that the responsibilities

for mine safety inspections and enforcement of safety orders regarding

mine safety will be included as one of the responsibilities the new

privatized parts of his ministry will undertake?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility will always reside, in the last analysis, with the ministry and with the government.

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

and Consumer Services. Does the minister believe that industrial health

and safety inspections and enforcement should be conducted by an agency

accountable to and dominated by the employer rather than by the

Workers' Compensation Board?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I guess I should ask a question

in return of the member for North Island. Are you suggesting that we

are contracting out that service? Is that your suggestion?

MR. GABELMANN: Given the establishment of an agency or a

board which will take over the functions of the Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources in respect of various things, including

mine safety health inspections and enforcement of orders, those orders

and inspections will no longer now be done by the Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources but rather by an agency which will be run

by representatives of both government and the employers. Doesn't the

minister think it's now time that all health and safety inspections in

this province be under the purview of the Workers' Compensation Board,

particularly as this particular inspection service is now going to be

partially privatized?

[2:15]

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would have to defer that question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, in a number of provinces mine

safety inspection is carried out by an agency under the Labour

ministry. British Columbia, on the other hand, along with a few other

provinces, has had the Mines ministry continue to be responsible for

safety inspection. People closer to the industry and more knowledgeable

in the industry are involved in that case. That will continue to be the

case: inspection responsibility and safety responsibilities, in the

first instance, will remain with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources.

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Energy. Can the

minister confirm that the collection of production data which is used

to calculate the royalties payable by companies to the province will

now be done by this new privatized version of his ministry'?

HON. MR. DAVIS: No, I cannot. Anything which involves

confidentiality and certainly any administrative actions which relate

to taxation and the collection of taxes will be retained in the

ministry, but outside the activities covered by these two boards.

HEALTH PILOT PROJECT FOR SENIORS

MS. A. HAGEN: My question is to the Minister of Health. A

pilot project for seniors was announced in the recent throne speech. I

would like the minister to tell this House the location of the proposed

project, the size of the staff and the specific programs that that

project intends to offer.

HON. MR. DUECK: This information will be coming forward in due course.

MS. A. HAGEN: A supplementary to the minister. Could the

minister please advise this House what kind of consultation he had with

the BCMA, the Capital Regional District and the Greater Victoria

Hospital Society in relation to this project?

HON. MR. DUECK: There has been consultation going on for some

time about the concept, but as you know this was a throne speech, and a

throne speech is generally a vision of what the government is going to

do. It was mentioned by your leader this morning that it is a vision of

the direction the government is going, and that is fact. Therefore you

don't go around telling people what the throne speech will include, and

we are now setting things in motion to establish the concept of these

services that we have announced.

MS. A. HAGEN: I might note then that perhaps the minister's

congratulations to those bodies I just mentioned were a little

premature. With regard to the same seniors' project, and in the hope

that perhaps the minister can define the vision, apparently the

ministry now thinks that seniors would be better served by a number of

health practitioners in the alternative therapies — people such as

chiropractors, physiotherapists — and many seniors on fixed incomes as

we know now find the fees that were introduced last year a deterrent.

Can the minister tell us whether he has decided to remove these

deterrent fees, these user fees, from the alternative therapies?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the member will have to wait for the budget speech.

VOTER ENUMERATION FOR

BOUNDARY-SIMILKAMEEN BY-ELECTION

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

Provincial Secretary, who is making us green with envy with that St.

Patrick's Day outfit. I would like the Provincial Secretary to know I

have just received confirmation from the chief electoral officer, in a

letter dated March 8, that he does

[ Page

3485 ]

not intend to order a full enumeration for the upcoming Boundary-Similkameen

by-election. Will the government now join with the opposition in a joint request

to the chief electoral officer to conduct a full residence-to-residence enumeration,

so that we can have the most fair and efficient voters list for the by-election?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to add that one of the Pages — who

falls within your purview, Mr. Speaker — asked if this jacket comes

with batteries, and the answer is no.

To the hon. Leader of the Opposition, it is the intention of the

chief electoral officer to conduct a complete blitz of the

Boundary-Similkameen riding to enumerate door-to-door those areas where

there may be new housing or any new senior citizens' rest homes, or

anyplace where there has been or is likely to be movement of

individuals. I predict that by the time the by-election eventually

rolls around, yes, it will be the most complete election list we have

had for that area yet, and I concur with him on that.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, that wasn't my question. I asked

if you would be willing to do a full enumeration, because you did

promise a full enumeration to replace the elimination of

section 80

votes. If the government won't order a full enumeration, and the

government has now eliminated

section 80 — a

section which allowed

2,100 people who were missed in the 1985 enumeration to vote in

Boundary-Similkameen in the 1986 provincial election — will the

Provincial Secretary at least promise that the sections of Bill 28

eliminating

section 80 will not come into force for this by-election?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I don't want to offend the House with any

comments on future action, but I can tell you this: as was canvassed in

the last session of this Legislature, we're not eliminating

section 80s

and, indeed, there will be five additional days in which to capture

those individuals who, for whatever reasons, are not on the normal

voters list.

Between now and the time the by-election is called, the awareness

level will be heightened in the area. Individuals will be told the many

places where they can go and register to get on the voters list. We

will conduct a blitz of the entire area; we will make more areas

available; we will enumerate door to door any new or quasi-new

residences in the area. There is still an obligation in any free

society for individuals to take that one extra step: to go out and

register if they are at all concerned about becoming voters in the

area. By that time the awareness level will be so high that the Social

Credit will be returned in that area with even a greater majority.

MR. BARNES: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'd like the

Provincial Secretary to define "quasi-new residence." Is that somebody

who is partially under a bridge or sleeping under a bridge or behind a

garbage dump? What is a quasi-residence?

HON. MR. VEITCH: If the hon. member is asking if members from Vancouver Centre be allowed to vote in Boundary-Similkameen, the answer is no.

MR. BARNES: I was quite serious when I asked him what a quasi-residence

is, because we went through this and, as he said, we canvassed this question

section 80s. We asked the minister what would happen if, after he had done

a 95 percent enumeration of all voters, and the list was almost complete. there

were a few people left off on election day. What happens to those people? Will

they be able to vote in a democratic society, or will they be disfranchised?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes. in a democratic society — in this

democratic society — they have every democratic right to vote,

providing they have attained the eligibility of individuals that are

allowed to vote in a particular area — that, for the member's

edification, being a Canadian citizen of the full age of 19 years.

Those individuals will be afforded every opportunity to register, to

get on the voters list, and after the timely period after the writ is

dropped they will have six additional days in which to register and act

on the voters list. I suggest that for anyone even remotely interested

in the process of democracy there is a small obligation upon that

individual, whoever he may be.

STUMPAGE RATES

MR. MILLER: Question to the Minister of Forests. The Premier,

responding to pressure from the Prince George producers on the weekend,

said that the stumpage rates in that area were a bad scene and would be

reviewed. That was supposed to have been done yesterday. Could the

minister advise what decision was taken with respect to the stumpage

rates in that area?

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes, we've reviewed the situation in the

Prince George area. The report is due in my office tomorrow, and from

there we will be taking appropriate action.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I would ask

leave for the Special Committee of Selection to sit while the House is

sitting at 3 o'clock p.m. today.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And with that, adjourned debate, Address in Reply.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

(continued)

HON. MR. REID: I'll accede to the member for Nanaimo.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Nanaimo seeks leave to make an introduction. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker. I want also to

thank the hon. Minister of Tourism. My colleague the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) has left a note with me asking me

if I would make an introduction on his behalf. A group of students from

Esquimalt Secondary School. with their teacher. Mr. D. Taylor, are here

in the gallery, and I would ask the House to please join me in

welcoming them.

[ Page 3486 ]

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it's appropriate that one of the

groups introduced today is from Sooke, because I was going to make

mention of the absence of the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, and I

was going to mention the museum attendance in Sooke and the quality

performance that that museum is adding to the community of Sooke. I

commend the Esquimalt Secondary School for being here today.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the government's throne speech was prepared in such a

way as to address the question of deficit reduction, to build a stable

province that provides social and economic security.

The throne speech also deals with the question of a bold program of

privatization. The initiatives already undertaken by virtue of the

interest of the employees of the province of British Columbia in

privatization are beyond our fondest dreams.

A program for regional development to the benefit of British

Columbians is another initiative announced in the throne speech, and a

continued commitment to increased decision-making at the community

level.

The Social Credit government will continue to deliver programs and

services to people within a fiscal framework that is not only fair but

affordable. We will also put in place by year-end a long-term strategic

plan for British Columbia which will lay out our economic and social

objectives for the next decade — very innovative, very aggressive.

A draft White Paper outlining our strategy on fiscal policy,

economic development and social issues will be completed by August of

this year. The White Paper will be given wide circulation throughout

the province so business, labour and all other groups can provide input

and advice to this government.

This government fully supports the free trade agreement with the United States.

[2:30]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I had an opportunity to meet in my office

with the Association of B.C. Book Publishers. There are currently 53

publishers in British Columbia. They published over 300 books in 1987 —

regional, national, cultural, trade and children's books — an increase

of almost 100 percent over 1975. They generate over $12 million in

sales revenue in the province of British Columbia, and they employ 170

direct employees — another indication of an economic employment

potential for the province of British Columbia. I think it's incumbent

upon us as British Columbians to encourage further productions and

publications in B.C. for trade and educational publications. I commend

this group for their contribution to the cultural community of British

Columbia.

The throne speech talks about enacting legislation to help B.C.

business and industries increase throughout the Pacific Rim in order

that we can maximize trade with the United States and other nations of

the Pacific Rim; help B.C. business and industries take full advantage

of the free trade agreements with the United States; provide

assistance, where appropriate, to help business or other sectors adjust

to the free trade agreement; promote British Columbia to international

investors; and also to encourage closer ties with the states of

Washington, Oregon, California and Alaska in both trade and tourism.

The Premier and his entourage spent last weekend in Alaska visiting

representatives from the state and the Yukon, talking about trade and

tourism initiatives that we can cooperatively market, to encourage

further tourism from the southern part of the continent.

We intend to heighten federal awareness of the Pacific region and

its importance as Canada's gateway to the Pacific Rim. We want to

evaluate British Columbia's standing within the federal system. We want

to develop ways and means to bring about more equity for British

Columbia in relation to federal funds. My ministry has a cooperative

agreement dealing with the federal government's ERDA tourism

development agreement, which next week will be modified so that British

Columbia industries and destination tourism attractions can get further

funding on a cooperative basis from Ottawa. We look with anxious

opportunity to that.

We want to evaluate areas of federal jurisdiction within British

Columbia to determine if these functions might be more appropriately

administered by the province of British Columbia.

We want to develop ways to bring about more equity for British

Columbia. We want to determine priority for areas of action between the

province of British Columbia and our federal counterparts. We want to

negotiate with the federal government to restructure the economic

development agreements I've just mentioned. We want to reduce the

emphasis on direct loans in the province in favour of....

MRS. BOONE: Giveaways.

HON. MR. REID: Not in favour of giveaways. We're in favour of

increased involvement by the commercial lending institutions. In

relation to that, when I took over the ministry of culture and sports,

one of the difficult things I found was that most of the organizations

within the province of British Columbia had been operating on a handout

basis for too many years and hadn't been encouraged to generate

business plans.

I can say without question that the ministry now has an agreement

with all the groups being supported by provincial funding and

administered by my ministry to be on a business plan basis. It has

worked to the advantage of the organizations and the province. The

organizations have a more effective three-year planning process in

place. They have a business plan that not only is workable by the

organization but also can be agreed to by the province.

The film industry in British Columbia is the fastest growing film

component in North America. In 1987, the province of British Columbia

generated more than $152 million worth of investment by film and

television productions — almost double the previous year, with major

productions such as Roxanne, Stakeout, Mountain King, After the

Promise, etc.

The interest and economic viability of British Columbia and the

welcome labour climate now within the province have been accepted by

the film industry in major initiatives. There's even an investment now

in North Vancouver by a firm called Cannell Films of more than $30

million to create a seven-studio film production operation as a result

of the change in the labour climate in the film industry in British

Columbia — and that's a positive initiative.

Through the budget process, the government will help the small

business sector further improve its record as a job creator and

economic generator. Social programs — health

[ Page 3487 ]

care in particular — remain an area of commitment and concern of this government.

The time has come to take a new and innovative approach to dealing

with health care. The Ministry of Health will initiate and spearhead a

pilot project here in Victoria. New strategies, techniques and ways of

delivering health care, particularly to senior citizens through a

community-based, integrated delivery system, are long overdue: the

establishment of a senior citizens' centre, a one-stop, specialized

health care centre, staffed by salaried physicians, nurse

practitioners, alternative health care practitioners in the district of

Victoria. Hospitals will be encouraged to use alternative care

practitioners, another initiative long overdue in the health care

system in British Columbia.

We will be awarding a $100,000 grant to the University of Victoria

to develop the new health information system. We will enhance and

strengthen programs to deal with substance abuse, including alcohol and

drugs.

MRS. BOONE: We heard it all in the throne speech.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure the opposition heard

it all in the throne speech, because they weren't paying attention. I

want to re-emphasize the positive issues in the throne speech.

One thing they didn't hear and that I want to strengthen and

emphasize today is the positive thing that's happening out there in

relation to the heritage and conservation programs which come under my

ministry. We conducted a survey of visitors in 1987 of the British

Columbia Museum, Barkerville, Fort Steele, Kilby Store, Craigflower

Manor, Point Ellice House, Keremeos Grist Mill and Hat Creek Ranch.

Without question, the heritage attractions being embellished and

promoted by the province of British Columbia and by the communities and

volunteers out there are one of the best tourist attractions that this

province has to offer.

It was a result of the interest shown by visitors to British

Columbia towards these historical sites and attractions, and the task

force called Project Pride, which went around the province under the

leadership of the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell),

which created a further interest by the communities in embellishing

these historical sites and attractions and offering to the public who

visit the province some cultural, historical reflections of B.C. The

survey we undertook was very encouraging and very interesting. It

talked about the further kinds of things that the province should do.

The visitors to British Columbia talk about the friendliness of

British Columbians and why they come back to B.C. The main reason

people visit British Columbia is the friendliness of the people; the

second most important reason is the cleanliness of the communities; and

the third reason is the safety in the communities which they visit. On

top of that, we add on all those other great things British Columbia

has that others don't have: some of the historical sites; some of the

mountain scenery; some of the whale-watching opportunities; some of the

museums, which they're glad to pay to enter...

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget good government.

HON. MR. REID: ...and good government and leadership. All these things go hand in hand for the tourists in British Columbia.

But the interesting thing about all these attractions is that

they've also created an opportunity for British Columbia to prove, once

and for all. that we are a unique community in the way we treat our

home visitors and our external visitors. If British Columbia could have

retained the same visitation level and hotel occupancy in 1987 as it

did in 1985, it would have done something no other world's fair

community has ever done in the history of world's fairs. But the

surprising thing is that British Columbia went one step further, just

as it did with the world's fair. We blew '85 right out of the water; it

doesn't even come close to matching the '87 hotel occupancy in any

region in the province. That speaks well for the programs which British

Columbians put in place to treat visitors very specially when they

arrive here.

The second-largest industry in the province is the hospitality

industry; it's the second-largest employer, generating in excess of $3

billion in 1987....

MR. MOWAT: How much'?

HON. MR. REID: Three thousand million. Mr. Speaker, $3

billion in income in 1987 is an increase of $400 million in hospitality

income in B.C. over 1985, an unheard-of success. The reason that

happened is that the world's fair was such a total success; the world

found out about that place called "hospitable British Columbia." So

people came in record numbers, and they brought into the province in

1985 room rental expenditures of $416 million and in 1986 — which was

an astounding year — of $605 million. And 1987 was up $100 million

dollars over 1985, to a total of $516 million worth of room-rental

expenditures.

That talks about the product called British Columbia. That talks

about the pride of British Columbians generating interest in our

communities, invite visitors to come to British Columbia. having a very

receptive community, having people believing in what British Columbia

has to offer —not only as a product, but as a place to visit. That's

why heritage sites and historical sites are such an important component

in the product called tourism.

Canadian visitors spent in British Columbia, on average, $57 per

person, higher than in any other province in Canada. Overseas visitors

spent, on average, $58. When you have an increased visitation. which we

did have in '87, that's the kind of generation in funds that the

hospitality industry garners.

Fifty-six percent of the people who visited British Columbia in 1987

came by rubber-tire traffic, and 14 percent came by recreation vehicles

and campers. The reason that's important to emphasize in the throne

speech about the economy of British Columbia is that the state of

California has more recreation vehicles than there is population in

British Columbia. There are over three million rubber-tire recreation

vehicles in California, so that product we continue to market and

promote.

Those people spent a lot of time in 1987 visiting other parts of

British Columbia. They saw us in '86 but they came back in '87. and

they visited regions they hadn't heard of before. They came back

because we had such friendly people — as a result of programs such as

SuperHost in 1986 — and they spent so much time in the metro Vancouver

area in that particular year that they wanted to see the rest of a

province which could create the kind of enthusiasm that British

Columbians had as superhosts in 1986. So they visited areas around the

province that they hadn't visited before, such

[ Page 3488 ]

areas as the North-by-Northwest, the Rocky Mountain region, the Okanagan, the Kootenays...

[2:45]

AN HON. MEMBER: The Nicola Valley.

HON. MR. REID: ...the Nicola Valley, the Fraser Canyon.

Why I relate this so emphatically is that the province of British

Columbia had the largest increase in visitors in 1987 of any other

province in Canada, and that's a total turnaround from any other

world's-fair-hosting community, because normally a hosting community

for a world's fair has worn out all the opportunities to show itself

off to the visitor in that particular year and so people go to other

places in subsequent years. But that didn't happen in British Columbia.

What we've been able to do is generate an interest in British

Columbia by not only external tours but also internal tours. British

Columbians, on average, visited inside British Columbia an additional 5

percent in 1987. It's important to reflect on that, because 50 percent

of the tourism industry is made up of our own people, and the more we

can encourage British Columbians to visit the best products in Canada

and North America that we have of our own, the better it is for us both

with retaining income and generating further income within the

communities around the province. Because British Columbians, by and

large, are not fully aware of the product that we have within the

bounds of the province.

It was fortunate that so many visitors came in 1986 and stayed in

homes of friends and relatives and were told about the products that

these people who came to see Vancouver and Expo...what they saw on the

way. British Columbians were told about a product that they weren't

fully aware of themselves. As a result, we got an incredible

opportunity to invite the people back, and they did come back, and they

came back, as I said before, in record numbers.

The other thing that happened to us was that the cruise ship

industry, which expanded itself in record numbers in 1986 as a result

of the world's fair, set a record that we thought we would never touch

in a four- to five-year time-frame. A surprising thing happened again

about the cruise ship industry in 1987: we generated not only the same

amount of visitors — 313,517 I think the number was — but an additional

500 people through the ports of Vancouver and Victoria as a result of

the cruise ship industry. That indicates the kind of people that have

found out about cruising in British Columbia, and that's an important

number because it's a major focus of my ministry in talking about the

pride of British Columbia and generating further visits and further

income to the economy.

Mr. Speaker, there are going to be substantial investments to bring

computers into the classrooms in 1988. We're going to increase funding

to reflect the increased enrolment in schools, which has been highly

criticized by the opposition on an ongoing basis. We're going to

provide increased postsecondary support and make major improvements in

financial assistance to students in 1988, and we're going to contribute

to make the independent school system more highly recognized.

We're going to computerize a registry of potential organ donors and develop it in conjunction with the motor vehicle branch.

Mr. Speaker, I'm also proud to announce — and my colleague to my

left is pretty proud of it too — that we're introducing mandatory basic

safety inspections which will be extended to include automobiles and

light trucks. This time around we would hope that the opposition would

also check their cars, because the last time, when the argument was to

retain it, we found out in the parking lot at the back of the

parliament buildings that most of the members of the opposition hadn't

even kept their cars up to their total inspection requirements. So we

would hope that this time around they would at least do their part.

Legislation will be introduced to strengthen the development of

Vancouver as a strong financial centre, and the private sector

trading-house activity will be encouraged to help market and sell

British Columbia products and services around the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's an old press release.

HON. MR. REID: No, this is all part of the throne speech, Mr. Speaker.

Waste management and litter acts will encourage the recycling of

municipal waste. The reason why that's a very strong point within my

ministry.... As I said earlier, the second most important reason that

visitors are coming to British Columbia is because of the cleanliness

of the communities. There's a pride that we build up in the communities

when they are concerned about the cleanliness within their own

communities. They do it for two reasons: first of all, for their own

community pride, but also for the reason of impressing the visitors to

the area. I guess there's nothing more discouraging than visiting an

area.... I'm glad the students have left. When you visit a schoolground

in some of the communities in the province.... I would hope the people

in the education system would take it upon themselves to get into this

recycling and litter cleanup program, because there's nothing more

discouraging than visiting an elementary or a secondary school and

finding it totally littered with ice-cream wrappers and Coke bottles

and you name it, dropped at the feet of most of the students — unless

it's dropped by the teachers, because there are only two people that go

there.

MRS. BOONE: Teacher-bashing now.

HON. MR. REID: I would bash the teachers in this respect. I

would say it's time that the teacher component of these institutions

encouraged their students to have more pride not only in themselves but

in the community in which they live, and that they would make a special

effort to go out and clean up the streets. If the students are aware of

the emphasis by visitors to British Columbia to participate in our

communities and see what we've got here.... The strongest emphasis they

have is the cleanliness of the community. And if our young people

coming up today who are going to enter the employment rolls do not have

as one of their goals pride in the community and a concern to clean up

the community, there is something wrong with the system.

There is something wrong with the system if a school of 800 or 900

students can't find it within themselves to take some time....

Interjections.

HON. MR. REID: Parents should do it, but do you want parents

to do it? Do you want parents to follow the students to school and pick

up the paper wrappers?

[ Page 3489 ]

MRS. BOONE: Parents influence their children.

HON. MR. REID: The parents do that full well, but we also

have people who are paid very good wages to instruct students about the

pride of the community and pride in themselves. One thing I think a

teacher should do — you're right — is to instruct students not to drop

their garbage on the street. But if they do, maybe have a once-a-week

clean-up campaign to make their school the proud area that it used to

be. I'm saying that in some cases right now it's not, and I would hope

that the education system would take that on as one of their mandates.

MRS. BOONE: Name schools.

HON. MR. REID: As I travel around the province as the

Minister of Tourism, I'm more conscious of it now than I ever was

before, because of what I have been told by people who write me after

they have left British Columbia and say: "What a great place, but as I

drove down the street by the second member for Victoria's (Mr. Blencoe)

community, there was paper all over the street."

MRS. BOONE: Did they mention the smell in Prince George?

HON. MR. REID: No, because they know that's called "airgold"

in Prince George, and I'm not so sure there are too many complaints....

There are none from the residents, but the visitors to British

Columbia, by and large, do not complain about it very much, and they

understand that some communities, because of the industrial base, are

built on problems such as the smell in the air.

MRS. BOONE: The car-wrecking yards.

HON. MR. REID: Well, some of those should be cleaned up. I have no argument there.

As I said before, we are a world-class community called British

Columbia, and we are world-class because we know how to treat our

visitors; we know what they want; we know what British Columbia has to

offer, and we're able to tell the rest of the world what's here. We

bring into play the friendliness of the people, as I said before, and

the cleanliness of the communities, but the other neat thing is that

we're called the safest community in the world to visit.

So you have those three things going for you, then having all your

attractions and activities and park sites.... Speaking about park

sites, I commend the Ministry of Environment and Parks because, along

with their programs and marketing initiatives in 1987, they set a

record in 1987 for park visitations. They were up 17 percent in park

visitations in British Columbia in 1987 over 1986 in almost every

region of the province.

They had 20 million visits this year. It exceeded any other province in Canada,

and it equalled the entire federal parks system. That says a lot for our parks,

so as we bring on the other neat ones.... We hope that the feds will pick

up the ball and fund the South Moresby acquisition so we can get on with that

additional park within the system, and that British Columbians and other visitors

can utilize that gorgeous park in South Moresby. As we utilize that and talk

about the other parks in the province which are being improved daily — some

of them being privatized and run by local community people, making them a higher

visitation....

MR. BLENCOE: Time!

HON. MR. REID: Are you tired of hearing me? This is all good

news. Mr. Member, I would think you would be writing some of these

things down because they're such interesting numbers. You could use

them in speeches around Victoria and tell them about the good things

that are going on.

Before I run out of time, I want to commend the province of British

Columbia for its initiative in supporting the invitation to host the

1994 Commonwealth Games and the opportunity to prove once and for all

that British Columbia is the world-class community not only in hosting

and in tourism, but also as a sporting community, and in some of the

other neat things that go on in each of the communities in which we

exist.

I know that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), along with

his colleague, will be encouraging all the communities around the world

to vote for Victoria as the hosting community for the Commonwealth

Games in Seoul in September. We hope to win that to prove once and for

all that British Columbia and Victoria and the rest of the communities

in British Columbia are a proud place for every one of us to exist.

MS. A. HAGEN: After that scintillating speech, I want to

introduce my comments by asking the Minister of Tourism and other good

things to take on notice this question. I truly find it hard to believe

that the parks of British Columbia have superseded in number of

visitors to all of the national parks of Canada. Little Prince Edward

Island, for example, has something like a million visitors a year just

along the little strip of Cavendish. I genuinely would like to have him

take that question on notice. It was one of the more interesting

statistics in a speech that lauds British Columbia, a speech that I

think we would all concur with in terms of our love of our province and

our recognition that we want visitors to come here and enjoy all of the

good things that the province has to offer.

I want to get back to the throne speech, not in regurgitating some

of its lines, which the minister did when he needed to pad his speech a

little bit in the course of his remarks about tourism, about which he

is understandably enthusiastic. I want to get back to some of the main

thrusts of the throne speech, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Might I just acknowledge your first time in the chair, Mr. Speaker,

and note that I'm looking forward to your attendant silence in that

position. I will try to make sure I stay in order just to ensure that

that is the case.

I want in the time I have available to talk about quite a large

number of aspects of the throne speech. A thread that I think was

lacking in the Speech from the Throne that we heard, and certainly has

been lacking in the manifestation of the Speech from the Throne from

last year.... The theme of my comments is going to be working with

people with leadership. The counterpoint to that perspective is going

to be what I am more and more disturbed to see: working in isolation

and with a rudderless ship of state. The comments that I'm going to

make are certainly, I hope, going to bear out

[ Page 3490 ]

some of that lack of direction, that lack of any

kind of foresight, and certainly a lack of evidence of working with

people, the real people of the province — the working people, the

professionals, the people who are out there in their regions and

districts doing their jobs both as workers for government formally and

as workers for the public good, in the broadest sense of that word.

As might be expected, I am going to begin my comments in the health

field. This is a field which takes a tremendous part of the financial

resources of the province, about a third of its budget — a consistent

figure, I might add, which has been in place for quite a number of

years, and which takes also a tremendous volume of the very fine human

resources which this province has as one of its fundamental

underpinnings of activity and productivity.

[3:00]

The government over the last number of months has had a great deal

to say about health care costs. It has had less to say about some other

aspects of health care. It has had very little to say about access, and

it has had very little to say about the quality of care. It seems to be

totally preoccupied with the issue of cost — and that is an issue that

certainly government must take as a major concern. However, in looking

at only that aspect of the issues that surround health care, it tends

to develop the kinds of responses to policy development, to planning

and to action that clearly are taken in isolation, and taken also then

further into isolation by its failure to consult with those people who

are concerned not only about costs but about access and about quality.

We see very good evidence of that in what is the only really

descriptive part of the throne speech which we heard on Tuesday. Most

of the throne speech is in fact made up of one-liners, which

cryptically give some evidence of what is to come.

In the description of one undertaking that relates to the Health

ministry there is considerable detail about a pilot project which is

defined to take place in Victoria. This particular item in the throne

speech was of such importance that a press conference was scheduled

following the throne speech on Tuesday afternoon to give further

details of the goals and intent of this particular item. When the

minister attended that press conference, we found that a number of

things seemed not be in very good shape, as far as that project is

concerned. First of all, it appears that it was developed in total

isolation, perhaps in the minister's office, perhaps somewhere else. It

presumably has some relationship to some work that has been going on in

the Capital Regional District with the medical health officers of the

district and the capital regional hospital society, but both of those

gentlemen disclaimed any knowledge of the project and used words like:

"It's a total surprise to me. I hope that we will understand it a

little better when we have some details." So although the project is in

the capital, where surely people have easy access to those people who

will be involved and who are in fact named as principals with the

project, and although those people have been working in the field of

planning, they knew nothing about this.

The minister's answer in question period today, that because this

was a throne speech we therefore don't consult, really doesn't hold

water. When we come to budget, I recognize that there's a good deal of

confidentiality, but a throne speech is really a state of the union

address about where we are right now and where we're planning to go

next year. It's not some secretive document that has to be held in such

confidence that the very people who are going to be involved in some of

the initiatives have no idea about it. It is clearly a project without

details. Even the minister himself has no idea where this particular

project of the seniors' care centre is going to be built.

Finally, it is a project with a very dubious, if in fact clear,

motivation. Most charitably, the motivation is unclear; most

realistically, the motivation seems to have to do with challenging the

status quo, with dealing with cost, not with service and quality. The

project has, in fact, all the hallmarks of having been hatched

somewhere in a hallway at the last minute, and simply thrust into the

throne speech as an idea that somebody suggested was a good one because

some good work was going on in Victoria.

Let me tell you that some good work has been going on in Victoria

for a long time, for 15 years in fact. Perhaps the minister hasn't

noticed — it's something that perhaps he's been too busy to notice —

but there are a number of projects that parallel very closely this

unique pilot project that the minister is now going to be proceeding

with as a result of the throne speech announcement.

In fact, the kind of initiatives stem from the last very thorough

review of health services in this province, a review that goes back 15

years. I have on my desk today the first volume of that study. There

are two volumes which form the essence of the material, and there are

seven backup documents which are in our Legislative Library. It's

popularly known as the Foulkes report, authored by Dr. Richard Foulkes,

a medical doctor, and is called "Health Security for British

Columbians."

I suggest that if the minister would go back and revisit that report

of 15 years' duration, he would find it surprisingly fresh today. It

speaks about community human resource and health centres, and it talks

about an organization that involves all the people who are participants

in health care — the ministry and its bureaucrats, professional people

and the users of the service in the administration through regional

boards — and clearly defines responsibilities. It's a fascinating

document to read even after this time.

One of the clinics that was established at the time that report was

tabled still exists within this community in the James Bay area, an

area with a very high number of senior citizens who have their

residence there. Studies have been done of the work of that particular

clinic, studies, I might note, that this government has never let see

the light of day because they are so favourable to the efficiency and

effectiveness of that clinic and to its excellent service in the

community.

For a government that's concerned about costs, let me just name

three of the reports of that study that very definitely have an effect

on the cost of health care services. First, the people who are served

by that clinic have a lower than average use of prescriptions. The

Pharmacare issue, then, is addressed. They have a lower average number

of referrals, and with the kind of cost to a specialist that means we

have a lower cost for the Medical Plan. Finally, there is a

shorter-than average hospital stay for clients of that centre.

Moreover, it is still an intergenerational centre where seniors, young

people and families of the community work together, share meals and

participate in community affairs. It is community-operated with a

community board. All those features that suggest the kind of piloting

that the minister is looking for are in place.

I could note, too, that within this city — and the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) will know these programs

[ Page 3491 ]

well — at the Fairfield Health Centre and Royal

Jubilee Hospital, there are programs that have taken initiatives to

develop the kind of comprehensive care services that deal with seniors'

concerns about remaining able to live independently and having the

least intrusive care possible. I could make reference to work going on

in any community you want to mention in this province. For example, in

my own city, the Fraser-Burrard Hospital Society two years ago placed

before this ministry an extensive, well-costed program for a continuum

of care services that would have been effective in reducing hospital

stays and better integrating and organizing the services available to

seniors.

We're reinventing wheels and working from a project approach. That

kind of approach is the rudderless ship that picks up an idea, runs

with it as something fresh, doesn't have any knowledge of the history

of this province or the work going on with the professionals and the

volunteer sector in British Columbia, and pretends that it is dealing

with some of the long-term planning issues around health care and, in

this case, the health care of an older population. It's not good

enough, Mr. Speaker. It's not something that's going to take this

province anywhere. I want to submit to you that we on this side of the

House could, at the drop of a hat, in a committee, prepare for the

Ministry of Health a comprehensive plan that would take us a lot

farther and a lot faster than anything we've seen in this House already.

I want to conclude my remarks on the health area for seniors by

paying tribute to a person who was a long-term care administrator in my

riding, who died suddenly in August of last year. His name was Bob

Piaggio, and he was an outstanding public servant. He was an

entrepreneurial administrator — somebody that both sides of this House

could acknowledge. The second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr.

Mowat) knew the gentleman and knows that I speak of a very fine person.

Bob was known for his wonderful sense of humour. One of my favourite

lines of his, having sat in committee meetings with him, as we tried in

my community to work through good planning with the dollars and

resources available, was: "Look, we've warbled this enough. Let's get

on with it." I want to say right now that we've warbled this enough

around some of the piloting work and initiatives that have been taken.

The field knows what needs to be done; the professionals know what

needs to be done; the volunteer sector knows what needs to be done.

Let's not have any more unique pilot projects foisted on us in some

kind of sterile environment. Let's work on the community and the

community work that has been done. Let's stop warbling it and get on

with it, Mr. Speaker. Let's get moving.

There are a couple of other areas of the many areas around health

that I also want to speak about briefly. The throne speech makes

reference again to matters relating to women's reproductive health. It

renews a promise made sometime during the last session for some dollars

to provide for support for pregnant women and for some kind of homes

for pregnant women who may need shelter. Without saying a great deal

about this issue that we've spent a lot of time talking about in the

session just completed, I just want to make this point again. It's

consistent with the point I made about seniors.

This program is nothing other than the most minuscule band-aid to

deal with issues relating to women and families. I'm sure that women

having difficulty with a pregnancy will be grateful for support. I hope

that support translates into the kind of thing that gives them good

nutrition, the kind of counselling and moral support they need, and if

they need housing — and that's something that is important and can be

provided.... It doesn't sound to me like a very contemporary way of

dealing with a pregnancy — I'll even accept that. But it doesn't do

anything about life after a pregnancy has run its course. It does

nothing to ensure that there is going to be housing for women and

children. It does nothing to ensure that there's going to be jobs and

training for women who are the sole support of their family. It does

nothing to really address the woeful lack of child care in this

province. We are dealing with a minuscule part of what a social service

system should provide. I am simply appalled that after a year even that

minuscule effort that was announced last May is reannounced in this

throne speech, with nothing having happened.

Let me say, too, that intrinsic to any programs we provide for women

and families must be programs that deal with family planning and all

that that entails — a knowledge of birth control and the kinds of care

a person and a family need during a pregnancy. Those issues must be

addressed as well. We've only gone a single step toward dealing with

this very important issue of nurturing women and families. Clearly, of

course, there must be within those programs the right of women to

exercise choice and to have abortion available in a medically safe

setting.

[3:15]

Finally, in the health area, there's something in the throne speech

that refers to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, and it has

to do with alcohol and drug programs. It notes that those programs will

be coordinated by the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. It's a

puzzling role. If we look at alcohol and drug abuse as it affects

health and welfare, not control and pricing and all of those things,

it's clear that the ministries that have most to do with that issue are

the Ministries of Health and, probably, Education. Why we would be

looking at this coming into the Ministry of Labour and Consumer

Services. I can't imagine, but I'm fearful.

When I look back to the announcements the government made last

December, coming out of the very excellent public process that produced

the liquor policy review by members of the government, about what it

was going to do about prevention of abuse and rehabilitation where

there was abuse, it appears that the commitment is window-dressing

entirely. There has been no suggestion as yet that there are going to

be dollars or appropriate resources put into that initiative. Numerous

briefs were received by that commission, and very well reported. I want

to just refer to one which came from the Alcohol-Drug Education Service

in Vancouver — the final words of that brief: "We urge our leaders to

resist short-term gains and pressure from those who stand to benefit

financially, and to utilize proven prevention strategies to the

maximum. Now is the time for Victoria to act preventively to ensure

equitable access to health and improved quality of life for all."

Back to the issue of cost, access and quality. We will not reduce

costs unless we do look at the issues of access and quality. The three

are inextricably linked together in any kind of planning that the

government puts into place when working on complex health and welfare

issues. What we have in the throne speech is a series of one-liners

that really give us no sense of leadership. Where there is any fleshing

out, it is a single-project-oriented sort of approach that doesn't

begin to look at long-range planning.

[ Page 3492 ]

Someone asked me yesterday what I thought about the long-term plan announced

in the throne speech. I said: "If that long-term plan bears any relationship

to short-term reality, it doesn't bode well for the people of British Columbia."

Now I want to turn to a number of other issues in the few minutes I

have remaining to me this afternoon. One of the areas I want to talk

about briefly is education. It is talked about briefly also in the

throne speech, and the thrust is in fact consistent with the thrust I

have noted very much in the context of this government, and that is a

movement toward more privatization of our education system.

I want to look at that particularly as it pertains to postsecondary

schools because, quite honestly, I had not really realized the extent

to which the government, by policy and cutbacks in funding, is shifting

very much of the focus which had been the mandate of the colleges and

institutes of British Columbia; it is shifting that focus and locus to

privately licensed schools.

The foundation of the community college system in British Columbia

was to provide access to people in every region of the province. Over

the last 20 years we have in fact developed a network of community

colleges which, with satellite campuses and through the use of

television — the Knowledge Network and the Open Learning Institute —

has made educational opportunity available in every part of the

province. We knew that it was a fledgling system, a system which needed

a great deal of nurturing to ensure that access for all students was

going to be available.

What I am finding, having this in fact confirmed as I talk to

leaders in colleges throughout the province, is that access to

education is being severely eroded. More and more schools are being run

for profit, for fees we would consider exorbitant — $3,000, $4,000 for

six months, four hours of classes a day — schools to which people go

with government student loans but which are accountable to no one. They

are licensed by the Advanced Education and Job Training ministry, but

other than that there is no accountability for curriculum; there's no

accountability for their financial stability.

What we are finding in the colleges at the same time is that there

has been a cutting back, a continued pressure to cut back on programs

which allow people to come in at what I know our college calls the

threshold level — the level that allows them to take courses and

training where they are able to learn and learn productively. Very

often that first level of training is a stepping-stone to advanced

levels of training as they move on, and all of us can tell stories of

people who have had that kind of wonderful opportunity for access.

That's being cut back, Mr. Speaker, and at the same time, again in

this rudderless state we are involved with, there is on the part of the

Advanced Education and Job Training ministry no clear policy on

training. It's ad hoc. Whoever has an idea in the private sector gets a

licence and goes ahead with it. It's not something that is going to

contribute to the economic well-being of the province, and it's not

something that's going to contribute to students being fairly treated

in every part of the province. And it is exploiting them, very much so,

because the fees being charged for the kinds of courses that are

offered — fees, I mention again, that very often come from student

loans which have to be repaid by students — are punitive fees and

totally reprehensible in a province which has a commitment to public

education.

In that field we have many women who are disadvantaged, and I have

just a couple of things I want to say for the record about women. I

know other people in this debate will be looking at their needs. I want

to very clearly put on the record our commitment to fair wages.

There have been people on the other side of the House who have said:

"This would be wonderful, but...." It is a moral imperative in this

province that we have fair wages for women, and the example I use which

epitomizes the attitude is the example of home-care workers in this

province, contracted by our long-term care branch of the health

ministry, who have had a two-cent an hour increase over the last five

years and are still paid in the wage range of $6 to $6.50 an hour. That

is not defensible; that is not fair; and it is something we cannot any

longer tolerate — institutionalized ghettos for women because there is

something that might happen to a bureaucracy. It has nothing to do with

bureaucracy; it has to do with fairness, fairness to women who are

bringing their skills to the workplace.

Time runs very quickly, and I have one other comment that I want to

make around taxation and fair taxation. In my riding, as in many

tidings in the province, the public is finally beginning to get the

equation about the relationship between government funding and their

residential taxes. That applies to schools and it applies to hospitals.

I fear very soon in some areas it's going to apply to transportation.

It applies to municipalities. It is a shocking record that again deals

with ad hockery, that puts into place regressive taxes that hurt the

very people our laws and taxation system should be designed to protect.

It is a situation where the public knows that it is being charged

for a government's dereliction of duty in the areas for which it has

responsibility: health, education, welfare and services. That

responsibility can only be redressed with a thorough review of tax law,

something that our leaders spoke about in other perspectives today.

I want it on the record that the citizens in our communities are

watching what this province is doing. They know what their roles and

responsibilities are, and they know what the roles and responsibilities

of the province are as a whole, and we, working with them, should be

seeking to achieve a fair taxation system that would enhance our

economy and would deliver the kinds of programs that we've come to

expect.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I wish you all the best on St. Patrick's Day. I see you are properly attired.

I rise today to speak in favour of the throne speech, and it gives

me a great deal of pleasure. The first-year performance of this

government has been absolutely tops, and I am proud to have been part

of it. Can you imagine — 90,000 new jobs, the finest growth in

employment in Canada — 7.3 percent, a result of sound fiscal management

and vision. Fantastic!

MR. SKELLY: What's the unemployment rate in Terrace?

HON. MR. PARKER: It hasn't been better. Since we've been in

government we've seen things happen in Terrace that we didn't see

happen in the eight years before. It's fantastic.

Let me tell you, the auto retail sales have never been better. All

retail sales have never been better. The logging opportunities are

many, and forest industry opportunities are many. We'll see an

announcement tomorrow in Skeena that means a great deal for employment

in the city of Kitimat. We will see incredible expansion in the forest

industry all the way north through to Stewart as we bring the power

line to Stewart in the fall of 1989. We've reconstructed the highway

into

[ Page 3493 ]

Stewart so that all of those in the northwest have more employment opportunities.

It's just too bad, you know, that in the last eight years my

predecessor didn't see fit to give some leadership to that constituency

and bring us out of the Dark Ages, but fortunately the people of Skeena

have seen fit to be part of government and we're doing great things.

We've got one of the strongest economies in Canada, and the beauty of

that strong economy is that we're very attractive to the global

environment. We've seen investment grow in British Columbia — over $11

billion in this past year in commitments and investment.

It's to the point now where we see the opposition weakening and

falling off and heading into Ottawa for something else, looking for a

little more government largess to carry on their careers. The

opportunities in opposition in this province are few. Government in

British Columbia is strong and will be here for years to come. You can

see it in the vision of longterm strategic planning — never happened

here before. Their vision as a government is of conviction, of vision

and leadership, and I know you're proud, Mr. Speaker, to be part of

that government.

[3:30]

In developing this long-term plan, our government is drawing on the

skills and the talent and expertise of many people throughout the

province, in both the business world and the academic world as well as

within government. We will see the opportunity for input through a

White Paper which will outline the strategy in a broad range of areas,

from fiscal policy in economic development to social issues. That will

be completed, as we say in the throne speech, this summer. The

opportunity for everybody in British Columbia to participate in this

sort of planning is offered by a government that believes in open

government and consultation, which is a record to date and will be a

record far into the future. That is a tremendous legacy, in my opinion.

Because of our strong and strategic location on the West coast of

Canada, we see an enormous opportunity in the Pacific Rim, and we're

offering leadership in that. We're looking forward to participating

with our neighbours to the south in a free trade agreement, which opens

trading horizons — which are really just limited by our imagination —

to the people of British Columbia. New jobs, lower prices on a lot of

commodities, expanded markets, closer ties with our neighbours....

I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps other people in

the House aren't aware of. The Ministry of Forests and Lands represents

British Columbia on an organization called the — and it's a mouthful —

Western States Legislative Forestry Task Force. It consists of two

state senators and two state representatives from each of the states of

Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California and Alaska — all of our

neighbours. British Columbia and Alberta are associate members of that.

We do a lot of things along our common borders that deal with forest

management and especially forest protection. When it comes to forest

protection, it's not only fire; it's insects and it's pathogens —

diseases.

There is a great deal of cooperation by the agencies. Last year, the

state of Oregon was having a very devastating fire season. They were

overtaxing their supervisory personnel, and we were able to lend them

18 people from the B.C. Forest Service to assist them with their fire

overheads and supervision. We did that because we're neighbours and

because they needed the help, and we've had that sort of participation

and assistance from our neighbours to the south. We see the same thing

in the common border with Alaska up in the northwest. It's a pleasure

to represent British Columbia on that task force.

We are all aware of the key role our Premier played in the

finalization of the Meech Lake accord and the leadership he portrayed

in those deliberations. And although we don't always seem to get a fair

shake from our friends down east.... I have many relatives down east,

being a Nova Scotian by birth and a British Columbian by choice — like

my honoured friend across the way, our new grandfather, a British

Columbian by choice; my congratulations to you and your family.

Although we're often overlooked by our friends down cast, we are strong

on Confederation and will continue to earn our spot in Confederation

and ensure, by working closely with the federal government, that

British Columbia receives its fair share in the different programs

initiated by the federal government on the national scene.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

One of the things that really excites me is that we're working

positively, through the Ministry of Economic Development, to

restructure the economic and regional development agreement,

particularly in the realm of the forest resource development agreement.

We are currently a little better than halfway through a five-year

agreement on what we call FRDA, the forest resource development

agreement, and that has helped British Columbia to catch up on backlog

reforestation in areas where the Crown is responsible for

reforestation. What we're looking forward to now is FRDA 11, as we call

it — a little jargon in the Forest Service — which will help us develop

an effective stand-tending program to ensure that all the reforestation

efforts that have gone on before are well tended, well managed, well

husbanded.

I speak in support of my colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Dueck) and the initiatives that are outlined in this throne speech for

1988. I'm looking forward to seeing some of the proposals that he has

here, especially the one to do with senior care centres and the

opportunities that they offer for our seniors all over the province.

It's interesting, people will tell you that Victoria is the retirement

centre for British Columbia, for Canada: I have to tell you that many

people appreciate the northwest, the north central area or the Kootenay

country for a place to retire. Seeing this type of initiative, where

specialists are available in one centre that avoids the confusion of

being referred to many specialists that so many of our seniors

encounter, I think is an incredible initiative for the whole province.

I look forward to working with my colleague in developing that sort of

initiative in the northwest.

Our health care in British Columbia is second to none in the world,

but we all have a responsibility. every one of us, to make sure that we

lead a healthy lifestyle and that we're less of a burden on our

neighbours, so that our health care system will continue to deliver

first-class care for those who genuinely need it.

Something else I am proud to see is the encouragement for hospitals

to permit the alternative care practitioners into hospital privileges.

As I and many people, I'm sure, in the Legislature and in British

Columbia, have encountered, the services offered by folks like

chiropractors and naturopaths are often the type of care and service

that hospital-bound

[ Page 3494 ]

patients really require and until now haven't been

able to achieve. They need to leave the hospital because these folks

haven't been able to get hospital privileges. That type of initiative

is real leadership, and I'm pleased to be part of a government that

puts that into play.

Mr. Speaker, talking about health care comes into social services.

We have an incredibly effective social service system in British

Columbia, and it's important that that service be delivered to those

who genuinely need it. The people that we have in that ministry work

hard to ensure that the programs are delivered, and they work hard to

make sure those programs are not abused, so that the funds are there

for the people who really need it.

Mr. Speaker, education is really a social service, and this

government is absolutely committed to our young people, their finest

investment. I'm really proud to have been part of a government that can

manage to increase funding to the education system and to come up with

such innovative initiatives as a "Passport to Education." Some of the

youngsters in my home town of Terrace have really changed their

attitude towards their studies. They are seeing something on the

horizon for a little bit of effort. As we all know, a carrot works a

lot better than a stick.

My wife is a teacher, and both of us have gone through university

and we've tried to encourage our kids and worked with them on their

homework and so on, but nothing caught our young fellow's imagination

like that "Passport to Education."

The throne speech refers to the fact that our colleges and our

universities are agents for economic growth, and that's absolutely

correct. The Northwest Community College in our region has served the

people of the northwest very well, paying attention to the needs and

the requirements of the region instead of coming up with some esoteric

type of curriculum. They pay attention to what is necessary, where the

job opportunities are, and where the career opportunities are, and they

have delivered that service very well to all the small communities in

the northwest and on the Queen Charlottes.

As Minister of State for North Coast, I'm working with my colleagues

in the Nechako, Cariboo and Peace regions on the assessment of a

university for the north, one that would probably be centered in Prince

George. We're pleased to be working together; we've created a sort of a

wave of enthusiasm by the educators in the north central and north

coast area of the province, and before the year is out we hope to have

the feasibility study complete, and I'm quite optimistic that we'll be

rising in the House in support of a new university for this province.

Just touching on the minister of state initiative that our

government has instituted, the opportunity for regional input to

government through this initiative is incredible. In the north coast we

have invited all the senior elected members of various levels of

governments to participate in the regional economic group and the

regional social services group. We have invited the mayors, chairmen of

regional districts, hospital boards, college boards and school boards

and presidents of labour councils. One day maybe they'll see fit to

participate and contribute.

We've invited the presidents of chambers of commerce; we had the

chairman of the health unit. But more importantly, we have invited the

chiefs of band councils and presidents of tribal councils to

participate. For too long the natives of our province have been left

out of the planning of and participation in the economic development of

the province. We are pleased on the north coast to welcome them as full

members of our development groups. We've been working closely, and as a

matter of fact, our meeting arrangements and structure are based on

those suggested by a friend of mine in the Nishga Tribal Council. We're

pleased that we can get natives and non-natives in the same room,

focused on the same issues, working together and understanding one

another better.

I'd like to touch on the forestry opportunities outlined in the

throne speech. Last December this House passed amendments to the Forest

Act that reflected the new directions in policies on basic silviculture

introduced by this government early last fall. At first reading of the

bill, I indicated that we believed the role of government is that of a

manager, planner, facilitator and catalyst for the economy. The private

sector's role, on the other hand, is to be responsible for commercial

production of goods and services. Thanks to the passage of the

amendments, we have now shifted the cost of responsibility for forest

renewal on our harvested Crown lands from the government to the

licensee.

At a recent conference on the future of forests, sponsored by the

environmental studies program at the University of Victoria, this move

was welcomed. One of the participants was a gentleman by the name of

Neil Brett-Davies, a professional forester with MacMillan Bloedel. He's

their manager of resource analysis. He said: "The ball is now in the

companies' court, and the job will be well done." He has also made it

quite clear that the industry believes that good silviculture is good

economics.

Our forest industry is now assuming the full costs for basic

silviculture, costs previously credited to stumpage accounts — in other

words, carried by the Crown.

[3:45]

Another initiative is preharvest silviculture planning. That is now

mandatory. We will enforce silviculture performance and will require

audit to ensure that performance is more than adequate. In early

February, the British Columbia Forest Service released a discussion

paper, another means for many of our interested citizens to have

consultation on and input into our policies. We released another

discussion paper — this one on silviculture — on the regulations which

would implement amendments to the Forest Act. We have now received

numerous submissions from industry, associations, organizations and

individuals, and we are now finalizing the regulations for release in

the very near future.

To balance industry's new responsibilities in forest renewal, we

will be bringing to companies the opportunity to acquire greater

security of tenure. During this session of the Legislature we plan to

introduce amendments to the Forest Act to allow the British Columbia

Forest Service to increase the number of tree-farm licences in our

province.

Often we have our forest industry, our forest resource, compared to

performance in countries such as Finland or the Scandinavian countries,

northern Europe, the States, but people fail to recognize the fact that

more than 70 percent of the land base in every one of those

jurisdictions is privately held. Here, over 90 percent of our land is

publicly held, held by the Crown in trust for the people of British

Columbia.

In order to emulate the forest management opportunities that are

demonstrated in those different countries that I enumerated, we have a

tenure system we call the tree-farm licence, which is area-based and

gives a licensee an opportunity to manage a piece of land almost in

perpetuity. As long

[ Page 3495 ]

as the performance is there, they continue to have

the opportunity to manage that piece of land. That's as close as we can

get to the sort of situation that happens in the Scandinavian

countries, in Europe, etc., without alienating the land base. The

foresters in our organization, the British Columbia Forest Service and

our ministry, believe that this is a good, effective system, and so do

1, Mr. Speaker, and I endorse it. I look forward to bringing in during

this session the necessary legislation.

We'll be moving from about 29 percent or 30 percent level of tenure

in tree-farm licence to one of about two-thirds of the land base of the

province as the productive forest land base. Those will all be done

through public hearings. We will judge individual applications for

tenure in terms of company performance and public interest.

The amendments we'll be introducing this session will also provide

for the recapture of the allowable cut from the number of licensees

throughout the province, so that we can lift that volume of competitive

timber from just under 8 percent to about 15 percent — almost doubling

it — so that we will provide additional opportunities for residents of

British Columbia, newcomers to the industry, to be participators in the

forest industry.

We are working with industry, placing a greater emphasis on product

and technology research as we promote the production of value-added

products in our province. We're helping them with their markets. We're

working with the Ministry of Economic Development, who have set up a

network over the world with the Canadian embassies, consulates and

trade commissions so that we can identify new markets and new

opportunities for the small operators in British Columbia.

We're working also towards the removal of tariff and nontariff

barriers in the forest sector. Normative barriers are those that are

selective specifications that kind of keep one of our wood products out

of a certain market. For example, the spruce-pine-fir product out of

the central interior has about an 8 percent tariff in Japan. It's very

difficult to make inroads into that market with the SPF when you're

competing with coastal hemlock, which is producing the same type of

structural lumber, yet because it is hemlock and not SPF it bears no

tariff. Our Ministry of Economic Development is working with us to try

to get those types of situations lifted and clear the way.

Mr. Speaker, we're going to be introducing for discussion to the

people of British Columbia a White Paper on wilderness recreation area

management. Again, all those who are interested and concerned about

this resource and this facet of forest management will have the

opportunity to participate and to submit their concerns on the

management policies for wilderness recreation areas.

All the incredibly great things outlined in this throne speech make

me proud to be part of a government that's created a situation where I

live that's.... We've lived there a number of years, and talking to our

neighbours who have been there all their lives, things are just buzzing

in the northwest. The opportunities there are many and varied, and I

hope there are a number of people here in this House from southeastern

and southwestern British Columbia who will see fit to come north and

see the good life, visit, and maybe you'll drop anchor. There are many

new jobs up there, and we need the expertise that this province has and

offers.

We have the powerline into Stewart. We'll see sawmills up there in the

not too distant future. We'll see the new Westmin mine underway in the very

near future. We have a brand-new sawmill in Houston that's absolutely state-of-the

art worldwide. We have a new sawmill going into Terrace that's going to

scoop the one in Hazelton. We are looking at a situation with the pulp mill

in Kitimat that will increase the number of jobs, increase the utilization and

widen the product scope, increasing our market opportunities out of the northwest.

We've seen highway improvement on Highway 16 west and reconstruction at

Tyee. We'll be seeing more this year on Highway 16 west. We have reconstructed

Highway 37A. We'll work cooperatively with the communities of Stewart and

Hyder to make sure that they are linked with the Alaska Marine Highway and the

tourist operations and opportunities.

It's a good time to be in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, and I'm proud to stand here and support this throne speech.

MR. BLENCOE: Before I get into any specific discussion of

topics let me, on behalf of Victoria and the constituents I represent,

welcome all the MLAs for a new session. All of you make Victoria your

part-time home. I hope and I'm sure that my constituents, the people of

Victoria, will treat you well and kindly and look after you, as they

always have done when MLAs stay in the great capital of the province of

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker. let me congratulate you on your appointment and

congratulate all those others who have been given the privilege of

officers of this House.

I've heard a number of throne speeches in the last few years. They

all have the same ring about them. They all tell the people of British

Columbia how well the government is doing. They're usually full of

clichs and recycled news releases. I don't think this throne speech

has really changed. I've heard a number of people in the last few days

on behalf of the government basically sound like a group of

cheerleaders, trying to convince themselves — because 1 think there are

even some government members who have to be convinced — that this

government is on the right course.

The members smile, and they know what I'm talking about. They know

that not only are the majority of British Columbians today wondering

about what kind of government they have in place, but there are within

the ranks of Social Credit members those who are greatly disenchanted,

frustrated.

HON. MR. REID: Not so. Name names.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't have to name names. They've been on the front pages of papers, Mr. Member.

MR. VANT: Media perceptions.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, you could call it a media perception, hon.

member for the Cariboo, but you know it really sometimes would be

useful for a government like we have today — which really is in deep,

deep trouble at home — to reflect on the last year or so and what you

came into government saying.

Many British Columbians wanted this government to live up to the

expectations that the Premier and the election propaganda.... They

wanted him to live up to those thoughts of open government, integrity

in government, doing the right thing for the people of British

Columbia, leading us

[ Page 3496 ]

to the next century in an atmosphere of optimism

and fairness, and developing a consensus on the critical issues that

face the people of the province. We've heard those words. particularly

from the Premier. No major decisions will be made for people without

consulting the people — we remember those words — open government,

fresh start. But where are we now? A year and a bit later and although

this government may not wish to admit it, there is out there in the

province a degree of cynicism.

They've been let down. They were hoping for something different;

they really were. They were hoping for a government that would believe,

for example, in democratic institutions and principles and uphold them

and cherish them. But we've seen that in the last few months it's not

accurate, and all sorts of events have taken place. Not just in the

estimation of this side of the House, but of people in many quarters of

the province, it's a government that really doesn't take very seriously

the traditions of this House and this parliament —longstanding

traditions of the Legislature on how decisions should be made in

British Columbia.

[4:00]

We were told — once again, in terms of this institution being the

focus for issues and decision-making — that the committees of this

House would consult with the people of British Columbia on critical

issues of the day, that we would have openness and a different

approach. And what have we had? We've had confrontation, upset and, as

the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) said today, a government

that appears to be quite rudderless — no direction at all.

I've heard member after member defend this throne speech talking,

for instance, about what they're doing in education and what they're

doing for children. Yet this is the same government that over the last

few weeks has consistently said they refuse to feed hungry children in

British Columbia. What are people supposed to believe? Do you think

they can believe you really are concerned about children and education?

When we have a dramatic need — and it's been documented that thousands

of children in this province are hungry — the government has enunciated

a policy that it is not prepared to enter into any kind of program that

would try to feed those hungry children. What a reflection on a

government that has lost any sense of right, justice, equality and

fairness in British Columbia! They won't feed hungry children.

There was nothing at all in the throne speech about the concept of

integrity in government, or the problem of conflict of interest in

government. In the last year the people of British Columbia have seen

scandal after scandal — not just in the last year; it's been the

history of the last five years in this province. Social Credit members,

for whatever reasons, have been getting themselves into positions of

conflict of interest, and the Premier refuses to recognize that public

business and private business are totally different and that there has

to be a difference between the two. There was not a word in the throne

speech that you're prepared to deal with that issue, to bring back

confidence to the people of British Columbia that when you're doing

public business you are going to be totally clean. We didn't see that.

Consequently, integrity in government in the province of British

Columbia remains an issue. Yet we see no attempt by this government to

admit that that is indeed an issue to the people of British Columbia.

There was nothing in the speech that would admit one little bit that

privatization and decentralization have been ill-conceived programs,

haven't been thought out properly, and that the dramatic impact upon

this province in many areas has sent us back a long way. We have asked

consistently for this government to give us the evidence, to table the

studies, to do the cost-benefit analysis of privatization to show to

the people of British Columbia that they are going to benefit by

privatization. Yet there is absolutely no admission in this throne

speech that they are going to do that.

MR. BARNES: I just wondered if you could advise the House, Mr. Speaker, whether or not there is a quorum at this moment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Including myself, there is, hon. member — I was just counting.

MR. BARNES: What is a quorum, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ten.

MR. BARNES: Well, we have nine, right?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I'm included.

MR. BARNES: How many members are there in this House? Do you remember? Sixty-nine?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's right.

MR. BARNES: I just wondered. Thank you for that help.

MR. BLENCOE: We don't disagree that a government in power

obviously has the authority to set policy and a direction. But there

comes a time when the people do speak out and say certain things about

policy, and you'd think a government would take another look. It's

incredible that in this throne speech there wasn't an admission of

"let's have another look," in the interest of good government, in the

interest of open government, in the interest of fair government.

We didn't see that. What we see is a government that is prepared

with its Premier to carry on that road, that zealous road, with blind

faith, no analysis, to that great heaven of privatization and all the

benefits that it supposedly will bring to the people of British

Columbia. Where is the analysis? Where was the throne speech telling

the people of British Columbia that now we've had this government in

for, it seems, far longer than since October 1986...?

We've now got this program full tilt, but have we seen the analysis,

for instance, of the selling off of the highways division, the

privatization of the highways division, or the maintenance? Have we

seen the proof that the people of the province of British Columbia will

be better off by this government's program in that area? No proof at

all. What it is is a dogmatic belief that if it's in the private sector

it's automatically going to be better. Blind faith.

The people of British Columbia are a little more sophisticated than

that. The electors are a little more sophisticated than that. They say:

"You're managing our assets and if you want to sell our assets, tell us

why. How are we going to benefit? What's the net return?" But we

haven't had one statement in this throne speech that tells us they are

prepared to do that analysis on behalf of the people of British

Columbia.

[ Page 3497 ]

So the truck moves on, the zealots are still in control —and we've

seen that over the last few months — blind faith, personal views,

overwhelming decisions that should be made for a plural society, and I

refer to the abortion issue. Government should be, in a democracy, in

the business of achieving consensus on critical issues that are going

to dramatically affect every single person living in a society, in this

case the province of British Columbia.

But there is no desire on the part of this Premier or this

government to achieve consensus on these important issues that are

being inflicted on the people of the province of British Columbia.

There is no desire at all. It's one person, it appears, and his belief

that he is automatically right in the critical issues that face the

people of British Columbia, and to heck with any other opinion or any

other viewpoint or any other way of approaching the people's business

in the province of British Columbia.

What kind of democracy are we running in the province of British

Columbia? The people of British Columbia deserve better. They've gone

through the last ten years of turmoil, upheaval, from the Bennett

austerity program, and now what have we got? We've got this crazy, zany

bunch of zealots who are saying they know what to do with the province

of British Columbia — privatize it, sell it off — and a Premier who

says, "I know best and I'm not going to listen to anybody," even to his

own cabinet ministers, even to his own backbenchers, even to his own

party presidents, even to his own rank and file.

I may disagree with this government, but it is the government of the

province of British Columbia. I don't want a ship that is rudderless,

because the people of the province of British Columbia need a

government that at least knows its direction, where it's going. We at

least need stability in the province of British Columbia so the people

of this province can flourish, so that the captains of industry in

other parts of Canada and North America know that this is a stable

society to invest in.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's why the NDP won't get elected.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll get to the 13 years of Socred incompetence and financial incompetence in a minute.

The uncertainty and the instability. The people have no clear idea

of where this government is taking us. They certainly did not get it

from the throne speech.

After what this government did to the working people of British

Columbia with Bills 19 and 20, and the criticism that that legislation

mounted in the province from all sides of the political spectrum, I

would have expected this government to have something in the throne

speech that recognized the contribution of working people to the

province. Not one word about working people in the province in the

throne speech.

This government refuses to admit that the last year in British

Columbia, in terms of guiding this province to a full economy, to

greater employment and to a sense of future — indeed, if I may say

vision — we have not had that. What we've got is a government that

appears to refuse to step back, as W.A.C. Bennett used to do, and say:

"Let's have another look. Maybe the citizens of British Columbia are

telling us something. Maybe there is a message we should take." There

is an impression in British Columbia that the policies that are before

us and that we've seen in the last year are not being developed for the

majority of the people of the province but are being developed for

ulterior motives and for personal reasons on behalf of the Premier.

This is his personal mission, his vision of what British Columbia

should be and of what British Columbians should believe in. That's very

dangerous. We are a plural society. We are a society made up of all

sorts of cultural groups and viewpoints. It's incumbent upon any

government to listen to all sides on an issue. But we have had, and we

continue to have — and the throne speech did not show any different

direction — a government that is going down a road, saying: "We know

best. Stand aside. We're going to get there because we believe,

brother, we believe." That is not how democracy works.

[4:15]

AN HON. MEMBER: That's how it works in Red Square.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll treat that comment with the contempt it deserves.

There was nothing in this throne speech that talked about the

educators in British Columbia, those at the university level, those in

the schools who serve and educate our children. There was talk about

the independent schools but nothing about the education system and

nothing that would indicate to those in the schools, both educators and

children, that this government is prepared to bring back peace and

harmony into the schools. Over the last five years our schools have

been war zones.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, they have. We know that. There have been

fights, internal hassles. The government, for whatever reason, has been

determined to see teachers as a scapegoat in the political arena. Mr.

Speaker, whatever side you take, there comes a time — whoever is in

government — to say enough is enough. Let's bring some stability and

harmony back into the system. Let's recognize teachers and recognize

how important it is to our future and stop seeing it as something that

is a drain on the economy, something that we have to spend money on.

Education is our future. We continue in this province to underfund. We

don't recognize the importance of education in our future, and don't

give it the level of importance it deserves.

There was nothing in this throne speech about the importance of

local government — nothing at all. We've had, in the last year since

the last UBCM, major change in terms of policy that reflects upon local

government, and I refer to the ministers of state system and the

so-called decentralization that this government is trying to introduce.

I don't have to say — it's being said all over the province — that

there is deep apprehension about the ministers of state system, that it

is usurping the traditional role of local government, and that you

don't need another level of bureaucracy to do what local government has

the ability to do. You don't need it. All we can conclude is that the

ministers of state system is the dream of the Premier to come back and

introduce his own land use act, which he left cabinet for — you all

remember that — in a huff; he called his cabinet ministers gutless. We

all know that in that land use act there were over 50 ways the

provincial government and the minister at the time — the Premier today

— could overturn local decisions made by local government.

[ Page 3498 ]

There is no need for another level of bureaucracy in the ministers

of state system. Local governments have the ideas, the strategies and

the economic policies to deliver the things to their regions, in terms

of economic development. We can only conclude that this Premier and

this government — this Premier in particular, as he has centralized

provincial decision-making into his office over here — wants to ensure

that he and those who work for him now have a greater control over

local government and the agenda of local government.

On this side of the House, we have for years and years consistently

talked about real decentralization and devolution of power in the

province of British Columbia — real decentralization. We don't need an

inner sanctum cabinet of instant millionaires reporting to the Premier

about what's happening in the regions. We don't need that; it's not

necessary. We don't need that extra cost or that control over local

government.

In our estimation, what you have to do is empower the regions with

decision-making ability in areas that are traditionally controlled by

the provincial government. Let local government govern, Mr. Speaker.

That's the motto. You have democratically elected regional officials

who know their regions the best. They know their strengths and their

weaknesses; they have community ideas; and they know what decisions are

necessary for economic development. All you have to do is give them the

power or the policies or the legislation to go into the areas in which

they feel they can benefit, in terms of economic development. That's

what many regions in the province were waiting for prior to the

announcement at UBCM. They're waiting for changes in policy or

legislation which would allow them to move into areas which would

commit them to do the economic development, without Victoria running

the show. Local councils should be the economic developers in the

province of British Columbia. They don't need ministers of state from

Victoria to tell them how to do it. They don't need it.

We need to look at structures in the province of British Columbia

and to allow the locally elected officials and local councils.... How

can they get involved, for instance, in resource management and

allocation of resources? How can local councils have a greater say in

land use matters or water resource matters in their region? That's the

direction we should be going: real decentralization. How to share

resource revenues: that's what we should be talking about, and how

local government can have a greater share in those resource revenues —

on an equal basis, I might add — throughout the province.

We need to look at economic strategies that come from the local

level up. What we have now, with the minister of state system, is

another control over local government and a provincial government that

now wishes to set the agenda for local government in terms of economic

development. We do not accept that kind of control. We do not think it

is necessary. We certainly think it is bureaucratic, inefficient and

costly to the people of the province.

To give you an example, when we were in government we introduced the

concept of resource boards in a number of locations. In our estimation

that was real decentralization, where in social and health issues,

local boards were elected. There was one in my community, in James Bay.

They were elected to make decisions about health matters and social

issues in their neighbourhood or in their area.

MR. BARNES: Who abolished them?

MR. BLENCOE: The Premier of the province abolished the

Vancouver Resources Board, and the current Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) abolished the one in my community. Yet

we have a government today which is going to introduce this new project

in Victoria, basically a concept that we introduced some years ago in

the province.

The reason I give that example about James Bay and those resource

boards is that we were prepared to give local people decision-making

authority. We were prepared to give them control over their own affairs

in their own neighbourhoods and communities. That is different from

this Premier's view of decentralization, which is power grab, which is:

"How can we control the agenda of local government?"

MR. LOVICK: Despite the name, right?

MR. BLENCOE: Despite the name; that's right, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say in closing that we will continue to speak up for local

government. We will continue to speak up for real decentralization,

because we think it's most important in this diverse province with

unique regions that those regions be given greater control over their

own affairs.

MR. VANT: I take this opportunity to commend the Speaker, the

hon. member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Reynolds), for the

fine job he is doing; I am glad that you, the first member for Dewdney

(Mr. Pelton), have been re-elected Deputy Speaker; and I'm more than

delighted that the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) is the

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

I listened with great interest to the second member for Victoria

(Mr. Blencoe), and I'm happy to report to the whole House that he has

kept his word. He said to me in an aside before he spoke that he wasn't

going to say much, and he didn't.

I want to say that I always feel welcome here in this fair city of

Victoria. Many people I run into here have always expressed a very keen

interest in Social Credit and in the openness and the willingness of

our government to consult. The hon. second member for Victoria

mentioned our select standing committees, and I can say with all

honesty and integrity that the one I serve on — the Select Standing

Committee on Forests and Lands — has been going out into the province

and has been working with the people on their concerns. So we are

getting closer to addressing problems out there with the people most

directly affected.

In the Cariboo, the people have never faltered — never failed to

support Social Credit. We believe in and we practise free enterprise. A

healthy private sector, we in the Cariboo know full well, generates the

revenue necessary for the social and economic security that we all need.

The throne speech indicates that this government will continue to

guide us on the path of prosperity, to enable people to have

opportunities as children, as students, as parents, as workers, as

tradespersons, as service-providers, as entrepreneurs, as investors, as

professionals, as senior citizens. Everyone everywhere has a fair

portion of what British Columbia has to offer. As is the great

principle of our party, we insist that there be equal opportunities for

all and special privileges for none.

This government and this Premier have announced and taken very bold initiatives. These are very necessary in a

[ Page

3499 ]

constantly changing world. Change has to be met head-on with bold initiatives and, I might say, a positive attitude.

Change, of course, is not new. Our great province was sparsely

populated by our first citizens. They survived on the abundance of fish

and wildlife so prevalent in an undeveloped land. The first Europeans,

after their arrival, interacted with the indigenous people in

connection with the fur trade. The Cariboo had Alexander Mackenzie

follow the Indians' grease trail to the Pacific Ocean way back in 1793.

He defined a route from the Blackwater country just north and west of

Quesnel to the Pacific Ocean at Bella Coola.

[4:30]

Indeed, back in 1808, Simon Fraser explored the river bearing

his name. He was accompanied by his lieutenant, Maurice Quesnel. The

Quesnel River and the present city of Quesnel are named after him. This

primitive economy, this primitive transportation system of traveling

along trails and canoe routes, gradually changed. With the discovery of

gold, mining brought in thousands of people. The government's first

road-to-resources program began in the early 1860s and was completed in

1865 with the building of the first Cariboo road. Stopping-houses along

that road began the ranching and farming industry in the Cariboo. The

needs of that early traveling public were met. Stern-wheelers moved

people and goods from Soda Creek to Quesnel and on to Fort George.

In 1871, British Columbia joined the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada.

MR. CLARK: And you're trying to get out now.

MR. VANT: Well, we're considering our membership in this confederation, for sure.

Out of 25 MLAs in that first Legislature, no fewer than three came from the Cariboo.

MR. RABBITT: How many socialists?

MR. VANT: None. We have never had and never will have a socialist represent our great area.

But by then, the Cariboo economy was beginning to be diversified. We

had mining and whipsawn lumber, and more and more cattle ranches were

being carved out of the bush. The inhabitants of the Cariboo came from

all over the world. There were the Forty-niners from California and

people from every country in Europe. No fewer than 4,000 Chinese

participated in the Cariboo gold rush.

In 1870, Keen's store was founded in Quesnel, and the descendants,

such as Charlie, Harry and Bob Keen, still live in Quesnel and are

still good corporate citizens today.

Everyone was welcome to come and settle. People waited and waited

for the government in Ottawa to keep its promise to build a railroad to

British Columbia. It took them no less than 14 years. We waited from

1871 to 1885 for the goods to be delivered. But eventually, our

patience paid off. Great things happened. Hastings Mill eventually

became the great city of Vancouver.

MR. CLARK: You made this speech last year.

MR. VANT: The second member for Vancouver East should appreciate the beginnings.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, change and bold initiatives were necessary for that

to happen. Indeed, in the 1920s the Pacific Great Eastern Railway came up to

the Cariboo, That linked us to tidewater at Squamish. Finally, in 1952, the

great W.A.C. Bennett linked Prince George and the Cariboo to North Vancouver.

At last our great timber resources could be harvested, processed and shipped

to market.

Since the dawning of the new age in British Columbia in 1952, we

have seen a power and put together, natural gas pipelines put in and.

believe it or not, a lot of pavement laid beyond Hope. All this has

created jobs. Pulp mills were possible; finished lumber products could

be shipped from our area to the United States. Indeed, Peace River

grain could be shipped to feed Cariboo cattle at a very reasonable

cost. A vast first-class road network opened up all parts of the

Cariboo, so it is easy and safe to drive to places like Nazko, Likely,

Keithley Creek or Alexis Creek.

My colleague the hon. first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) did

much to enhance our roads. Indeed, even circle routes are now possible

for the tourists. We build straight, good roads to resources and to our

communities, but our visitors like to go in a circle. More and more of

our 8,000 lakes are now accessible.

Our province's strong economy due to the excellent leadership of

this government has caused more and more housing starts. Housing sales

and retail sales are up throughout the Cariboo.

During the recession. the lumber industry spent millions and

millions of dollars in the Cariboo to upgrade their plants.

Productivity has increased. This year, more than $130 million will be

spent expanding and upgrading the Quesnel River Pulp and Cariboo Pulp

mills at Quesnel. This increased investment is 50 percent Japanese,

concrete evidence that, yes indeed, we are on the Pacific Rim.

Last year, enough dimension lumber was shipped from this province to

Japan to build more than 40,000 homes. Markets are indeed expanding on

the Pacific Rim. Meanwhile, 100 Mile House has become the log home

building capital of Canada, and a good portion of their finished log

home packages are shipped to Japan and to Europe.

Exciting things are in store for the southern part of the Cariboo.

With Pacific Rim markets in mind, our weed-tree timber can be

manufactured into a very high-quality product. Increased investment of

millions of dollars and new jobs will come on stream as a result. This

will be the initiative of a home-grown entrepreneur.

In the Cariboo over 80 percent of our dimension lumber products are

currently shipped to the United States. We have to continue to strive

to diversify our market and our product line as well. And so, yes, we

must promote free trade with the United States and every country we

can. We know we can compete.

Over the years C&C Wood Products at Quesnel, under the

innovative, inventive guiding hand of Joe Cerasa, has developed into a

first-class $6 million plant producing firstclass pine and cedar

paneling and laminated furniture stock, and using waste 2-by-4 shorts

to make lattice boards: all value-added products. This plant now

employs 60 people.

Interjections.

MR. VANT: I can tell. Mr. Speaker, from the mutterings in the

socialist corner of the House —that they seem to be against the gainful

employment of people.

This particular plant uses a low volume of wood. It is both

value-added and employment-intensive, and their products are shipped

around the world, to Europe, Asia and Australia.

[ Page 3500 ]

1 must admit, Mr. Speaker, that there are some opponents to free

trade, but we in this government know that free trade will be good for

British Columbia. We know we cannot ignore the political realities of

hardball American protectionism. The alternative to free trade is not

the status quo. but it would be a trade dispute in which we would have

only one tenth the power of our major trading competition. People

should not forget that much of the suffering during the Great

Depression of the 1930s resulted from a trade war started by the

protectionist-inspired Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in the United States,

which in the end caused Japan to go to war.

So we in British Columbia must support free trade to keep the $150

billion of annual trade going between the United States and Canada.

MR. MILLER: What about state intervention by that great American President?

MR. VANT: We believe in small government and the promotion of

free enterprise, and we will not get into another depression, and those

drastic state interventionist methods will not be needed because of

free trade.

I can see markets opening up all around the Pacific Rim. We in

British Columbia — yes, including us in the Cariboo — do not have to

rely so much on the United States market.

MR. MILLER: Do they agree with privatization?

MR. VANT: They certainly do. As I said earlier — if you were

here, hon. member for Prince Rupert — they are solidly free enterprise,

and they have faith in the private sector.

Currently 48 percent of all wood products shipped from B.C., and 33

percent of our pulp and paper shipments, are exported to the United

States. Free trade will secure access to that important United States

market.

In the Cariboo we harvest over 40,000 hectares of timber annually.

At that rate, it would take another 80 years to harvest all the mature

forest in the Cariboo forest region. I am delighted that this throne

speech contemplates legislation to ensure reforestation of all

harvested areas. We in the Cariboo have an increased awareness of the

care and nurture of our very important forests, thanks to an initial

study by the village of 100 Mile House, who have used every government

program available to put people to work, thinning natural regenerated

juvenile stands — and yes, Mr. Member in the socialist comer of the

House, many planting.

This has led to the forest proposal for the entire Cariboo forest

region put forward by the city of Quesnel, the city of Williams Lake

and the village of 100 Mile House, working with the Ministry of

Forests. The proposal is that from $7 million to $15 million a year

will be spent over a ten-year program, for a total of $137 million in

intensive silviculture treatments. This allows for juvenile spacing,

brushing, sanitation and site rehabilitation. This would be carried out

on a total of no less than 275,000 hectares, to improve future quality

and supply of timber. This program would create over 4,000 man-years of

direct employment in the forests.

MR. RABBITT: Jobs.

MR. VANT: People want meaningful work — yes, jobs, as the hon. member

for Yale-Lillooet says. They want a sense of pride and accomplishment, not welfare.

The long-term benefits from this proposal will be employment and, as I've

said, a great improvement in our timber quality and in our supplies.

We welcome the restructuring of the economic and regional

development agreement with the federal government. In terms of our

forests, we need a new forest regional development agreement now — we

could call it a FRDA 11 — to ensure that we get our fair share from

Ottawa, to continue in conjunction with the private sector this

important reforestation.

Seedling production has to be planned ahead. We have to know now

that we have the means to plant all those seedlings. With the new

stumpage system and the industry's contribution to silviculture costs,

the Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers' members this year will pay a

projected $130 million to the government for the timber that it

consumes. So we do contribute substantially, and I do trust that it's

not more than what the industry can afford. The industry, after all,

needs capital to keep upgrading their plants and to keep them efficient

and productive.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair]

The government's promise in the throne speech to examine and review

the tax structure in the mineral industry is most welcome. This I am

sure will result in positive action in response to the mineral

industry's task force report — produced last year, incidentally, at the

request of our leader and our Premier. Yes, we on the government side

of the House always welcome advice and information from the industry

itself. This leads to good government, government close to and

responsive to its many constituents.

Finally, I'd like to say a word or two about the Meech Lake accord.

Alex Macdonald, QC, and Pierre Elliott Trudeau are against it; it must

be good. After all, B.C.'s power will be enhanced. The fiscal

decentralization provided in the Meech Lake accord is, I believe, a

very beneficial development. History has shown that Ottawa's superior

revenue raising possibilities make a mockery at times of the

constitutional division of powers in health, post-secondary education

and welfare. We seem to be at the mercy of judges more and more these

days. I see no harm in British Columbia having the right to submit

names for appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada. I know that this

House will pass an appropriate resolution concerning the Meech Lake

accord and constitutional amendment well before the deadline of June

23, 1990.

[4:45]

This throne speech r