1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd 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)

FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5169 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Resignation of UBC president. Mr. Rose –– 5169

Mr. Williams

Mr. Davis

Fiscal Planning. Mr. Williams –– 5170

Brain drain. Mr. Williams –– 5170

University tuition. Mr. Macdonald –– 5170

Federal-provincial reforestation agreement. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5170

Ministerial Statement

Princess Marguerite. Hon. Mr. Smith –– 5171

Mr. Williams

Private Members' Statements

Silviculture plan. Mrs. Wallace –– 5172

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Women in society. Ms. Brown –– 5173

Hon. Mr. Pelton

Mr. Reid

Ms. Sanford

Health disciplines review board. Mr. Reynolds –– 5175

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Mr. Cocke

Provincial fisheries. Mr. Hanson –– 5177

Hon. Mr. Pelton

Throne speech debate

Mr. MacWilliam –– 5180

Mr. Parks –– 5182

Ms. Brown –– 5185

FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1985

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would join me

in extending a very special greeting to the women of British Columbia

today, International Women's Day

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members to

join me in extending a warm welcome to two friends from Abbotsford.

They are our school district trustees, Mr. Sharp and Mr. Smith. Would

you please welcome these gentlemen.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with

me in welcoming two school trustees from School District 61, Donna

Jones and June Whitmore.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I would like to take the opportunity to

introduce some individuals important in my life. Present today, along

with my wife Arlene and my son Matthew, are my daughters, Karalyn and

Tana, as well as my mother-in-law Mrs. Rita Sundvick from the

constituency of Burnaby North. I would like to introduce them to the

House.

Oral Questions

RESIGNATION OF UBC PRESIDENT

MR. ROSE: I have a question for the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications. We were shocked yesterday, Mr. Speaker, to

learn of the departure of George Pedersen, the president of UBC and a

distinguished British Columbian. Among the reasons he cited for his

departure was lack of communication with government, and going to some

jurisdiction with greater political stability — that happens to be

Ontario — no partnership and constant meddling in the affairs of the

University.

I want to ask the minister: when does he intend to stop meddling in the affairs of UBC?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I first disabuse the member

who asked the question, and all members of the House: the government is

not meddling and will not meddle in the affairs of the University of

British Columbia. I categorically — and I restate categorically — deny

such a statement. Having said that, I wish the ex-president of UBC well

in the new post he has been offered at the University of Western

Ontario. The pro tem president of the University of British Columbia,

Dr. Robert Smith, is an outstanding academic who has been doing yeoman

service in the administration of the University of British Columbia. He

will provide strong leadership for that institution. I urge all members

to get behind the new administration of the University of British

Columbia.

MR. ROSE: Among the other things that the ex-president charged was the

lack of academic freedom, and I think we can anticipate the departure of other

distinguished people as long as there is no change in the policies. Has the

minister any idea of others in the academic field who are about to leave the

province?

HON. MR. McGEER: I suppose in every instance where an

academic person would leave, it would be to a better-paying and a more

advanced academic post. Many of the people who are recruited to British

Columbia come from around the world. Dr. Pedersen himself, when he was

recruited as the president of the University of British Columbia, was

recruited partway through his term from Simon Fraser University. So I

think one has to recognize that the pool of academic talent is a

worldwide pool, and indeed — I say this as an academic — if there is

not a brisk demand for people in the faculty of your university, the

faculty aren't good enough. There must be demand for faculty, and if

there isn't you need to be worried about their quality. So don't be

concerned if there are people who have job offers elsewhere. We would

like it to be that every single faculty member was in sufficient demand

by universities around the world that he had several offers on his desk

at any given time. That means you've got outstanding faculty.

[10:15]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, in the neighbouring province of

Alberta budgetary information is indicated — in a general way, at least

— to the institutions in the fall. This is not the case in British

Columbia, so there are all kinds of rumours about program closures. I

can cite some of them, if you like, including architecture. I'd like to

ask the minister: when will the government be in a position to end this

business of uncertainty and economic chaos so the institutions of our

province can get some kind of information necessary for their advance

planning and programming?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, there is no economic chaos.

What we have in British Columbia is a situation where there are many

unemployed — I don't know the exact figures today — and the difficulty

of taxpayers' meeting the bills of our educational institutions and

other social services. What needs to be recognized by administrators of

universities, chairmen of school boards and administrators of hospitals

is that taxpayers are having difficulty meeting their bills, and that

they need to be careful in spending the taxpayers' money. We expect,

and you in the opposition should expect, no more and no less from any

public administrator than you would expect from a private sector

employer meeting a difficult financial situation. They have all got to

pull their weight, including the president of the University of British

Columbia.

MR. ROSE: Is the minister aware that the provincial share of

the universities has been dropping over the years to the point where

the feds are paying 78 percent, the students 16 percent, and the

province a puny 3.5 percent of the university budget?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, every single year since the

Great Depression there has been a substantial increase in dollars

provided to our universities in British Columbia, with a single

exception: last year, which was the most difficult economic year for

British Columbia since that Great Depression. As times improve,

everybody in British Columbia will be in better economic circumstances.

We're all in this together, and every single British Columbian,

including the president of the University of British Columbia, has got

to recognize that it's a requirement to pull your weight in tough

economic times.

[ Page 5170 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, "meddling" and "lack of

communication" are terms used by the former president of the University

of British Columbia. Is the Minister of Universities questioning the

integrity of this long-time university servant, the man who says that

indeed there is meddling in the universities, that there isn't

stability in government in this province? Is he questioning that

integrity? Is that what it's...?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The hon. member is

well aware that his remarks go well beyond those allowed in question

period. They would be in order in a debate but not at question time.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I flatly deny every single one

of those charges, and I am prepared to debate with this member, or

anybody else in British Columbia, that particular statement. I deny it.

MR. DAVIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister

please tell us what the annual rate of pay was of the president of UBC,

and what retirement package did he recently negotiate?

HON. MR. McGEER: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker, and table it in the House at the earliest possible time.

FISCAL PLANNING

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance. When

can we anticipate some rational fiscal planning for our institutions in

this province, like Alberta, in terms of advance notice on funding and

contributions from the province, so that there can be rational spending

at these institutions, without having only two weeks to prepare their

programs for the immediate fiscal year that's on top of them? It seems

to me that that can't work.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the second member for

Vancouver East, I would think that as a former minister, 1972-1975, he

would know that the Minister of Finance allocates block money to

individual ministries, and then the individual ministers and their

ministries work out the arrangements and schedules with respect to

transfer of money, in this particular case to universities. I would

point out that it seems to me, as someone who was associated with local

government, that indeed we were waiting not just a couple weeks when

the NDP was in power; sometimes we were well into the new budget year

before we had any information with respect to government funding.

BRAIN DRAIN

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of International Trade and

Investment on the issue of export. The primary export currently in

British Columbia is brains. I wonder if the minister would be carrying

dossiers and resumes in the future, since clearly the people we need in

this province are leaving all too often.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I don't think that particular member will have to be too worried about exporting his.

UNIVERSITY TUITION

MR. MACDONALD: To the Minister of Universities. The minister

says that the students of 40 years ago at the universities had it soft

in terms of the money they paid in fees compared to those today. Right?

But in those days university education was the privilege of a

well-to-do elite...

AN HON. MEMBER: Like you.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

...to the extent of about 80 percent.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Is it the policy of that minister to take

university education back to the bad old days when it would only be

available to those who could afford it, the privileged elite? Is that

your policy?

HON. MR. McGEER: The member, Mr. Speaker, makes me doubt to

some extent the statement I made about stiffer standards in those days.

Certainly we do everything we can to support the ability of students to

attend our post-secondary institutions. I think that was very evident

in the figures which I tabled in the House at 6 o'clock last evening. I

would ask the member to study those because they show that of our

graduating secondary students — that is, grade 12 graduates — eligible

to go on to university level programs, over 50 percent today are

attending such post-secondary institutions. That's up. It has increased

every single year, going from the high forties to, now, the low

fifties. We are covering at the present time over half the eligible

people at university level courses — let alone vocational level courses

— so obviously the opportunity is there; and it's very widespread, Mr.

Member.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

REFORESTATION AGREEMENT

MR. MacWILLIAM: My question is to the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland). Because the Okanagan timber supply area

contributes a substantial portion to the local economy, and because

StatsCan figures announced recently — in fact, today — for unemployment

were 24.5 percent for the North Okanagan, my question to the minister

is this: in order to generate immediate employment in the forestry

sector in the North Okanagan and throughout British Columbia, will the

minister secure an immediate agreement with the federal government to

secure that $300 million joint federal-provincial agreement on

reforestation?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member for North

Okanagan may not be aware that during this last two years lumber

production from the interior of British Columbia has been at record

highs, and employment has been at the levels that can produce this

record high amount of lumber production. I will say again, as I have

said so many times in recent weeks, that we are making every effort to

conclude an

[ Page

5171 ]

agreement with the federal government, and I'm sure that member will be

aware as soon as we have concluded such an agreement.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 35 to move

the following motion, seconded by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly): that this House do now adjourn to debate the resignation of

the president of the University of British Columbia, and a statement of

the former president that British Columbia lacks political stability

under the present government.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair will undertake

to review the matter and bring a response back to the House at the

earliest opportunity. The Attorney-General seeks the floor.

HON. MR. SMITH: I wish to make a ministerial statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

PRINCESS MARGUERITE

HON. MR. SMITH: As the minister responsible for the Princess Marguerite ,

or, more particularly, the B.C. Steamship Company, which is the Royal

Victoria Navy, I have pleasure in announcing that early in assuming my

duties — and these very pleasant duties of being admiral of the Royal

Victoria Navy — and constituting a meeting of this board, I have two

announcements to make.

The first announcement is that the first sailing of the Princess Marguerite

has been advanced by one week — from May 9 to May 15 — as part of a

major promotion of the service. During that week, to promote the

service of the Princess Marguerite ,

we will feature half-fares for round-trip passengers from Seattle and

Victoria. That will be advertised throughout the Pacific Northwest. We

think it will be most positive.

In view of the 7 percent increase in tourism this year and the very

strong U.S. dollar, we think that will attract an additional bevy of

tourists to Victoria and the first week will more than pay for revenue

savings.

The second announcement that I have to make in connection with my duties with the Princess Marguerite

is that the board of directors of the B.C. Steamship Company have

approved a lease to Island Jetfoil Corp. for docking facilities at its

Seattle terminal, and we have also reached an agreement in principle

regarding the facilities in Victoria. Details of that, when they are

signed, will be made public, but I can assure the House that both

leases and the terms of the leases are supported by independent

appraisals.

The third thing that I have to announce is that we are going to have major marketing strategy in the year ahead for the Princess Marguerite

— going into the Expo year, and that we will have the Ministry of

Tourism's marketing capabilities totally available to us for the first

time.

MR. WILLIAMS: I wonder if the minister responsible for the B.C. Steamship

Company would provide the House with the various staff studies that have taken

place with respect to the shoulder seasons, and the question of embarking two

weeks ahead of

schedule rather than the one. The one week is certainly an improvement

for the Victoria economy, but it's my understanding that the staff studies

initially recommended the two-week shoulder so that the local economy would

benefit from two additional weeks of tourism, not the one that the minister

has just provided.

In addition, I would hope we would have some assurance that the

appraisals with respect to the leases will be made available to all

members of the House in terms of this competitive enterprise with the Princess Marguerite .

I would appreciate it if the House would be provided with all the

details with respect to that, including information regarding who

handled the negotiations for Island Jetfoil Corp. with respect to these

various leasehold arrangements. I wonder too if a broader study was

carried out with respect to the general benefits to the Victoria

economy and the province in terms of sales tax revenue and other

incomes from the province which would have justified the longer sailing

of at least two weeks.

[10:30]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: I want to rise on a point of order with respect

to the proceedings that have just taken place, namely ministerial

statements. As an appendage to the standing orders that are in effect

at this session, there are a number of references to consultation

between the government and the opposition over certain matters —

practice recommendations, albeit. Nonetheless, the spirit and the idea

was that consultation would take place.

With respect to ministerial statements, May's eighteenth edition at

page 332 advises of a certain course of action in Westminster in this

regard. It says: "Since 1964, notice" — this is with respect to

ministerial statements — "has whenever possible been given to members

of impending ministerial statements by means of a notice placed in the

members' lobby." What I am suggesting is in the spirit of consultation,

which is embodied in the report of the committee unanimously adopted by

this House, and might be a course of action to follow for ministers

intending to make ministerial statements in the House. Through the

courtesy within every one of those ministers, they could provide

members of the opposition — from the appropriate spokesperson for that

particular ministry — with an advance copy, if they find it

inappropriate to post it in the members' lobby. People would know in

advance what is to be stated and be in a position, thus, to prepare an

appropriate response.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In response on that same point of order, it should be noted that the practice recommendations as printed in our new Standing Orders

do not specifically identify questions of ministerial statements,

although in some of the practice recommendations indeed there is

reference to consultation.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is clear that the point raised

is an interesting one, but it is a matter that is best discussed

between the two House Leaders. Certainly it is not within the

jurisdiction of the Chair to have any specific effect.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, for those who have not had the

opportunity of reading the new book, they will find an order called

25A. To their surprise, but not to those who have read the book, we

call Private Members' Statements for the first time ever.

[ Page 5172 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I note there is a time involved in

these statements, that the person who makes the first statement has

seven minutes. I'm wondering what you are going to do with your little

red and green lights, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: That is another interesting question, hon.

member, But we have a process: we will have a green light when there

are two minutes left and then the red light at the conclusion, and the

usual signs will also apply.

Private Members' Statements

SILVICULTURE PLAN

MRS. WALLACE: It's the luck of the draw! It's the first time

for a new procedure in this House, and it couldn't happen on a better

day — International Women's Day.

My subject relates to a subject that is critical to the lives and

well-being of the residents of Vancouver Island. Members of the House

may be aware that the municipal councils of Vancouver Island have

joined hands in support of professional foresters and called on the

provincial and federal governments to provide funding for a

silviculture program for Vancouver Island, a program they term

"Strategy for Survival." The plan is well named; Vancouver Island's

economy is almost solely dependent upon the forest industry. We have

high-site land, we have close proximity to markets and we have skilled

and knowledgeable workers willing and waiting to work.

Like other areas, we are facing technical changes that increase

productivity and decrease employment. Like other areas, we have not

ensured a sustained annual allowable cut. The situation has not come

unannounced. In 1945 the Sloan report warned us; in 1976 the Pearse

report told us the same thing.

In 1980, we saw the current government introduce what was supposed

to be a five-year plan for forest renewal, with a special fund to

finance it. The plan, while welcome, caused foresters to wonder if a

100-year-old managed forest could survive 20 five-year plans, and so

they should have wondered. The five-year plan barely provided enough

money to keep abreast, let alone catch up on any backlog. Then in 1982,

two years down the road, we saw the fund recouped and the whole plan

capitulate.

Today I want to speak out in support of the strategy for survival as

presented by the Island municipalities. It's not a new concept, but it

is a valid one — albeit too little and too late. In 1978, professional

foresters began lobbying MLAs through a series of forest memos. They

warned us that no more than 50 percent of the annual allowable cut in

the coastal zone, which includes Vancouver Island, was economically

accessible. They told us that without an expanded commitment to forest

management our provincial economy would be adversely affected. They

told us that forestry was a $3 billion job in that year that created

85,000 direct jobs and 160,000 indirect jobs.

We all know that times have not been good for the forest industry

during the last few years, but that's all the more reason that we take

up the slack by renewing our forests for the future. In 1977 and 1978

the foresters said: "The practice of forest farming or silviculture is

an important means of increasing yields by applying intensive forest

management." They are still saying it, and it's still true.

Those same foresters took MLAs — many of us in this House today — on

field trips. They showed us juvenile spacing; they showed us commercial

thinning or conifer release. And they showed us the results by

comparative cross-sections of logs, and they calculated the increase in

return. They were the first to use the carrot-patch analogy as a

graphic illustration for non-professionals. Many times we on this side

of the House have urged the current government to take the advice of

the professionals, but it hasn't happened. Now is the time for

government to give more than lip service to forest renewal. On

Vancouver Island there are at least 5,000 unemployed forest workers.

The strategy for survival tells us that for a little less than $22.5

million per year they can create 1,000 jobs in silviculture. It's not

enough, but it's a start; and it would be immediate. Those 1,000 jobs

would create another 2,000 indirect jobs and $22.5 million would be

injected into the Vancouver Island economy annually. It would be fuel

for the engine that drives the economy and in the end would return

stumpage to the government on an estimated one billion cubic metres of

additional wood — an increase of 30 percent.

I think it's a good plan; the federal minister thinks it's a good

plan; the provincial minister thinks it's a good plan; but nobody has

committed any funding. Here is an opportunity for the current

government to take a positive step to revive the Vancouver Island

economy. The plan has the unanimous support of municipalities from

Saanich to Gold River. It's spearheaded by the mayor of North Cowichan,

who can hardly be considered an irresponsible radical. He's a former

Social Credit candidate and one would think he might have the ear of

his colleagues. I urge the government to support the plan by funding in

the full amount for a minimum period of five years. This will create

meaningful and lasting jobs on Vancouver Island — to quote my

counterpart in Ottawa, the kind of jobs that people can build their

lives around. Acceptance of the strategy for survival will bring a

sense of economic and social hope for the future to Vancouver Islanders

who depend on the forests for their well-being.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member who,

through the luck of the draw, had the privilege of being the first

member ever to make this type of statement in our Legislature, I

congratulate her for the very well-thought-out statement she did make

and the subject matter she covered. I don't think any of us can argue

with the fact that those things being promoted by Mayor Graham Bruce

and the other community leaders on Vancouver Island are very worthwhile

causes. We do depend upon our forests, and I guess Vancouver Island is

probably more dependent on the forests than other areas of British

Columbia.

The mayors have made presentations, once to myself and some of my

staff during our economic development committee meeting; they've also

made them in Ottawa and to the forest industry. They have not yet

suggested the source of funding, although they are talking about a

tripartite funding arrangement whereby the two senior levels of

government, provincial and federal, can provide funds together with the

industry. I support that concept for funding and it's a matter of

making the funding available. The programs they suggest are ones that

have, in a smaller way than they suggest, been underway for some years

now. As a matter of fact, the mayor of North Cowichan, Graham Bruce,

has a very successful employment-bridging assistance program. I'm sure

the

[ Page 5173 ]

member has either seen that or heard of it. It's an excellent program and I support it wholeheartedly.

I would hope that as a result of their efforts some funding can be

made available, perhaps through the job creation money that has been

talked about in Ottawa. It is even compatible with a part of the work

that is planned under the provincial-federal agreement, which we are

still negotiating and which I hope will come on in any event. The

agreement would not replace the type of work they are planning, but

would supplement it and also do additional work from what they are

talking about.

[10:45]

However, Madam Member, I think we should broaden our horizons

somewhat when we talk about this work, and realize that the whole of

British Columbia and the whole of the forest resource is not on

Vancouver Island, although perhaps the better quality resource is. We

do have needs throughout the province for more investment in forest

management, and we can buy a better future, at substantial cost,

through investing money in forestry. We as a government have to make

those choices. During difficult times, when all ministries of

government have their funding constrained, it becomes necessary to make

choices. In the last few years we have insisted upon continuing the

expansion of our basic forestry program: that is, the planting after

harvesting or wildfire. As times get better, and I hope beginning very

shortly, we will be able to have more of the discretionary funding

available.

I will look for a way of joining with others in the funding of such

a program because I think it's very worthwhile. As the member pointed

out, through automation there will be fewer and fewer jobs in the

manufacturing and harvesting side of the forest industry. I've always

said that I would like to see the day when as many people are employed

in forestry work as there are in forest harvesting and manufacturing. I

don't think I will live to see that day but I think it's an objective

we perhaps should have. Certainly there is a lot of room for expanding

in that direction.

I congratulate the member on her statement and in most cases I

support what she says. I think it's a goal that we should all try to

achieve together.

MRS. WALLACE: I assume that the minister has occupied his full three minutes?

MR. SPEAKER: That has no bearing on the member's available time.

MRS. WALLACE: That has no bearing on my three minutes. I thought maybe there were more speakers involved.

The minister has said what he always says: he gives lip service to

this idea, but he's not prepared to come up with the bucks. I

congratulate the minister for at least once trying. He did set up a

fund for these kinds of things: it wasn't large enough, it wasn't

secure enough, and then in two years he recouped it. He uses the

economy as an excuse. By recouping that fund he has made the economy

worse. If that fund had remained in place and been added to, we

wouldn't have 5,000 unemployed forest workers on Vancouver Island and

we wouldn't have the number of people on, UIC and on welfare on

Vancouver Island. If that fund had been left in place and added to,

people would be working, buying and paying taxes, and we would have an

economy on Vancouver Island that wouldn't be a disgrace to all of

British Columbia and Canada.

The minister has admitted that we are the area most affected because

of the slump in the forest industry, the lack of forest renewal, and

automation, yet all he gives is lip service: "Well, maybe if the feds

come through; maybe if the locals can raise some; maybe I'll

consider...." That's not good enough. We need this program, we need it

now, we need it in full, and we need it secured for at least five years.

WOMEN IN SOCIETY

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am really very pleased that I have

an opportunity to make a statement today on this very special day for

all women, not just in British Columbia but around the world:

International Women's Day. This is not just an ordinary International

Women's Day; it's a very special one because it's occurring in the last

year of the United Nations Decade for Women. The world was given ten

years, from 1975 to 1985, to achieve equality and development and to

bring some peace to the world. Our ten years are drawing to a close and

will terminate, as you may know, with a conference in Nairobi in July

of this year.

I can't think of a better way to celebrate this day than to look at

the substantial and tangible contributions which women have made and

will continue to make to the economy and to the society of this

province. Of course, it's not going to be possible to do that in seven

minutes. All I'm going to do in seven minutes is begin and, I guess,

give a superficial kind of brush stroke as to the level of contribution

which women make to our economy and to our society.

I want to start out by paying tribute to the women in the home.

There are 1.4 million women residing in British Columbia. Of this

number, 623,000 are married women, and of that number more than 300,000

are full-time homemakers involved in the job of raising and caring for

children and husbands full-time. I don't think anyone would disagree

that the job that these women do is valuable and very important indeed.

The difficulty comes, of course, when we try to place a monetary value

on it.

In a historic decision brought down by Mr. Justice Holland in

Ontario in 1984, he actually placed the value of a full-time homemaker

and spouse at $560,000 for seven and a half years. In bringing down his

decision he included the fact that the woman in the home is an

administrator as well as a nurturer and a carer and a giver of care to

the residents in that family. In addition, a legal decision in 1973 in

the United States placed the value of a full-time homemaker at $45,000

annually. Madam Justice Proudfoot in January 1983 placed the value of a

full-time wife and mother at $50,000 annually. Statistics Canada tells

us that 34 to 39 percent of Canada's gross national product comes from

the labour of women in the home. The Chase Manhattan Bank has

calculated that women in the home work anywhere from 99.6 to over 100

hours per week, doing everything from cooking and nursemaiding to

chauffeuring — ministering to the family. The fact remains that,

despite the women's liberation movement, despite technological changes

— all the changes that have taken place in our society — most women are

still in the home. There is no one who would say that their

contribution to the life and to the quality of life of this province

has not been a very valuable one, and that we would all be greatly

impoverished without it.

[ Page 5174 ]

Mr. Speaker, 41.5 percent of the workers in our labour force are

female. Of that number, 48.9 percent are concentrated in the service

industries. To this day they still earn only 58.9 cents of every dollar

earned by men. In 1984, 67 percent of all people in this province who

were earning the minimum wage were women; and 72 percent of all

part-time jobs are done by women. In addition, 84,000 women in this

province who would like to work were unable to find work as a result of

our high unemployment. Because the female worker in British Columbia

does not receive equal pay for work of equal value, she subsidizes the

economy to the tune of 38 cents in every dollar. As we are seeing, the

economy is running on the exploitation of the female worker, as in the

case of those women now striving for a decent wage at the three Eaton's

stores in Ontario.

I do not believe that we can do more than guess at the monetary

value of the contribution made by the millions of female volunteers to

the economy and to the human life of this province. All we know is that

more than 55 percent of all volunteers are women. All we know is that

many resources in the areas of health, education, human resources,

culture, and services to children, seniors and the disabled would not

exist without the free and freely given labour of female volunteers. We

honour them, and we are grateful to them for their generous efforts. We

hope that when the government computes the substantive and tangible

contribution of the women of British Columbia, they will pay special

attention to the women volunteers.

I want to use this opportunity to call on the government today to

prove that it is serious about recognizing the contribution of women to

British Columbia, and to move immediately to implement services and

measures to enhance and enrich their lives.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I didn't intend to rise to my feet

and respond to the hon. member at this time, but I think it would be nothing

less than totally remiss if someone didn't stand and respond to such a thoughtful

and well prepared statement on a subject which has, certainly over the past few

years, become one that has had a great deal of discussion. I don't place

myself in a position of being an expert in any way, shape or form on this matter

— other than to say quite freely that I respect the role of women in our lives.

I would tell this House that if it weren't for my fine wife I would certainly

never have arrived at the position I'm at today. I have five daughters who

also, I think, qualify me to at least rise to acknowledge the things that the

hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds has said. So, hon. member, I would like to tell

you that I appreciated your words. I listened to you very carefully, and I can

already see a great deal that is going to be gained through this one time a

week when we may all stand and have our turn to speak for just a few moments

on the things that are nearest and dearest to our minds. Thank you.

MR. REID: Like the Minister of Environment I would like to

commend the hon. member for her comments today. As a member of this

House I have the same feelings relative to my position here, and I'm

sure it's my wife's efforts that have allowed me to reach the position

which I'm at. I also have four daughters, and would associate myself

with the member's comments.

MS. SANFORD: It's interesting that no one on the government

side was prepared to make any comments on this issue on this day,

marking the tenth anniversary of the first International Women's Day, a

day that was proclaimed by the United Nations.

[11:00]

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) outlined very clearly the

difficulties and the economic position that women in this province and

in this country have. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the only thing that

we have received back from the government are some patronizing comments

that, in fact, do not respond to the issue that was raised by the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

In the time remaining to me I would like to contrast the statements

coming from government with the position of the New Democratic Party on

the issue of women and women's position in society. I am going to read

that, and I hope I have enough time to do it very quickly.

"The NDP is committed to full equality for all women in

B.C. As 1985 marks the end of the United Nations Decade for Women, we will use

this opportunity to reaffirm our determination to build a society in which women

will be free from violence, free from the degradation of pornography and free

from the crushing burden of poverty."

No reference was made to any of that, Mr. Speaker, by the respondents on the government side.

The main issues concerning women are employment, and unemployment,

technological change, poverty, cutbacks in services for women and

children — by that government, I might add — freedom of choice in

procreative matters and the increasing violence against women.

MR. SPEAKER: At this time, I must regretfully inform the

member that the allotted time available for members to speak on this is

concluded, and I must go back now for the final three minutes to the

mover.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will ask if I might

table in this Legislature once this statement time is over the rest of

the position as outlined by the New Democratic Party on the issue of

women.

MR. SPEAKER: It would have to be done at the conclusion of this event.

MS. BROWN: I would like to use my final three minutes to deal

with the most tangible and substantial contribution that women have

made to our society, and that is their efforts on behalf of peace. I

believe that if we look at the history of Canada since after the Second

World War through the Cold War, and the beginning of the Voice of Women

and the efforts on behalf of the YWCA and the Council of Women and

other women's groups, we have been in the forefront with our attempts

to see to it that the world in which we live and which we pass on to

our children is a peaceful world. Our efforts, Mr. Speaker, have been

called upon once again to be redoubled, because once again we find

ourselves on the brink of annihilation — maybe this time final.

For that reason, I would like to congratulate the women of the YWCA,

the Voice of Women and other groups who came together last Saturday for

a conference on women negotiating peace at which 500 women were

present. I look forward to a similar conference on women negotiating

peace to be held at the University of Victoria in April. These are

going to be just two of many conferences taking place across Canada,

[ Page

5175 ]

culminating in Halifax in June at the Mount St.

Vincent University, where women from all around the world will be

coming together for five days to put our skills, abilities, energy and

dedication into working for peace.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that despite everything else we have ever

done in our lives, nothing would equal or be considered as important a

contribution as one toward ensuring that there is a world when we are

gone, that there is peace, and that our children and grandchildren will

be able to enjoy a quality of life and a society as a result of our

efforts.

MS. SANFORD: Because the time was too short, I was unable to

complete the policy outlined by the New Democratic Party on women, and

I ask leave now to table the policy with this Legislature.

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, so we may in the future address

this matter of points of order relating to this period, it would be

appreciated if we could take those at the end of the period, so we do

not infringe upon the time of other members who would be speaking —

somewhat akin to the question period practice, for the benefit and

guidance of members.

Prior to recognizing the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, it

appears to the Chair that the subject matter that the member has chosen

conflicts with Motion 1. Therefore I would ask the member to assist in

making sure that he is in order by taking the necessary steps to

discharge the motion.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Standing order 51 does not require leave, hon. members. The motion is withdrawn, and the member now has the floor.

HEALTH DISCIPLINES REVIEW BOARD

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to be speaking on

this issue of the health disciplines review board of British Columbia.

As a number of members know, I have had a motion on the order paper in

the last session and in this one, and I have had the opportunity to

debate this issue with one of the members of the opposition at a public

forum. I think there is a lot of agreement on a form of a health

disciplines review board of British Columbia. Yet the minister may

consider that this might just add another bureaucracy to our

bureaucracy, which is already large enough as it is. But I might

suggest that a health disciplines review board, in my opinion, would

save this province a lot of money by virtue of the fact that we

wouldn't need as many cases going through the court system as we

presently have.

In the past this House allowed chiropractors to call themselves

doctors. We had the case of the College of Physicians and Surgeons

taking chiropractors to court to fine them for using the term "doctor

of chiropractic." All the costs for that were borne by the public. Yet

when the chiropractor would eventually be fined, if he was found guilty

the fines would go to the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

If you take a look at the case of Dr. Taams, I would suggest it might have

been settled with a health disciplines review board. It would not have had to

take up.... I don't know how much we spent on that case, and of course

we'll spend even more on appeals. We had a situation there where the prosecutor

for the government in the Taams case worked for the same firm that represented

the College of Physicians and Surgeons. One wonders if the public can say that

that person got a fair trial, when the lawyer working for the prosecution also

worked for the same firm that worked for the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Lawyers, I am sure, wouldn't want to attack their brethren. But as an individual

I certainly would say that there's a great conflict of interest in that

case, and it should never have happened.

There were also questions there about the way the police

investigated the case. We had witnesses in that case going to the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) saying that they weren't treated

fairly in the way they were interrogated to assist the Crown in their

case.

In all of these situations, I would suggest that if this province

had a health disciplines review board we might eliminate a lot of these

things at the bottom line. The college has too many powers. The college

should have to go through a health disciplines board, as well as other

health disciplines. It would be made up, I would suggest, of people who

represent the college and alternative medical practitioners.

It was interesting, Mr. Speaker. When I was preparing the motion for

this session, I wrote a few hundred people in the province who have

some interest in this. A number of them were physicians, and I'll read

a couple of excerpts from some of the replies that I got. One came from

a doctor who said: "This short letter is to enclose my recommendation

for changes in the notice of motion which you requested in your

correspondence of January 15, 1985. I have purposely not included

chiropractics in the notice of motion, because first of all our College

of Physicians forbids us to refer to a chiropractor or receive

referrals from chiropractors."

I think that's pretty sad in a province that has got so many great

practitioners — that we have a college that does not allow their

members to refer people to chiropractors. Or, as you may have read in

the paper a while ago, the college refused to allow one of their

members the right even to lease some space in an office building to a

chiropractor. Yet in other provinces chiropractors work right alongside

the medical profession..

MR. LAUK: Is that a medical interest or an economic one, do you think?

MR. REYNOLDS: I would suggest it's economic. I don't think

there's any argument from anyone in this province or anywhere in Canada

— certainly not from the minister's office.... Chiropractors do a good

job, yet the college seems to have something against them.

One other letter I got was from a doctor in Vancouver who is one of

the top practitioners of what we might refer to as holistic medicine.

He made some recommendations, and I would like to put them on record.

MR. LAUK: Name him.

MR. REYNOLDS: I will not name him, because I don't think it's

fair. He would be attacked by the college, I'm sure, if his name was

brought up. But I would be pleased to talk to the member privately and

tell him who the doctor is. I think he already knows him.

The letter says:

[ Page 5176 ]

"It is the expertise of others to formulate such a new

law, but I could give you a few points which I feel would be the intent

of the new law.

"The public of British Columbia should be protected

from incompetent physicians, harmful treatments and false promises. The

public of B.C. should have a free choice of the type of medical

treatment they seek. The purpose of various medical practices is to

prevent, manage or cure illness.

"Illnesses are acute or chronic symptomatic or

asymptomatic conditions interfering with optimum physical and mental

functioning. A duly qualified practitioner should have the freedom to

use whatever therapy he or she believes most appropriate. These

practitioners should be protected from all discrimination or

persecution for using innovative or alternative techniques in cases

when the commonly used methods are less safe or ineffective."

"Through their policies the government should

encourage unbiased medical research in areas which are currently

neglected because of insufficient financial gains to the third parties

— pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, etc.

"The presently existing laws dictating which

professions a medical doctor may or may not associate with and/or refer

patients to should not be tolerated. Within the powers of the college

there must be a provision for the protection of alternative

practitioners. Specifically, peer review of their performance must be

by physicians who are familiar with the alternative methods.

"I hope these suggestions will be implemented in the new law."

Mr. Speaker, that's from a man who takes a long time to get in to

see; he's a very well-known doctor in Vancouver. Yet he's afraid to go

public with some of these things because of the power of the College of

Physicians and Surgeons.

I would hope that the minister would see fit in the near future to

give some serious consideration to a health disciplines review board of

British Columbia so that all of these practitioners are not afraid of

their peer group. Make them report to an independent group. It does not

have to be paid. They can be volunteers from all the different agencies

who would then report to the minister. They would still have recourse

to the courts as a final avenue. I think it's time we looked very

seriously at the powers of the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

They're too strong. They're not serving the public of British Columbia

in a good manner.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made

by the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, although I think the

concept of a health disciplines review board was not dwelt upon in the

detail I would like to have heard. Rather the member spoke about

certain opinions of practitioners with respect to some of the problems

those individuals have identified. However, there were certain

statements in the member's comments that would apply in a general sense.

While the various organizations of health professions such as the

College of Physicians and Surgeons do enjoy certain authorities and

have had certain authority for the length of their history, and other

organizations which also represent and discipline a certain area of

health practitioners have similar authority, I think it's difficult to

simply say they either have too much authority or they should not have

authority. I think it's very important that we review the condition and

state of health care as offered by any one organization at a given time

in history. We do that by looking at what is occurring today.

[11:15]

We cannot ignore the health care that has been offered to our

citizens historically by referring to some other dates. I presume at

those times the governments of the day, in whichever jurisdiction, took

it upon themselves to ensure that the protection of the public would be

paramount, by organizing in some manner associations of professionals

who would take upon themselves the responsibility of ensuring that

those who are practising medicine within their organization do so in a

certain manner. Members of the House would be of sufficient age and

experience to recall a very common occurrence in our society not many

years back, what was generally referred to as the practice of quackery.

Mr. Speaker, we do have an excellent health care system in Canada

and in British Columbia. Indeed there is room for alternative forms of

practice. British Columbia has been foremost among the provinces of

Canada in recognizing such practitioners as chiropractors,

optometrists, podiatrists, naturopaths and others.

The college is provided with certain authority by statute. It is

this assembly and the assemblies which have been represented previously

who have in their wisdom provided them with that authority. The college

itself has made suggestions that perhaps there should be amendments to

relieve them of certain responsibilities such as prosecution. They have

made that known, and changes will occur.

Mr. Speaker, generally a health disciplines review board could be a

positive action for the government to take. The concept certainly is

being reviewed. I might also say that some prominent members of the

British Columbia Medical Association support the idea. I have lots of

time for those people who have put forward the concept and idea in and

outside of the various professions. While I think more detail would be

useful as to how a health disciplines review board should and would

function in British Columbia, officials in the ministry are well aware

of how they function in other jurisdictions.

I certainly do not dismiss the concept or idea as put forward by the

member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. It would require careful review.

We would have to know what we expect such a board to produce and how it

would function, but I think the idea is worthy of development. I make

no promises, but perhaps some day in the future we may be down to the

point where indeed a health disciplines review board is being

considered most seriously.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I think we're going to have to talk about this sometime later on.

I thought the member's suggestions were very vague. I think the

Minister of Health dealt more aptly with it. I believe that there is a

need to go beyond where we are now: that is, a need for some kind of

umbrella legislation for all health care people in the province. It's

interesting to me that the member has changed his motion.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, I'm sorry. I'll get up on a point of order after this.

[ Page

5177 ]

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for New

Westminster that we need to go beyond where we are now, and I think the

minister in his reply indicated that he is prepared to go beyond where

we are now. Both the minister and the member for New Westminster wished

I would have presented more detail with regard to the health

disciplines board. Mr. Speaker, I purposely didn't provide detail with

regard to a health disciplines board in British Columbia, because I

feel that is something that the minister could provide us with —

allowing a committee of this Legislature or another form of committee

with members of this Legislature to tour this province, or have people

from the profession come to Victoria to explain to us what they would

like. I don't think politicians can make decisions of that magnitude

without hearing from the people of British Columbia. If I turned my

file over to the minister or even to the member for New Westminster,

with all of the suggestions I've had from the different medical groups

around the province.... It's over two feet thick already.

I was very pleased that the minister said it was worthy of

development and that he would like more detail. I'm sure he will be

receiving more detail and suggestions, because I will be forwarding to

him most of the replies that I've received over the last number of

weeks from all these various groups. I'm very pleased that he sees some

positive aspects to a health disciplines review board for British

Columbia. I know a number of people in the alternative practices will

appreciate those statements. As he mentioned, a number of members of

the College of Physicians and Surgeons don't agree with those people

who are running their ship right now and would like to see some changes.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think it was a worthy debate today. I appreciate

the support of the minister. I know we have support from many members

of the opposite side. Hopefully we'll make some success of this in the

very near future.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, could the point of order be held until the conclusion of this one hour?

MR. COCKE: It's not changing the hour, is it — the 15 minutes?

MR. SPEAKER: It's somewhat akin to question period, though, hon. member, in the one-hour term.

MR. COCKE: Is the hour going to include my point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. COCKE: I'll waive my point of order until the end of the sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: Until the end of this particular hour, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: No, the sitting.

PROVINCIAL FISHERIES

MR. HANSON: It's a pleasure to rise today to make the first

statement in this House on the subject of fisheries. I'm pleased to

advise the minister opposite that our caucus has determined that

fisheries at the provincial level is of sufficient importance in terms

of the economy of British Columbia that it warrants a provincial

spokesperson from our side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you are aware that we are richly endowed in

British Columbia with a precious resource in the form of our finfish

and groundfish resources, which over history have not, for various

reasons, been properly managed both at federal and provincial levels.

I would like to sketch out a couple of historical points and then

suggest to the minister some positive suggestions from our side about

what could be done to generate employment in this very important

industry. As many individuals are aware, the 200-mile limit was

established in 1976. As is often the case, other nations are quicker to

realize the value of our natural resources — much quicker and astuter

than we sometimes are ourselves. Some very large international trading

companies wanting to secure a supply of one of the world's finest fish

products, in the form of our salmon and herring, moved in and secured

control of our processing capacity here in British Columbia through the

form of debentures. There was competition to secure control of the

processing industry in the province among a number of major companies —

offshore primarily, with the exception of B.C. Packers, a part of the

Weston empire. The consolidation process that followed the takeovers

resulted in the closure of many processing plants throughout coastal

British Columbia, loss of regional economic stability related to marine

harvesting and processing, loss of lifestyle in many cases, and so on.

As a result, we have moved into primarily an export situation. I say

that advisedly, because export is defined in very strict terms. For

example, in the raw form, fish are considered processed if they have

the most rudimentary processing, such as basic cleaning and removing

the head. Just to give this some context, I want to refer to some of

the numbers from 1983 on the value of this commodity.

Salmon exported fresh in their tonnage — and there are very strict

regulations about this — have an approximate value of $6 million.

That's fresh unprocessed salmon, without flash-freezing, cleaning and

so on. The frozen whole dressed, which is a market that's appreciated

in Europe and Asia, is just cleaning and head removal of the four major

species of salmon and has a value of $107 million. The employment

surrounding that export is very little. We get very little value added

in terms of employment. Herring: again, the total of that export,

including herring roe, etc., has a value of $77 million. In other

words, the dollar value of this resource is great, but the job

potential is minimal.

After 1976, when the 200-mile limit was established and processing

capacity and overcapitalization proliferated in terms of the fishing

industry, the provincial government moved to freeze the number of

permits that would be allowed for processing plants, an action that was

a little late. What has resulted is a systematic closure of various

plants around the province, resulting in economic dislocation and

destabilization in our coastal communities.

The changes that occurred up until 1979 and 1980 resulted in very

little, if any, increase in labour force. They merely redistributed the

labour in seasonal jobs, and consolidated the processing capacity into

large urban centres like Vancouver, Steveston and Prince Rupert. In our

own community of Victoria, the fishing fleet has to go to Steveston to

sell its fish — to Cassiar Packing in Richmond. It bypasses

[ Page 5178 ]

what could be a major centre for the marine

resource industries, fish processing and so on, which would be a very

valuable asset to our community. It is within this minister's

jurisdiction, as the regulatory authority surrounding processing and as

the minister responsible for the issuance of processing permits, to

enter into agreements with the three major companies that control

virtually all the processing in British Columbia. Enter into agreements

that would stabilize the small regional communities where processing

plants are in place but not functional because they are not of interest

to these companies. It's in their interest to consolidate their

processing into a few plants and have the fishing fleet come to them,

which results in a loss of employment and a loss of regional and

community stability on the coast.

It's on the shore side that we're primarily interested at the

provincial level. We feel there's a potential for creating many good

jobs in the processing side, adding value to a resource that we now

export, and with very little added processing. As the minister is

aware, the Scandinavian countries give much more attention, in specific

ways, to the processing of herring, salmon, other groundfish and

shellfish resources to create employment in their own countries. They

are very sophisticated in smoking, pickling, jarring — all sorts of

value added.

Mr. Speaker, I see that my seven minutes are up. It's a very complex

industry and I look forward to my three minutes coming after to follow

my line.

HON. MR. PELTON: I was enjoying what you were saying so much,

hon. member, that if it were within the purview of the rules I would

let you have some of my time. At any rate, certainly the statements up

to this point have been very well taken, and I look forward to

extracting them from Hansard and processing them through the ministry to see what we can come up with.

I am also pleased to hear you say that the opposite side is going to

make a special point of discussing fishing from time to time. I've

never objected to criticism, because, as we all know, good honest

criticism is well worthwhile and is helpful.

In no way trying to rationalize the things that are already being

done within the ministry insofar as fisheries are concerned, there are

just a couple of points I thought I might make on this particular item.

At the moment, it's considered the value of our fisheries runs at about

$400 million a year. Within the industry, they employ some 12,300

persons in the processing part of the business. Some 12,800 persons are

employed in the actual fishing, and then there are, I am told, an

estimated 25,000 person-years where the employment relates to the

repair of ships and to the sale and distribution of fishing equipment.

[11:30]

Certainly in no way, shape or form does that mean that we are where

we should be in employment within the fishing industry in this province

— far from that. There are lots of things I think we can do to improve

it even further.

May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the growth in the industry is

probably directly related to the improvement of fish stocks on the

Pacific coast. I don't think that's particularly an oversimplification

of the matter, but it certainly is the way it stands to my point of

view. Improving these stocks — one of the things which was contained in

the question posed by that member yesterday and which I will be

bringing back a full report on on Monday — relates to the salmonid

enhancement program and the effect it has on the restocking of streams

and extra stocking of streams which eventually get into the ocean in

this province.

I would suggest that the recent treaty that was signed between

Canada and the U.S. will probably also provide some incentives for

stock improvement, and therefore there will be some increased job

generation through that.

The ministry, as you might possibly know, is presently working with

industry to try to ensure — and I think you alluded to this when you

spoke about the issuance of permits — that fish caught in our waters

are processed in British Columbia.

There's also the point of mariculture, which is one that has had a

great deal of discussion, and there's a great deal of ongoing

discussion. Even as I stand here, Mr. Speaker, we have some 300 people

employed in that industry at this time, and we fully expect that it

will grow. We could have 1,000 people employed in that industry in a

few years. I am working very closely with my colleagues in the

Agriculture ministry and Industry and Small Business Development

ministry to foster the growth of this industry by bringing in eggs for

Atlantic salmon and trying to expand this particular new method of fish

farming.

I can also tell the House that the oyster market continues to be strong, and local growers are expanding to meet this demand.

The sport fishing opportunities in B.C., in both salt and fresh

water, are among the best in the world and attract tourists from far

and wide. The annual employment generated in that particular endeavour

is considered to be about 2,400 person-years and is growing. But like I

said before, this is no reason why we shouldn't concentrate on having

it grow even faster.

I guess.... . oh, my time is up. I only had about three more words

to say. Thank you, hon. member, for your statement. I listened very

closely, and I appreciated it.

MR. HANSON: In conclusion, I am pleased that the minister

mentioned the federal funding on the salmonid enhancement. Our figures

seem to indicate that they are about $9 million shy of what was

promised here for salmonid enhancement. We are hoping that the minister

can rectify that with his federal colleague at the national level.

With respect to the employment potential within the B.C. fisheries,

the minister mentioned the number of individuals involved, but one

statistic that I think is very important to understand is that because

it is so seasonal, the average employment per capita in the shore side

is really less than one week per year, which is less than even to

qualify for unemployment benefits. It's 30.7 hours a year.

What we're trying to do is make suggestions to correct that, because

we believe that there are literally hundreds of jobs that could be

produced. I would like to just take the next minute or so to tell you

where we think they could be made.

The principal instrument for provincial policy is the licensing

power of the Ministry of the Environment. In exchange for continued

licensing of current large processing operations, the government could

enter into those production agreements which I mentioned earlier with

these large companies — Marubeni, B.C. Packers, and so on — to

guarantee the continued operation of smaller plants in outlying

communities. For example, despite the public subsidies put into the

processing facilities at Tofino, fish are now being driven past that

plant to be processed in Vancouver. Similarly, The B.C.

[ Page 5179 ]

Packer crab cannery in Masset was shut down and

relocated to Vancouver, which is an incredible inconvenience to the

fisheries there. The resources are here, the skilled workers are here,

the plants can be profitable, and we have a product that is highly

desired all over the world.

Another important step to increase employment and the value of our

processing industry would be the adoption of a policy that fish

harvested in B.C. be processed in B.C. before export. Now I recognize

that a lot of the desire for our product is in the fresh-frozen

category, and we don't want to dislocate that market. But we do want to

look at the tonnages we export and say to ourselves: "We can create

more employment here by taking a portion of that catch and processing

it here in B.C." The export of raw fish is analogous to the export of

raw logs. We lose those jobs.

If the minister could take under advisement these recommendations

and also at the same time in his portfolio ensure that we maintain the

quality of habitat.... The Strait of Georgia is one of the most

wonderful natural mariculture, aquaculture and fish-farming bodies in

the world. It's superior to Norway; it's superior to Japan. And protein

will be a commodity highly desirable in the future. It makes sense

economically; it makes sense also in terms of us doing our

part in

developing the protein that is going to be so desirable world-wide and

so important to feed the hungry of the world.

MR. COCKE: I rise on a point of order under 25A, Mr. Speaker,

and I draw your attention to

section 3 of 25A.

Section 3 says that the

proponent has a maximum of seven minutes and any other members have a

maximum of five minutes. Under the circumstances of three of the

statements and the replies, I have no objection whatsoever. The third

one was a proponent who was a member of the government party being

answered by the minister. Now this does not indicate to me that this is

question period or that a minister should reply.

The House has continually moved from one side of the House to the

other in order to have a debate. We could foresee a cozy little debate.

If in fact the recognition of a minister in reply to a private member

on the government side establishes a precedent for the future, then I

think that the statement period would not be a debate at all under

those circumstances. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this be given a

great deal of thought.

As a matter of fact, there are some other areas here that I think

have to be attended to as well, but I'm not going to bring them up now

because I think they should be privately discussed. But this particular

one is one that I would like to hear from you on, Mr. Speaker, because

I don't believe that the statement period was designed for a

give-and-take from one side of the House.

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, I think that this has

been an interesting day. I won't take up a lot of time repeating the

items that were alluded to by my colleague from New Westminster. But I

would say that part of the planning process of this particular new rule

was in finding an opportunity to develop more debate, and it was the

intention that the debate would go from one side to the other on these

three stages. I think that if the minister — for the sake of the

private member on the government side — is to participate, he could

participate in round three. The minister's participation is certainly

valuable, and I'm not arguing that point, but I do feel it wasn't the

intention. The idea was that it was to go from the proponent.... If

the proponent were the government, the second speaker would be an

opposition speaker, and then it would go back to the government. If

it's essential for a minister to participate — and I think it's very

helpful, especially if you're on the government side and you're the

proponent.... But I don't see why then the minister couldn't

participate under stage three, the three-minute stage of the debate,

rather than at the second stage. That's the only point I make.

HON. MR. NEILSEN: On the same point, 25A is not as specific

as some members or those who are reviewing this may wish. But I think

it is consistent with the manner in which the standing orders have been

drafted, where there are many cases where the specifics are not in

detail and yet certain procedures to develop. Mr. Speaker, when 25A,

the concept of private member statements, was drafted, emphasis was

placed on the statements to be from private members — recognizing

private members, no matter which political party they may represent.

It was specifically not suggested that phase 2 should be, with

respect to the five minutes.... It was very specifically indicated

to be "any other members," plural, rather than "government member" or

"minister" or anything that specific. Mr. Speaker, we saw today in the

second statement a number of people responding during that five-minute

allocation. I do not believe it was the intent that it necessarily be

one party responding to another party, but rather a private member and

then a response to that. Quite properly, on occasion, it will be the

minister responsible for that area of interest. It is also possible

that, because of the manner in which the statements are drawn by lot,

on any given day all the statements could come from one political party.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to draw to the attention of the

members that today has been a first. I think it has been conducted in

an extremely excellent manner. A new procedure will take some time to

be understood by all. I mentioned that 25A(3) specifically says the

period "shall not exceed one hour." I would only commend to members

that during this period of time we discipline ourselves not to consume

time within the hour on procedural points, and perhaps all of us who

may be engaged in the statement period could wind down prior to the

time allocation, rather than trying to use time beyond that.

Mr. Speaker, may I simply add that I believe today's experiment under the new rule 25 went very well.

[11:45]

MR. DAVIS: One further point. All members here are private

members, other than those who are members of the cabinet — the

executive council. Those who have been appointed parliamentary

secretaries, I think, should be seen as private members except where

they would address a question to the minister to whom they are

attached. Then I think that kind of question should be ruled out,

because to a degree they are within the council in that case. But

otherwise we are all private members and can therefore initiate

questions and have the first speaking period.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, some very interesting points have

been made. The Chair is going to take these under advisement, and over

the next little while, through the consultative process, will undertake

to bring back some

[ Page 5180 ]

guidelines to the House. In the meantime, I thank the members for their courtesies and understanding.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I have found

it necessary and indeed rather pressing to speak on a number of issues

of concern in the past few weeks. In fact, as a new member I have found

it rather difficult to keep my mouth shut around here. However, I'd

like to take this opportunity to give what I consider to be my maiden

address, even though I've had a few warmups. I beg the indulgence of

this House to so permit — and indeed suffer, if that may be the case.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, It has often been said that a kick at the end of the

spine can have a most stimulating effect on the other end. It is my

sincere hope that the recent by-elections in Vancouver East and

Okanagan North — a Social Credit stronghold for the past 32 years —

have had such a beneficial effect on this current government.

My presence in this chamber today is proof that the people in North

Okanagan and in fact throughout British Columbia are dissatisfied with

this government since its reelection. They have voiced that

dissatisfaction by their vote. I have come to outline their concerns,

to voice their message, which was so clearly stated last November 8.

I come from an area of this province that has been blessed with a

unique quality of life. People choose to live in the Okanagan because

of its climate and its lifestyle. Simply put, it's a great place to

live, and the people of the North Okanagan would like to keep it that

way. That is exactly where the problem lies, because the people in the

North Okanagan have grown tired of the insensitivity of this government

to their concerns.

Let me give you an example. During the November by-election, as many

will recall, the issue of sewage disposal in the Vernon area became a

major concern. In an attempt to hide the serious problems caused by

government inaction, the former Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Brummet) — and I'm saddened to see that he's not here — jumped into the

issue with both feet and really caused quite a stink. [Laughter.] The

truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, that Vernon

cannot afford to play politics with sewage. We need help from this

government to upgrade and expand our present land disposal system. It's

overloaded. Excess effluent is now being dumped into Okanagan Lake. As

a matter of fact the city of Vernon is preparing to dump excess

effluent later on this month.

The previous New Democratic government demonstrated its commitment

back in the early '70s to keep our lakes in the Okanagan clean by

encouraging and by funding Vernon's present spray irrigation system. In

1974 New Democrats passed the Sewerage Assistance Act, assuring

municipalities throughout British Columbia that 75 percent of the

sewerage funding would come from the province. On July 8, 1983, this

present government demonstrated its lack of interest in the quality of

our environment by cutting the province's share of sewerage funding

from 75 percent to 25 percent.

The city of Vernon will now have to front-load 75 percent of the

cost of an expanded sewage disposal system. Yet this government is

currently in the process of subsidizing the Ganges island sewage

project to the tune of $6 million — 100 percent financing — for 93

residential connections. at a cost of over $48,000 for each hook-up. It

just happens to be in the Minister of Finance's (Hon. Mr. Curtis) home

constituency. But we'll overlook that point.

If the arithmetic were applied to Vernon's situation, the city would

receive sufficient money to fund several first-class sewage treatment

systems — not one but several. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Ritchie) a few weeks ago in this House argued that the Ganges

sewerage project subsidization was warranted for health reasons. I want

to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to tell the members in this

House, that in Vernon the people swim in and drink the water in

Okanagan Lake, where the city dumps the excess sewage. The people drink

that water. Surely for the same health reasons the city of Vernon

should receive a better shake than two-bits on the dollar.

This issue will not go away and neither will I. I'm going to keep

pressing this government to assure that the needs of my constituents

will be met. We have to protect the health of our citizens and protect

the health of our environment, as well as our tourism industry up in

the Okanagan.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is not

here. I regret that fact because forestry is another local issue in the

Okanagan which won't go away. It's especially true in the Arrow Lakes

area, in the communities of Burton, Edgewood, Fauquier and Nakusp,

where unemployment nudges 50 percent — not 15 percent but 50 percent.

Our forests have been sadly neglected. In 1983 the Shuswap-Okanagan

forest companies had a payroll of $82.5 million. Add to that

expenditures in energy, supplies and fuel of $35.7 million, $82.5

million to contractors, and you've got a substantial portion of the

local economy revolving around forestry. It's all going downhill.

What has this government done to help? Our provincial forest and

range resources fund was gutted to the tune of $84 million in 1982, all

in the name of restraint. In 1983 and 1984 an additional $10.4 million

was chopped from the forest budget. Silviculture programs were

virtually suspended. While other provinces have signed

provincial-federal reforestation agreements, our Premier, who is absent

today from the House, is trying to water down the $300 million joint

agreement for reforestation. There are reports that he wants to throw

some of this money at another megaproject — a gas pipeline to the

Island. It may be a good idea, but I think it makes more economic sense

to put our money into reforestation. If we don't there could be a

decline of over one third of the annual timber harvest and a loss of

60,000 jobs in British Columbia in the next 20 years.

In the Okanagan we've been told to expect a timber supply shortage

in five to 15 years that will exceed 50 percent, even if basic

reforestation were practised. Since present reforestation continues to

be less than even this basic level, the shortage is expected to be

considerably worse, with a loss of at least half of our forest sector

employment in the Okanagan. The consequences will be extensive social

destabilization and a severely weakened economic base. Who is giving us

this message about the dismal performance of government in the forestry

sector? Our own Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has accepted

and admitted the fact that the policies of his ministry are ravaging

our natural heritage; they are

[ Page 5181 ]

destroying our primary resource industry. Those words came from the

Minister of Forests himself. Some leadership; some record. I'm sad that

he's not here today to listen to these comments.

Highway improvements were also a big issue in the by-election. I

notice on all these issues I'm speaking to, the ministers don't seem to

be present. I don't know if they knew it was coming, but it's

unfortunate. I know they're there. Only a week before election day our

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) announced an

$11 million four-laning of Highway 97 south of Vernon. I never thought

for a moment it had anything to do with the by-election, but I am proud

to say that even though my opposition lost that election, the minister

stuck by his commitment. I compliment him for it. It does demonstrate,

very clearly, how an effective voice in opposition can take

long-neglected government promises and turn them into reality.

What about education? The empty seat says a lot, doesn't it?

Communities throughout the Okanagan pride themselves in our Okanagan

College system. As a multi-campus facility it supplied our students

with a first-class education, until recently. People now are angry with

the hatchet job that this Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has

done to our college system. There is a $1.4 million shortfall that may

close campuses, chop courses and eliminate second-year university

transfer programs. It is threatening the very life of our college

system. Such short-sighted economics will deny many of our young people

an opportunity to receive a decent education. Education in British

Columbia is a victim of restraint, of an ideology which brushes aside

considerations of social values and of long-term economic planning as

impediments to the magic remedy of austerity.

The present government is caught up in a frontier mentality, an

anachronistic sentiment that all a young person needs is a strong back

and a sharp axe. Mr. Speaker, the world has changed; it doesn't work

that way anymore. From the perspective of families in the interior, the

attrition of our local college system and the closing of David Thompson

University Centre means that a university education has become a

privilege for the wealthy few, and for the lower mainland. Those few

who do benefit will more and more be trained only in the skills that

serve enterprises whose goals are defined in terms of profit rather

than any larger social context.

John Stoik, president and chief executive officer of Gulf Oil of Canada, in an

article in the Globe and Mail

last fall stated: "The ability of a country to improve its productivity

and its international competitiveness is critically dependent on an

advanced and educated workforce. Education is a strategic national

resource for any industrial economy to compete in the global village."

Those aren't my words; that's the CEO of Gulf Oil, and Gulf Oil is

right. Today's mistakes will endanger the future of our young people

and our ability to successfully compete in the international

marketplace. Cutting education spending has become a Social Credit way

of life. It's their way to show real leadership. Some leadership, Mr.

Speaker; some foresight.

[12:00]

Unemployment. Three-quarters of my constituents feel it's the most

important issue facing British Columbia today, and they're right. These

people don't want any more cheap politics; they want jobs. Over 80

percent of the people throughout British Columbia know that

unemployment in B.C. is worse than in the rest of Canada. When talking

to the local media in the Okanagan this morning, I found out that today

the StatsCan figure for unemployment in the north Okanagan exceeds 20

percent — an unprecedented high, and totally unacceptable. My

constituents have lost faith in the Premier's promise of recovery. His

record of restraint has left British Columbia with one of the worst

rates of growth in North America. The father gave us the Bank of

British Columbia; the son gave us the food bank — B.C.'s biggest growth

industry today. Three years of restraint have left a legacy of failure:

a 15 percent level of unemployment throughout British Columbia, a 52

percent surge in welfare, a 27 percent drop in investment and a 300

percent increase in bankruptcies throughout this province. This

government should hang its head in shame.

Even the Royal Bank, an institution not normally noted for its

radicalism or outspoken criticism, warns: "We're not so sanguine about

British Columbia's prospects. B.C.'s problems include severe restraint

measures, persistent disputes and depressed consumer confidence. Unless

these mistakes are removed, it is very likely the province will remain

in the doldrums."

Mr. Speaker, this mean-spirited government has led the way to the worst economic

growth in Canada. It all adds up to one clear message: Social Credit restraint

has devastated this economy. That's why throughout British Columbia New

Democrats, Liberals, Tories, Socreds and even the odd United Party loyalist

are voicing their anger at this current government's record of economic

mismanagement. My constituents and all British Columbians are worse off today

than they were three years ago when restraint was introduced. They know that

restraint has hurt recovery in British Columbia.

The people of British Columbia have no faith in this government's

performance. The people who invest their lives, the people who build

their dreams here have lost faith in this government. Three years of

restraint have meant three years of bitter confrontation, pitting

worker against worker and neighbour against neighbour; three years of

massive firings and cuts that have left tens of thousands of our

citizens jobless, thousands of broken dreams and thousands of shattered

lives. Families who put everything into their future are left without a

future: broken dreams, broken homes and broken people. That's the

legacy of restraint. And for what? To make the hon. member from Palm

Springs look like a tough guy, to sell an image that the polls showed

would help win the election. The Premier's former principal secretary,

Patrick Kinsella, has admitted that the restraint program was nothing

more than a marketing strategy. Those aren't my words; those are his

words right in the Vancouver Sun : a marketing strategy, a

strategy deliberately based on polling. Restraint was not based on any

economic necessity; it was a scheme to sell a hollow image. I wonder

how the worker with over 30 years of loyalty feels knowing that his job

and his future were sacrificed for restraint. What about the young

people whose futures have been compromised and jeopardized? What about

the unemployed single mother stuck in the downward spiral of

unemployment and welfare? All to sell the image of a tough guy!

Restraint has cost British Columbians dearly. They've paid the

price. It was the wrong medicine at the wrong time. It was a cruel hoax

played out by a government whose arrogance is only surpassed by its

callous insensitivity to the problems faced by the people of British

Columbia. It's time that this government recognized the growing anger

of tens of

[ Page 5182 ]

thousands of British Columbians who have needlessly suffered at the

hands of restraint. The people of British Columbia will long remember

the legacy of restraint — a legacy of sacrifice for political

expediency. The people will say of this government: they know only the

rules of a generation of selfseekers; they have no vision. When there

is no vision, the people perish.

Now the Premier has bought a new slogan. Restraint is out. The new

buzzwords are "partnership" and "renewal." That's what the pollsters

have sold him — at taxpayers' expense. But the people of B.C. are

choking on the new line, because when you've been kicked in the teeth,

it's just a little hard to turn the other cheek. Now New Democrats have

been talking about a cooperative approach all along. We've been talking

about it all along. We've offered the olive branch because we feel it

is time for a new beginning. I just hope that the member for Okanagan

South (Hon. Mr. Bennett) understands what we mean when we talk about

cooperation and consultation. I hope he understands that the only

reason that cooperation is an issue — the only reason that it's in the

polls today — is because of his record of confrontation over the past

three years.

We're not asking for a love-in in this Legislature. We've asked for

input into the decision-making process as a means of participatory

democracy. This opposition will embrace good legislation. It will

embrace any legislation to get B.C. moving again. But I want to say

that we're going to go to the mat to fight bad legislation.

That's the name of the game, Mr. Speaker. It's what we're elected to

do. What we are asking, through you to the Premier — Mr. Premier, in

your absence, I know you're out there — is that you start cooperating

with the people of British Columbia. We're asking that this government

sit down with people and consult: open your hearts, show some

compassion, find a way to get British Columbia back to work. We need

ideas to reverse the economic collapse that restraint has caused. Many

suggestions have been outlined by the Leader of the Opposition in his

previous address to this House. They're positive approaches that

involve a process of consultation; a process of public debate about

economic visions and industrial strategies, about values and priorities

for the future of this province and for the future of our young people.

It's an approach that is predicated on a cooperative society, a

society where people may choose their economic destiny rather than have

one forced upon them. It's essential that serious attention be given to

their concerns and their proposals, if the seeds of trust are ever to

be sown again. We must regain the confidence of the people of British

Columbia. We must harness their energies in the process of economic

reconstruction, because in every region, in every community, our people

have the talent and the enterprise to rebuild this shattered economy.

The challenge we in this House — all of us — face today is to put those

talents to work so that British Columbia may take its place as a leader

in economic and social renewal.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I refer to the words of a great democrat

who showed the guts and the determination needed to pull the U.S.

economy from its knees 50 years ago. Franklin Roosevelt proved to be

the right man at the right time with his program of action: firstly, to

get the people back to work, and secondly to correct the government

blunders that had contributed to the economic crisis of the thirties. I

will leave you with this. Roosevelt said: "These unhappy times call for

the building of new plans, plans that build from the bottom up, not the

top down, plans that put faith once more in the forgotten man at the

bottom of the economic pyramid."

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to

rise and support the Speech from the Throne and to express my

enthusiasm for its message of confidence and optimism. Notwithstanding

the remarks of the previous speaker, I think that we have gone through

— thank goodness we are now emerging from it — a period of economic and

social change that I'm afraid has been painfully obvious to all of us.

I believe that the tone set by the throne speech signals a dynamic

beginning to a new era of growth. Confidence and optimism are essential

to economic renewal, and that fact is recognized by the people of all

ideological persuasions. A shared sense of faith in the future is a

necessary prerequisite to an economic recovery that will bring benefits

to all British Columbians.

The indications are that a renewed spirit of optimism is emerging

today in communities in every region throughout the province. Investors

and consumers are engaging in their vital economic functions with

renewed vigor. Countless community organizations have initiated

programs to encourage growth and development, and thousands of

entrepreneurs are establishing new businesses that create new

employment opportunities for countless others. The unfolding story in

British Columbia today is one of good news, news of thousands of

positive events and the benefits brought by free enterprise and

individual initiative. Our resourceful and innovative private sector,

in concert with responsible and stimulative government policies, has

initiated new businesses, new industries and new markets for British

Columbia goods and services. That is why I herald the constructive tone

of our throne speech: because it will reinforce and encourage that

growing feeling of confidence in our provincial economy among all

British Columbians.

[12:15]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The Salmon Ann Observer recently ran an editorial with the headline: "We Believe in Us:"

"There are good signs...and many of them. Things are

happening. There is room and there is solid ground for...optimism, and that's

what we need. A little injection of confidence" — that's what we need

— "some belief in ourselves and where we're going, a positive outlook,

and we too can begin to build again. It's time; time for a new year and

a new attitude."

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that anyone could read that January 2, 1985 edition

of the Salmon Arm Observer and not feel confident that recovery is well underway.

That editorial not only describes the growing feeling of optimism in Salmon

Arm; it also instills confidence in the residents of the community and, in turn,

stimulates the local economy.

There are many examples that such optimism is both growing and

becoming widespread throughout our province. Perhaps nothing

illustrates this fact better than the multitude of Expo 86 committees

being organized to celebrate this once-in-a-lifetime event. At last

count, over 70 different communities in every region of our province

have begun planning programs and festivities that will enable them to

participate in the celebrations happening in downtown British Columbia.

Such enthusiasm would not and could not exist

[ Page 5183 ]

in a stagnant economy. The Cariboo will be recreating the famous

gold rush by raffling off a gold bar to tourists visiting their region,

while in Lillooet, organizers will be staging a train robbery. Expo

committees in Smithers, Kimberley, Armstrong, Chetwynd, Chilliwack and

many other centres are doing everything they can to ensure that

tourists to Expo will continue their vacation here in B.C., in that way

spending several days and several dollars.

Expo has provided us not only with an opportunity to invite the

world to celebrate our heritage, but more importantly has allowed us to

work together in a spirit of cooperation and mutual interest so that

all British Columbians will benefit. Visitors to our province will

witness a celebration of British Columbia's dynamic future and our

inherent confidence.

Mr. Speaker, the future is ours. It has been said that our world is

going through an information revolution, that we are entering the age

of information. Appropriately enough, the theme of Expo 86 is

transportation and communications. Satellites, computers and

telecommunications allow us to transmit knowledge and information

anywhere in the world in a matter of seconds, if not milliseconds. New

means of communications are bringing people closer together than ever

before. So, too, Expo is bringing British Columbians closer together,

both on site in Vancouver and in local communities in every comer of

the province. All residents will have an opportunity to participate in

the celebrations and to benefit from the economic impact of this major

event.

Expo 86, like its theme, is illustrative of this new age that allows

British Columbians to communicate and exchange information with each

other in ways previously unheard of. New technologies are providing

British Columbians with the opportunity of learning and acquiring new

forms of knowledge. The Ministry of Universities, Science and

Communications has established unique and innovative programs that will

enable residents in every area of the province to acquire an education.

The Knowledge Network now reaches British Columbians in almost 250

different communities, providing telecourses with college and

university credit. Through the Anik C3 satellite, the Knowledge Network

also reaches people living in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and

even northern Alberta. The Open Learning consortium uses distance

education to offer career, technical and vocational studies, as well as

adult basic education. Through new technologies and new forms of

communication it is now possible for residents of our province to

receive a complete education regardless of where they live. British

Columbia has become a veritable electronic classroom.

Another example of the way in which our province is being opened up

by communications is the satellite relay telephone system recently

inaugurated by SpaceTel, a subsidiary of B.C. Tel. Those living in

isolated areas of the province will receive much improved service,

including better transmission quality and privacy equal to that of our

regular telephone service. SpaceTel, like the Knowledge Network, is

utilizing the Anik C3 satellite.

The continuing growth of British Columbia and our increasing need to exchange

information requires constant improvement and expansion of our communications

systems. I believe it is instructive of the economic growth of our province

that B.C. Tel is expanding its services in many of the areas throughout the

province. The Peace River area will soon be undergoing a complete upgrading

of its computerized telephone exchange system, and a new 36,000 square foot

building complex worth close to $2 million will be constructed this year, creating

both new construction and, even more importantly, permanent jobs. Kelowna has

been selected as the site for the new Columbia divisional headquarters for B.C.

Tel. That will in itself create 225 new jobs for that local economy. As well,

B.C. Tel has opened its new education centre on Willingdon Avenue in Burnaby.

These developments are positive evidence that British Columbia's economy

is growing and that we remain in the forefront of advances made in the telecommunications

field.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier the editorial in the Salmon Arm

Observer , and I think we should remember that the news media is one of

the most important means of communicating that we have. A member of the

British Parliament, Mr. Macaulay, coined the phrase "the fourth estate"

in 1828 when he stated: "The gallery in which the reporters sit has

become a fourth estate of the realm." I think that the scribes in this

Legislature should take note that the fourth estate is antecedent to

the third. That comment in itself may suggest that a degree of

subservience should exist in our relationship despite their lofty perch.

However, few can doubt that the news media are very important in

shaping public opinion and reporting developments in our social and

economic environment. Marshall McLuhan, in his book Understanding

Media , noted that the newspaper is a hot medium. It has to have bad

news for the sake of intensity and reader participation. Real news is

bad news. As many of us know who have read the media in the last few

years, that seems to be the manifest of many of the British Columbia

written media. That too is changing.

As the editorial in the Salmon Arm newspaper indicates, some news

media are not fixated on bad news stories. The economic renewal

underway in British Columbia today is a good news story, and many

newspapers throughout the province are beginning to write about it. In

Fort St. John, the January 14th edition of the Northern News Agencies'

newsletter published an editorial entitled "Atmosphere," which states

the following: "It is hard to put one's finger on it, but I sense a

general air of optimism in Fort St. John that I haven't seen for a few

years. Logic tells one that there's something really heavy going on,

and yet everybody you talk to seems to be really busy. We don't know

why, but we're sure pleased."

The paper goes on to report that another local newspaper, the Alaska

Highway News , is experiencing a noticeable increase in the amount of

advertising bought by area merchants — another sign of a quickly

emerging economy.

Victoria's Monday Magazine newspaper recently ran a special series

of articles entitled "Econo '85," which offered the following

observation: "To a great extent media attention on the downside

reinforces the psychology that feeds economic depression. We decided it

was time for some good news." The paper then has a series of articles

on several people who have prospered during the last several years by

being innovative, creative and hard-working.

The picture that emerges is one of confidence in our economic future

and illustrates that economic renewal is not just beginning but is well

underway.

Like other businesses, newspapers in British Columbia have become

innovative and resourceful to meet the demands of our changing economy.

Perhaps one of the best examples is the Vancouver Courier . In a

campaign that started last summer, the Vancouver Courier has been

featuring editorial and advertising coverage of new businesses opening

in their local area. Every week two or three newly created businesses

each

[ Page 5184 ]

purchase half a page of advertising in that paper, and the editorial

staff contribute another half-page to stories and photographs of the

new enterprise. The editor and the advertising manager report that the

response to the project has been "phenomenal" from both advertisers and

the public. Letters to the editor have been fully supportive of this

type of cooperative endeavor. As many as six new businesses have been

featured in just one weekly issue. The point to note is that no only is

the Vancouver Courier reporting on this flurry of economic activity but

it is contributing to it as well by informing their readers of the

vibrant entrepreneurial spirit at work in their local community.

Other papers are experiencing our province's economic renewal

firsthand. Circulation of the Vancouver Courier has increased 25

percent in the last six months, in part due to its innovative and

exciting marketing policies. The South Vancouver Revue has recently

expanded to a weekly format from its former twice a month appearance —

again, in response to a growing demand from advertisers for increased

exposure.

I'm pleased to report that in Coquitlam we're also sharing this

increased economic boom. The Sunday News , which is published in Maple

Ridge and distributed in Coquitlam, to this date has only offered a

weekly service. I have been recently advised that the appearance of a

mid-week issue is imminent. As the editor of the Sunday News stated to

me, and he's repeating a very familiar theme: "Consumer confidence is

increasing, and retailers want to increase their advertising to

customers," again indicating that recovery is now well underway.

The Prince George Citizen , which formerly appeared daily

Monday to Friday, initiated a Saturday edition last October and reports

that its new supplement is receiving an excellent response from

readers. Advertising sales set a record in 1984 and are expected to

increase again this year. The Prince George Citizen is also

taking an active leadership role in the community preparing for Prince

George's seventieth anniversary celebrations in May of this year.

Perhaps one of the reasons that newspapers are reporting good news

stories is because these same newspapers are benefiting firsthand from

our transition to an information society. In one of last year's

best-selling books, Megatrends , author John Naisbitt cites the rapid

growth in the publishing industry for newspapers, magazines and books.

He cites that as one example of our increasing need to have access to

information. Our province is in the forefront of a similar trend in

Canada, and there are a number of instances which show that we,

probably even more so than many places in the United States, are

interested in the information age.

The executive director of the British Columbia and Yukon Community

Newspapers' Association reports that many of the member newspapers are

expanding their operations, increasing from weekly editions to

twice-a-week appearances or from biweeklies to weeklies. Circulation

for the newspapers in the association has increased from 490,000 five

years ago to 700,000 this year. According to the association, the

future for community newspapers in B.C. look very good. To ensure that

their industry is prepared for this anticipated growth, the B.C. and

Yukon community newspapers annually provide several thousand dollars

in scholarships to journalism students in community colleges around the

province. I personally commend their efforts and wish them continued

success in their industry. The Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers'

Association says that advertising revenues in British Columbia are

increasing substantially, a trend that is occurring across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbians are an intelligent, inquisitive and

well-read group of people. This is reflected not only by the fact that

the Social Credit government is continually elected to serve as

government but also in the fact that we have the highest per-capita

number of bookstores and the highest per-capita book sales in Canada.

Our publishing industry is now the second largest in the country. The

number of titles published in B.C. rose in the past year from 200 to

275, and the executive director of the Association of Book Publishers

of B.C. reports that sales have increased from 6.2 million copies to

8.5 million. We should note that our government provides considerable

assistance to this valuable resource through programs and policies

initiated by the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Industry and

Small Business Development and the cultural services branch of the

Provincial Secretary and Government Services ministry.

Communications are becoming increasingly important in our

fast-paced, high-tech world. I am especially pleased that our

government has undertaken to increase communication and consultation

between the citizens of British Columbia and their government, in an

effort to increase the flow of information in this province.

In the fall of last year the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

initiated a series of 28 public meetings in 28 communities throughout

our province in order to discuss the topic of taxation and economic

development. Over 350 verbal and written briefs were presented to the

minister at these hearings. Representatives from the business

community, teachers, local politicians, organized labour and other

interested citizens had their opportunity to create dialogue with our

government. All of the suggestions were and are being evaluated by the

minister and his staff, and I am confident that the public hearings

provided valuable input for possible taxation changes in this year's

budget, if not in future budgets.

A further example of attempts by our government to provide relations

between taxpayers and the Ministry of Finance was established by the

taxpayers' services unit to provide assistance to the public and

businesses with any tax inquiries. Last year for the first time a

questionnaire was sent to the businesses after they had been audited by

the consumer taxation branch. The questionnaire seeks comments from

taxpayers on how the audit was done, asks if the taxpayers were

satisfied with the results of the audit and solicits suggestions on

what could be done to improve the service provided by the consumer

taxation branch. Again, it is an illustration of the willingness to

communicate with our citizens and to improve the delivery of government

services.

[12:30]

The Ministry of Education, through the "Let's Talk About Schools"

discussion paper, is actively encouraging public input in its efforts

to improve our province's education system. The minister writes: "To be

effective, schools, like other social institutions, must respond to the

world around them.... 'Let's Talk About Schools'...therefore represents

an invitation to all British Columbians to make their views on

schooling known and, in doing so, to help shape schools of the future

in this province." In fact, just last evening on my local community 10

station the "Let's Talk About Schools" program was aired in an

extensive fashion, literally having the ministry brochure shown on

screen; discussion as to possible answers and a general outline was

[ Page 5185 ]

given to the listening audience, with the opportunity to offer their

thoughts and suggestions on this important issue. The Minister of

Education has formed a Provincial School Review Committee to consider

changes to the School Act, which will be revised for the first time

since 1958. This new School Act will reflect the changes that have

taken place in our society since that time.

It is through efforts such as these, Mr. Speaker, that our

government is demonstrating its commitment to improving communications

with the citizens of British Columbia. Increased communications can

only have a positive impact on the direction in which our province is

heading. The communications between any government and the people it

serves are of paramount importance.

I believe that all in all the newspapers in B.C. do a fairly

objective and consistent job of assisting in the flow of information.

Now that economic renewal is underway, the transmission of good news

will encourage the growth in confidence required to ensure continued

prosperity. At the convention of the Canadian Community Newspapers'

Association held in Penticton last July the Premier said: "A tremendous

contribution is made by local newspapers in B.C." He then went on to

congratulate them on a job well done, and I would like to echo the

Premier's sentiments. In addition, I wish them the best of luck in the

future.

Newspapers, books, magazines and the other forms of communication

that I've mentioned today are becoming ever more important in our

society, by providing people with the information that is being

increasingly demanded. Also, with the increased information resources

available in B.C. we as legislators must be doubly sure that our

efforts meet the high expectations and diverse needs of the electorate

we serve. We on the government side of the House, by pledging our

support for the positive and constructive themes outlined in the Speech

from the Throne, will be demonstrating our commitment to the future of

our province. The opposition has a responsibility to propose concrete

and specific measures to meet the challenges our province faces. We

welcome their commitment to abandon personal attacks in favour of

positive cooperative dialogue. This is a responsibility of each member

of the House, Mr. Speaker.

With great pleasure, I will be voting in support of the Speech from the Throne.

MS. BROWN: The member who just took his seat certainly took

us on a trip through fantasyland. In this province we are experiencing

bankruptcies at the rate of an increase of 300 percent, and he calls

that a recovery. Escalating unemployment. Job loss. When the rest of

Canada is going down, these continue to escalate here, and he calls

that a recovery. Whoever wrote that speech for him should have started

with the words: "Once upon a time." That was a fairy tale if we ever

heard one.

The reality of the situation is that we can't support this throne

speech, because it really doesn't offer anything to the people of

British Columbia. Not the young people, the women, the children, small

business, the forestry industry, resources — no one benefits as a

result of any of the statements made in this document. We would be

remiss, and we would be doing this province a disservice, if we were to

speak in support of it. We have to oppose it.

I find it interesting that in fact what the speech has done is zero

in on the weakest links in this government's program and then talk

about them in positive terms.

I want to remind you that it has been just over a year since the

Ministry of Human Resources eliminated one of the most valuable and

necessary services to children that this province has ever had, namely

the child abuse team, and wiped it out completely. As a direct result

of that, we are finding reported in the media, if nowhere else, an

increase in the incidence of sexual and physical abuse of children. If

I were the government, I would indicate very clearly in the throne

speech an intention to reintroduce that program, recognizing how

important it is to the children of this province. Not at all; instead,

the speech brags about a program which no longer exists. It says that

combating child abuse will continue to be a high priority for the

Ministry of Human Resources. How is that going to happen, after the

team of trained specialists and trained professionals — dedicated

people working in that area — has been fired and the program eliminated?

We have more people thrown onto the income assistance rolls in this

province today than ever before, as a direct result of the government's

mismanagement of the economy. Human Resources consistently overruns its

budget — has to — because there are more poor people in the province,

and the poor people are getting poorer. At the same time the ministry

is cutting back on services, on resources and on its personnel. It is

not able under the present circumstances to do the job of properly

serving the people in need. The staff are overworked; caseloads are

beyond comprehension. People are not being served. Children are not

being protected. Is there any indication in the throne speech that that

ministry is going to reverse its policies, restore the family support

workers, restore the child abuse team, restore the other services that

families need, increase the supply of trained personnel to deal with

these problems? None at all. Instead, we are told that the ministry is

maintaining all programs despite increased workloads. That's just not

true. There is a long list of programs that have been cut, that are no

longer in service. Of course the workloads are increased. That's a

direct result of the termination of a number of personnel in the

ministry.

I find it absolutely mind-boggling that the Ministry of Human

Resources, in contributing to this document, would not have taken the

government to task for the level of poverty it has created in this

province, resulting directly in the increased number of people needing

the services of the Ministry of Human Resources. If the Minister of

Human Resources cared about the people of British Columbia, whom she is

supposed to be serving, her contribution to the throne speech would

have been a direct attack on a government which caused to be

reintroduced in this province something we have not seen since the

Great Depression: food banks and soup kitchens. That's what the

Minister of Human Resources should be talking about. Her contribution

to the throne speech should be that her efforts would be redoubled and

would not cease until her government created jobs, put people to work,

and there was no longer any need for soup kitchens, food banks and

overruns in the ministry itself. Instead, we are treated to the

distortion of services being maintained and of child abuse being

combated. It's just not happening. Because of my responsibilities as

spokesperson or debate leader for community services alone, if for no

other reason, I would have to reject this throne speech and not support

it.

Imagine my surprise when I heard the Lieutenant-Governor talk about the high quality of health care in this province.

[ Page 5186 ]

Part of my responsibility is to be the debate leader on community

and preventive health. Discharging that responsibility, I met with a

number of community health teams and public health nurses in and around

the lower mainland. Without exception, they talked about the way in

which the health and dental care of children in the schools are

deteriorating, eroded by this government wiping out necessary

preventive programs. In one area they talked about an epidemic of

measles, which would never have occurred if mandatory inoculation in

the schools was still in effect. How can we talk about quality health

care when we don't care for the health of our children? How can we talk

about quality health care when we don't have dental care available to

all children regardless of their economic status? If you can't pay for

health care, you don't get it. If you can't pay for dental care, you

don't get it. That's what the children are told. Again I have to say

that I cannot support this particular speech, simply and if for no

other reason than the deteriorating level of community and preventive

health care which is available to the children of this province, to say

nothing of the adults.

Then comes a

section on equality rights. Hmmph! This is really and

truly pathetic. On April 17

section 15 of the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms, the equality section, is going to come into effect right

across Canada. In other words, the province has had an additional three

years to get its act together, to monitor legislation and bring it into

line with the Charter. At the first ministers' conference attended by

the Premier, the province of Quebec submitted a document entitled "The

Quebec Government's Accomplishments Concerning the Status of Women."

What that document did was outline for the benefit of the members of

the conference the things that the Quebec government has done in terms

of trying to bring their legislation into line with the Charter.

[12:45]

It talked about the structural changes in government. For example,

they now have a minister responsible for the status of women. It talked

about the fact that each government department has appointed a person

to take charge of the Status of Women file and the ongoing monitoring

of the legislation in each ministry. Then it outlined a plan of action,

and divided that into three areas: changes in attitude; changes in

institutions such as marriage and labor structures; and increase in

women's participation in decision-making within each area's specific

goals, and the ends which they were working towards. The third thing it

did in this report was list the accomplishments.

Now the women of British Columbia would have settled for any two of

the three. We would not have asked the government of B.C. to embarrass

itself by preparing a document listing accomplishments, because there

aren't any. As a matter of fact, if one had to list what has happened

to women since this government took office, it's been a continual and

unrelenting attack on services to women and an erosion of the quality

of life that women experience in this province.

But certainly women would have accepted some kind of document

talking about the government's intention in terms of structural changes

which were to take place prior to April 17, when

section 15 comes into

effect. A plan of action, or even some indication that action was about

to take place. No such thing has happened. When the Attorney-General is

confronted, he keeps hinting that maybe if we behave ourselves,

something will happen; that — who knows? — in secret, somewhere,

something is going on, and on April 17, if all goes well, maybe

something will come into place in line with the Charter.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the throne speech should have indicated

very clearly the extent to which this government has been monitoring

its legislation, and the extent to which it will be bringing in

legislation into this House to be amended. It's had three years to do

that, and to date we have seen no indicati