1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5737 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Statutes Repeal Act, 1989 (Bill 2). Hon. Mr. Ree

Introduction and first reading –– 5738

Trade Development Corporation Act (Bill 3). Hon. Mr. Jansen

Introduction and first reading –– 5738

Provincial Symbols and Honours Act (Bill 4). Hon. Mr. Reid

Introduction and first reading –– 5739

Oral Questions

Resignation of David Poole. Mr. Sihota –– 5739

Property purchase tax. Mr. Blencoe –– 5739

Budget review committee. Mr. Clark –– 5740

Moratorium on offshore oil drilling. Mr. Cashore –– 5740

Compensation for laid-off loggers. Mr. Miller –– 5741

Presenting Reports –– 5741

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Williams –– 5742

Mr. Jacobsen –– 5745

Ms. Edwards –– 5748

Mr. Bruce –– 5751

Mr. Barlee –– 5754

Ms. A. Hagen –– 5755

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 5759

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID :

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the

House today His Excellency Surbir Jit Singh Chhatwal and Mrs. Chhatwal.

With them is D.K. Maitra, the consul-general of India, and Mrs. Maitra.

Would the House please give these people a special welcome.

MR. G. HANSON :

Seated on the floor of the House today is a newly elected MLA from

Alberta. He represents the constituency of Edmonton-Jasper Place, which

contains the world-famous West Edmonton Mall. The good news is that

this gentleman is a New Democrat, and since his election, business in

the mall has never been better — John McInnis.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

In the House today are two very distinguished Canadians: Mr. Orvis

Kennedy and Rev. Ernest Kennedy. Rev. Ernest Kennedy is pastor of a

local Baptist church, and Orvis Kennedy is one of the founders of

Social Credit in Canada. As a matter of fact, he was the one who did

the deed when he originally signed me up in the party many years ago,

and I would like the House to bid him welcome.

MR. CLARK :

In the gallery today are two hardworking New Democrats, who are from

Delta — or maybe Surrey. I'd ask the House to make welcome Tom Nicol

and Jean Elsasser.

HON. J. JANSEN :

I have several introductions to the House this afternoon. We have Mr.

David Robertson from Nanaimo and his daughter, Mrs. Janet McIntyre, and

the McIntyres' two children, Karen and David, who are all from

Chilliwack. Karen has been studying our government in her grade 5

social studies class and has come here today to see the Legislature in

action. Would you please welcome them to the House this afternoon.

I'm

also honoured to introduce to this House a group which has been

studying us from a little further afield. We have in the galleries

today ten students from the Centre for Canadian Studies at the

University of Edinburgh, led by Mr. and Mrs. A.J. Crosbie. Would you

please give a warm British Columbia welcome to these ambassadors from

the University of Edinburgh.

MR. MILLER : Seated up

there behind the plexiglas is my daughter, who is visiting from sunny

Prince Rupert, and I would ask the House to join me in making her

welcome.

MR. LOVICK : We are visited today by a group of four friends from Nanaimo:

Nelson and Donna Allen and their daughters Tanya and Leslie. I would ask the

House to please join me in making them welcome.

MR. PELTON :

In the gallery today are some people from that wonderful little town

called Lumby in British Columbia. They are Eileen Brewer and her

daughters Debbie and Joanna and also Leanne Mattson. Along with them,

from Niebilll, Germany, is Karen Franke. I would ask all members to

give them a warm welcome, please.

MR. SIHOTA : First

of all, being the only one in this House of Indo-Canadian origin, I

would also like to take the opportunity to extend warm greetings to the

new consul-general from India and welcome him here to Victoria.

addition, in the gallery today are a number of personal guests. First

of all, a good friend of mine, whom I went to the University of British

Columbia with for several years, who is in town visiting us and

enjoying a bit of a break from work, Jag Singh. I'd like all members to

join me in welcoming Jag here today.

Speaking of New

Democrats from Alberta, I'm pleased to inform the House that in the

precincts today as well is the MLA recently re-elected from the riding

of Calgary Mountain View, Bob Hawkesworth, together with his fiance,

Wendy Eastman.

MR. BRUCE :

Mr. Speaker, in your

gallery today are many hard-working Socred constituents from that

wonderful constituency of Cowichan-Malahat. I would like to name them

all, but time won't permit, so I would like to introduce to you the

president of the Cowichan-Malahat Women's Forum, Shirley Atkinson,

along with two special friends of mine from the constituency of

Victoria, Rene Letellier and her son Derrick, and, of course, my wife

Anneke and the kids Tanya, Ryan and Tyler — Woodstock, the dog, we left

at home — and my mother-in-law Tryntje Visscher. Would you please make

them all feel welcome.

MR. MESSMER :

I'm pleased to introduce a friend and a member of our Social Credit

executive from Boundary-Similkameen. I would ask the members to join me

in welcoming Jean Mitchell of Oliver, British Columbia, to the House.

[2:15]

HON. MR. REID : Mr. Speaker and hon. members, Marg Hatlen of the Hansard office is retiring today. Marg was born in Nelson — and

that makes her a very special person, to say the least. She was raised

in Rossland and worked for B.C. Tel in Rossland, after graduating from

high school. She came to Victoria in 1947 and worked at St. Joseph's

Hospital. In 1949 she married Jens, and they lived in various parts of

the province, returning to Victoria in 1968.

Marg started with our Hansard on January 18, 1971, for the spring session. In those days, Hansard had no office of its own, and the Hansard

booth was on the floor of the House. Marg vividly remembers her first

day, when she only recognized three members: Leo Nimsick, Waldo

Skillings and W.A.C. Bennett, but somehow managed to get to everyone's

mike on time.

[ Page 5738 ]

One of Margaret's favourite recollections is from 1973 — and who couldn't recollect 1973 — when

she toured the province with the first-ever travelling committee, the

Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Human Resources,

then chaired by Rosemary Brown. Marg remembers her knees shaking as she

got on the plane, headed for Prince George. Everyone was skeptical of

the plane's airworthiness, so Rosemary Brown had Harvey Schroeder sit

on one side of the plane and Peter Rolston on the other side to pray

for their safe takeoff and landing. Of course, both members were

preachers; that's significant. People felt that their chances of

arriving were increased.

Members

and staff alike had to

load and unload their own luggage; and it wasn't unheard of to end up

in the local beverage house, after the committee had completed its

hearing, to meet the people of the area — those were those days — who

were thrilled to have a chance to talk informally to their MLAs.

The staff of the Hansard

office are very sad to see Marg leave, and she will be sorely missed.

It just won't be the same without her. Nevertheless, we wish her all

the best in her retirement, and this House hopes she will come back and

visit us one day soon.

MR. GABELMANN : As one of

those people in the House who does remember 1973 well, and fondly....

We remember Marg fondly from those days too, those of us who had the

pleasure of working with the Hansard

staff in the early days, in the very beginning, and of having Marg

travel with us. I was on that particular committee that the minister

referred to and remember well not just that terrifying flight but a

number of other terrifying moments, not only in airplanes, as the

committee travelled around the province.

Marg will be

remembered by all of us who have worked in this House as a cheerful and

wonderful person to work with, and I know that every member will miss

her. I know that we are all going to enjoy saying a few words more to

her later this afternoon. We will not in the least enjoy her

retirement, but I trust that she will.

MR. RABBITT :

It is my great pleasure today to have a couple of entrepreneurs down

from the great riding of Yale-Lillooet, from the jewel of the southern

interior, Princeton. We have with us today from the tourist industry

Eric and Lorna Gregson and their sons Jamie and Shaun. With them is an

exchange student from Sweden, Lennart Olsson. I would ask the House to

give them a very warm welcome.

Also we have with us today

Mr. John Leech, executive director of the Applied Science Technologists

and Technicians of British Columbia, and I would ask the House to give

John a warm welcome as well.

Introduction of Bills

STATUTES REPEAL ACT, 1989

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

bill intituled Statutes Repeal Act, 1989.

HON. MR. REE :

I am pleased to introduce Bill 2, Statutes Repeal Act, 1989. This bill

repeals a number of statutes that are no longer required and can be

repealed without consequence. This bill is consistent with the

government's commitment to the regular and periodic revision and

updating of laws. The statutes repealed by this bill are no longer

necessary because of the development of new programs and because the

purposes of the statutes are now dealt with by other statutes or

because they were enacted for specific purposes which have been

fulfilled.

This is only a brief introduction to the bill. I

commend this bill for consideration and urge a speedy passage. I move

the bill be introduced and read a first time today.

Bill 2

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

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

TRADE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT

Hon. J. Jansen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Trade Development Corporation Act.

HON. J. JANSEN :

This act will establish the British Columbia Trade Development

Corporation, initially announced in an international business

development strategy last July.

The British Columbia Trade

Development Corporation embodies the tradition, sense, focus and

position of British Columbia as a trading province destined to remain

prosperous through its continuing dynamic interaction with the global

marketplace. At present, nearly one-quarter of our gross provincial

product and one in seven jobs in the province are derived from foreign

trade, making British Columbia the most diversified export base in

Canada.

Meeting the challenges of overseas markets head on

in an increasingly competitive global trading environment is a task

which requires us now to draw not only from what we have in the service

of the government, but also from among the best that we have in the

business community. By providing for direct participation on its board

of directors and the establishment of cooperative relationships with

industry groups, the corporate structure of the B.C. Trade Development

Corporation will draw upon the expertise of the private sector to help

us chart a new course in export initiatives, promotional strategies and

financial assistance for all exporters and potential exporters in the

province.

The advantages of having chosen the corporate

structure as the most effective delivery mechanism for the province's

trade development objectives are

[ Page

5739 ]

not limited to effectiveness as a conduit for

private sector input. The corporation offers a businesslike approach to

a business activity. There clearly is a need to portray to the private

sector and the public generally that the government is serious about

applying business practices and principles to its trade development

initiatives, and particularly in the areas of international marketing.

We must now make the sending of our products abroad more than a

business practice reserved for the largest of our enterprises. We must

make it an accessible and familiar practice for all our enterprises,

large and small, and the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation

will help us accomplish that goal.

Bill 3 introduced, read

a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PROVINCIAL SYMBOLS AND HONOURS ACT

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

a bill intituled Provincial Symbols and Honours Act.

Bill

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

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

Oral Questions

RESIGNATION OF DAVID POOLE

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier in relation to Mr. David

Poole. The Premier has now conceded that Mr. Poole was effectively

fired, presumably for cause. Could the Premier explain why, after

firing someone presumably for cause, the government felt compelled to

make a cash payment of $97,000 and a pension payment of $75,000?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

As I explained last week when the member was absent, the resignation or

the firing alone is not necessarily reason for severance. There is a

policy with governments throughout the country, and certainly at all

levels in this province, and similarly so in the private sector, that

determines this.

MR. SIHOTA : I am unaware of a

policy that says that people ought to be provided with these types of

cash severance payments if they're fired with cause.

Reviewing Hansard ,

earlier the Premier suggested that the payments to Mr. Poole were made

in order to avoid litigation, which raises the issue of just what the

Premier was afraid would arise should the matter proceed to litigation.

Could the Premier then explain his concern? Was it simply the cost of

litigation, or was it a concern that information relating to Mr.

Poole's activities would become even more public?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, we do not normally, or ever really,

provide details with respect to severances. It's not done provincially;

it's not done in the city of Vancouver; it is not done provincially anywhere,

as I understand it; and certainly to my knowledge it is generally respected

by the private sector as well. These arrangements are often made with the full

knowledge that if a settlement were not arrived at, then it would be for the

courts to decide. The decisions the courts have made in prior times give us

that knowledge.

a matter of fact, I took the trouble to find out about some private

severances to see how the public sector might compare to private

settlements. I have an example of Mr. Dennis Lunney, who was chief

executive officer for Vancouver City Savings. He was retained for 11

months and was let go in August 1988 by the chairman of the board, who

happens to be the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). He

received $187,000 in severance.

So it happens in the

private sector; it happens in the public sector. These decisions are

made largely based upon precedents or what the courts decide. I suppose

reason is oftentimes something that will determine how these matters

are dealt with.

As I understand it, and the member for Vancouver East could perhaps clarify

this, in that particular instance it was philosophical differences. I understand

the position is now being held by a former minister from the NDP government

in Manitoba. So there are different reasons at different times, I guess.

MR. SIHOTA : The Premier should check his facts.

Mr.

Poole was involved in the Expo land situation. He was involved in the

Powder Mountain situation. He was involved in the Knight Street affair.

In arriving at a decision to settle with Mr. Poole, what weight was

given by the Premier to the risk that Mr. Poole may elaborate on his

and the Premier's involvement in these affairs, should the matter end

up in court?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Well, Mr.

Speaker, I suppose we've come to expect this sort of questioning and

innuendo from the member who just asked the question. The answer is:

none.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Premier, the question simply put: was it hush money, or was it a severance payment? What was it, Mr. Premier?

[2:30]

PROPERTY PURCHASE TAX

MR. BLENCOE :

A question for the Minister of Finance. The minister has said that he

was quite aware, when he designed the property purchase tax

legislation, that corporate friends and insiders could avoid the tax

that ordinary British Columbians have to pay — and are paying today —

for property purchase. Can the minister advise the House how much this

loophole has cost B.C. taxpayers?

HON. MR, COUVELIER : I would have thought such a question might have been better put by the finance critic for the opposition, rather than by the

[ Page 5740 ]

municipal affairs critic. I suspect it wasn't because the question is full of erroneous implications.

There

is no loophole in our legislation. The fact is, it has been traditional

in taxing jurisdictions right across North America, if not the world,

to tax profits from corporate entities through the income tax system or

resource taxes, or some other taxation device. When governments attempt

to collect tax from other revenue sources — for example, changes of property title — they

do it on some sort of a fee on registration through the land registry

office, as we used to do. This enlightened piece of legislation that we

introduced a few years ago contains a requirement that a tax be paid

when property ownership changes.

The hon. member seems to

be implying that we should be imposing some sort of real estate

transfer tax upon people who buy shares in public companies. If my

assumption is correct and that is the implication, I would just like to

ask the hon. member how he would choose to apportion a tax to a

purchaser of, say, two shares of MacMillan Bloedel. How much of that

acquisition of shares should be taxed for the property transfer? We all

know that MacMillan Bloedel own much property. If the principle that

the member is espousing has that suggestion to it, I might tell him

that a socialist government in a neighbouring province attempted to do

just such a thing, I understand, with disastrous consequences, and has

since abandoned that fruitless exercise.

We do learn from

others' mistakes and at all times try to keep our taxation policies

consistent right across the country. We remain one of the lowest

taxation jurisdictions in Canada, taken in total, and we're very proud

of that.

MR. SPEAKER : I might mention to the second

member for Victoria and the Minister of Finance that if argumentative

questions are put, you're going to get very long answers, and it's very

unfair to other members who want to get their questions put. I'd ask

the member to keep his questions short for the minister to give him

short replies.

MR. BLENCOE : While the question

indeed was short, and while the minister gave a long

answer. Ordinary British Columbians purchasing property have paid

a tax, while this loophole in your legislation has allowed corporations

to avoid it through share transfer. British Columbians will not be

fooled by the loophole.

Mr.

Speaker, I have a question to the minister. British Columbians want a

serious answer. Has the minister decided — by requiring lawyers to

declare share transfers — to plug the loophole and have a fair tax

system for all British Columbians?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Sorry, Mr. Speaker, obviously I didn't go into my answer in enough

detail; otherwise the supplementary question would be unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker, just to put the issue to rest: this government will make the assurance

to the hon. member that were he to put pencil to paper and suggest a proposed

piece of legislation that would accomplish the result he suggests, we would

be pleased to consider it.

BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE

MR. CLARK :

I have a different question for the Minister of Finance, and I'll ask a

short question in the hope of eliciting a relatively short answer.

Will

the minister confirm for the House that the Social Credit caucus

strategic planning committee — otherwise known as the budget review

committee — has had major input into the shape of the provincial budget

to be introduced tomorrow?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Yes.

MORATORIUM ON OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING

MR. CASHORE :

I have a question to the Premier. The Premier has a better

understanding than most people of the fact that oil spills at sea

cannot be contained. Has the Premier made a firm decision to reimpose

the moratorium on offshore oil drilling?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I suppose the question is being asked because of my comments with

respect to that and my visit to Valdez. I must say that it was a very

worthwhile experience, and I was very pleased to be able to do that. I

realize too that some comments were made by the Leader of the

Opposition that perhaps we should not have travelled there. I guess

it's easy to say when you are sitting at home watching television or

doing something else. However, I will defer the question to the

Minister of Environment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The

question is with respect to prohibition or a moratorium on offshore

exploration. There is one, and it has been in place since 1972.

MR. CASHORE :

A supplementary to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. He and the minister well

know that the moratorium is coming due for a decision on whether or not

it will be renewed. It is a serious question; the people of British

Columbia require a serious answer. The Governor of the neighbouring

state of Washington favours such a moratorium. Why are the Premier and

his minister so reluctant to act in an area where this government has a

degree of jurisdiction and control?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

This is an opportunity for me to inform the House that I will be

meeting again with the Governor of Washington on April 11 –– I will be

meeting with the Governor of Oregon here on April 21. We have ongoing

communications between here and the Governor of Alaska. But I will

defer that question to the Minister of Environment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

As I said earlier, there has been a moratorium on offshore oil

exploration since 1972, and it is still in place. To give the members

[ Page 5741 ]

some

background, by order-in-council in 1966 the provincial government

reserved all of the area to the Crown. That is the inland waters from

Alaska to the 48th parallel.

This order was reissued in

1982. In 1985 a joint federal-provincial panel was established to

review the possibility of reopening the area. In 1986 the panel report

recommended ways in which exploration could take place. That report is

available to the member should he wish to peruse it.

To resolve the member's question, and to resolve the question I am sure many people in British Columbia are asking — and

the people who live on the west coast of North America — there is

no possibility whatsoever of that moratorium even being lifted for at

least five years.

In the meantime, earlier in January the

Premier took the leadership to make an arrangement with the Governor of

Washington and then last week with the Governor of Alaska. As he has

indicated to this House, he will be meeting with the Governor of Oregon

as well to establish an accord with the Premier and Governors and a

task force to look at the whole situation of west coast oil shipping

and also offshore drilling. I'm sure the members will be well aware of

the leadership this government has taken with respect to protecting our

environment.

COMPENSATION FOR LAID-OFF LOGGERS

MR. MILLER :

Question to the Minister of Parks. I note the news release of today's

date informing everyone that we have received $22.3 million from the

federal government as part of the South Moresby compensation. I asked

you in November to look into the situation where some 60-odd workers

had not yet received a dime in compensation and had been laid off since

November. You said it was not up to you at that time. I see that you

are putting out a news release talking about compensating third

parties. Mr. Minister, when will you compensate the loggers who were

laid off in Sewell Inlet because of a decision to create a park?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

Thank you very much for the question. Today was a good day in the sense

that we received $22 million from the federal government. It shows the

steps and the progress we're making with that agreement. I was aware of

the concern that you addressed, and I dealt with that. That particular

area we're still dealing with in the sense that they will be reporting

to the compensation committee. As soon as that compensation committee

reports to both governments, we will be responding to that payment.

MR. WILLIAMS : On a point of personal privilege; I didn't want to interfere in question period under standing order 26.

I would urge the Premier to stand and withdraw his statements. He is incorrect.

There was no severance paid of some $187,000. The person who replaced Mr. Lunney

was Mr. Robert D. Court, the grandson of a Tory senator from Quebec. You are

totally wrong there. It's the kind of innuendo the Premier always uses when

he's in trouble. I ask: did he have David Poole do his research on that

one too?

MR. SPEAKER :

The member knows, I think, that it's not a question of privilege; it's

a matter of dispute as to facts. He can take that up in question period

again tomorrow.

Presenting Reports

MR. RABBITT :

I have the honour to present a report of the Special Committee on

Electoral Boundaries respecting the preliminary report, "Preliminary

Report of Proposed Boundaries for British Columbia Electoral

Districts," May 1988. I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

MR. RABBITT : I ask leave that the rules be suspended to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

MR. RABBITT : I move that the report be adopted.

Filing

this report today without a recommendation is probably the most

disappointing moment of my life as an elected representative. The House

gave us a task that became redundant when it became clear that His

Honour Judge Thomas Fisher was proceeding on a course that would

conclude his final report prior to the Legislative Assembly reconvening

and having this report filed with the legislative body. Since the final

report has been filed with the Lieutenant-Governor, any recommendations

this committee may have made would have been entirely meaningless.

Therefore no recommendations were agreed to by the committee.

There

are several points that as chairman of that committee I would like to

briefly touch on. I believe that the preliminary report is the basis,

and a good basis, for electoral reform for the province of British

Columbia. Although it is a good document, the committee did identify

some anomalies. My hope is that the final report will resolve these

anomalies.

would like to thank the subcommittee — that is, the

Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Roe) and the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) — for

their positive input and their cooperative effort. I would like to add

that this positive effort did not overflow into the full committee. If

the final report is to be examined by the committee of this House, I

would seriously have reservations about sending it back to this

committee or a similar committee and expecting a unanimous

recommendation, unless there was an honest effort by all the members of

that committee, in total cooperation, to bring it about.

Electoral

reform in any democratic jurisdiction gives us an opportunity to

balance and adjust the system of electing representatives. We now have

that opportunity. When we make our decisions in this House on electoral

reform, let's look at both taking the time

[ Page 5742 ]

and

effort and using common sense and a sense of fairness to see that we

make a good decision, a decision that we can all be proud of, and one

that will serve all of British Columbia fairly.

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, under the Inquiry Act, Justice Fisher's final report will

come before this House 15 days, I believe, from the opening of the

session. As an opposition member of the committee, I don't share the

views of the member for Yale-Lillooet, who chaired the committee. We

were in total unanimity until the final recommendation, which was to

vote against Justice Fisher's preliminary report. Obviously it made no

sense whatsoever to vote against Justice Fisher's preliminary report

when we had no knowledge of his final report, so we held our decision

until we see the final report.

I think all members of this

House owe a vote of thanks to Justice Fisher. It wasn't Justice

Fisher's fault that this House was not convened for nine months. There

was business to be conducted, and Justice Fisher held hearings in every

corner of this province and received well over 1,000 submissions. Over

$1.5 million of taxpayers' money was expended on a very valuable and

important enterprise: a fair set of boundaries for this province. The

best way that this House could thank Justice Fisher would be to enact a

fair electoral map for this province in this coming House.

HON. MR. REID : Mr. Speaker, in hearing that, I take pleasure in tabling the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries for....

MR. SPEAKER :

Mr. Minister, we're in the debate, and you can table it after the

debate is closed. Under standing orders, the member for Yale-Lillooet

will close the debate on the motion.

[2:45]

MR. RABBITT :

Mr. Speaker, I believe that all the members of this House are fully

aware of the value of the judge's final report. I believe that he did

do an exemplary job in the preliminary report. I think we will find

that he has also done an exemplary job preparing his final report. The

House will have to look at it very thoroughly, and it may be very

possible that with very little confrontation between the two sides we

may be able to do what my honourable colleague from Victoria has just

mentioned.

HON. MR. REID : Mr. Speaker, I've had this

around for so long, I'm anxious to table it. I take pleasure in tabling

the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries for British

Columbia, and I move by leave that this House authorize the Select

Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations

to examine, inquire into and make recommendations unanimously to the

report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries for British

Columbia, dated December 1988, and to report to the House as soon as

possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following

session, as the case may be.

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE :

This may sound like a quibble, but since we haven't had the selection

committee for committees, do we have a committee to refer this report

to at the moment?

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on address in reply to the throne speech.

The debate was adjourned by the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards), but

on agreement the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams)

continues the debate.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Again I would

urge the Premier to reconsider his ill-found statements of just a few

minutes ago with regard to Vancouver City Savings Credit Union. Once he

finds out that he was incorrect, I would expect that he would apologize

to the House forthwith. We're talking about the largest indigenous

credit union — financial institution — in British Columbia.

That kind of statement does not serve him well in the responsible

office he holds.

However,

today I wanted to talk about the Doman company. Mr. Speaker, I wanted

to talk and share with the people of British Columbia and the people in

this House the pattern of privilege that has surrounded the

relationship between Doman Industries, Mr. Doman and the Social Credit

administration — the Social Credit administration of this Premier

and of the Premier before him. It may be timely, in view of the matter

that's currently before the courts involving Mr. Doman, Mr. Bill

Bennett and his brother.

The public and its representative government is the owner of the forest resources of British Columbia — some

95 percent of the land base of this province. It's a special trust for

any administration in British Columbia, because it represents much of

the natural resource wealth of the province. It's a trust, and it's

critical that this trust relationship be monitored carefully by this

House, the opposition and the public to see that that trust is not

broken.

That trust, in the later years of Social Credit,

has indeed been broken. It's been broken in the form of environmental

degradation. It's been broken in the form of non-performance, and it's

been broken in the form of favouritism with respect to this company and

its operations.

Unfortunately, the way politics has evolved

in this province in the recent decade is that there are more and more

in forestry who are always out there seeking favours, and those who

seek the favours the most have become most involved in the machinery

and activity of the Social Credit Party of British Columbia. Those

seeking favours back certain leadership candidates. Those who wanted

log exports from the northwest backed the present Premier; they got log

[ Page 5743 ]

exports

for two years. Others backed other leadership candidates. Many of them

have reaped the rewards of that involvement in this political party,

and nowhere does that seem clearer than with Doman Industries. That's a

loss to all of us, as the owners of the resource in the province, and I

think, in a sense, it's a loss for Mr. Doman as well.

When

I was Minister of Forests a decade or so ago, I admired Mr. Doman's

hustle. He used timber that others didn't use, he bought logs on the

open market, and he competed with the best. And he had no Crown timber.

He had no forest licences on the public lands whatsoever.

All

that changed, Mr. Speaker, with the change of government. Mr. Doman bid

for a major chunk of public timber in the mid-coast, when the Bennett

administration began. He got the timber just up from Bella Coola; he

promised a pulp mill on Vancouver Island in exchange for that timber.

That was 12 years ago, Mr. Speaker. The mill has never been built. He

was to have had that mill underway by 1981. The mill was never built,

but his privileges in terms of forest rights and cutting privileges

have remained rock solid through the years.

The area that

he first got was the Kimsquit. I referred to that a few years ago in

this House. I helicoptered over the Kimsquit in 1974. It's a

magnificent untouched valley, an incredible natural environment — eagles,

salmon; something that made one proud to be part of this incredible

province of ours. But how that valley has changed. It's the modern

story of how Social Credit allows our forests to be gutted and their

friends to get rich.

There are countless examples, Mr.

Speaker, of how Doman has not performed through the Bennett years and

the years of this administration. I'll just cover some of those today.

One

of the areas I want to look at is undercutting. The rules as they apply

in British Columbia are that over a five-year cutting cycle, you're

supposed to cut at least 90 percent of your annual allowable cut, or

you lose the timber-cutting rights by the difference that you undercut.

So if your cutting rights were 1 million cubic metres, you must cut at

least 900,000 cubic metres in order to maintain your licence privilege

in terms of those cutting rights.

I remember when the new

legislation came in under Mr. Waterland who has gone to his just reward

as a lobbyist for the mining industry. When the new Forest Act came in

in 1977, Mr. Waterland said: "What this statute says, essentially, is

use it or lose it. You use the timber, you maintain employment through

the five-year cutting cycles, or you lose it."

Well, did

Mr. Doman maintain his cut through the cutting cycle, through the

recession? That's the reason these licences were originally granted.

That's why Chief Justice Sloan bought this idea of these perpetual

licences: in order to maintain fuller employment and to even out the

business cycle. Where was the Doman company, then, in the Kimsquit and

the central coast between '82 and '86?

Here's how their cut — their real cut — actually was on the mid-coast of

British Columbia: 1982, 29.5 percent; 1983, zero; 1984, 38.4 percent; 1985,

56.6 percent; 1986, zero. Through the recession they did nothing to maintain

employment on their cutting privileges, the very fundamental behind granting

these privileges. Instead of the 90 percent, it was 24.9 percent.

However,

I only really got those numbers after reviewing the files and realizing

that the numbers are consistently doctored in the files in British

Columbia. You look at a computer printout and you assume that the

numbers at the bottom of the column are legitimate numbers. They're not

— not the way you people do business in British Columbia.

The

numbers at the bottom of the column in a letter to Doman on June 9,

'86, on the issue of cut control said the numbers were, in fact, 50

percent, 50 percent, 38 percent, 56 percent and zero percent, coming up

with a total of 39 percent. Those weren't the real numbers at all. Mr.

Doman didn't like those numbers, so he wrote in and he said, "I want

them changed to 90 percent for two of those years," and those numbers,

too, were changed for two years to 90 percent, Mr. Apsey was the deputy

minister in those days. Mr. Apsey was willing to do an across-the-board

90 percent number for those recession years. So there was nothing

completely unique about that, but there are many unique elements to the

Doman question.

The

numbers were 24.9 percent — the real numbers. On the basis of

that, we'd be talking about a 60 percent cutback in Doman's cutting

privileges.

Just a while ago, Louisiana-Pacific were

talking about buying out Mr. Doman. What they buy, essentially, is

cutting rights — the

right to cut Crown timber. If Mr. Doman's numbers had been reduced by

60 percent, the amount of money in Mr. Doman's jeans would have

declined considerably. If that deal had indeed gone ahead, Mr. Doman

personally would have got $50 million for his shareholdings out of that

exercise. That gives you an idea of how much the timber-cutting

privilege is worth in British Columbia.

Was Mr. Doman

satisfied with the overall doctoring of the numbers to 90 percent in

those two recession years? No; he argued for more. This was too much

for the regional director who covered the whole Vancouver forest

region, which is most of the coast and Vancouver Island. He said he

couldn't accept that. He said they'd already doctored the books in 1982

and '83, after all. Wasn't that good enough? They did that to allow for

poor market conditions when, in fact, other people didn't have the same

problem Mr. Doman had.

This is Mr. R.C. Scarrow, acting

regional director, March 12, 1987. He says this: "Our tolerance of the

lower-cost access logging method in the Kimsquit with deleterious

environmental consequences, was part of the package." What Mr. Scarrow

was saying is that he had already allowed significant environmental

degradation as part of the package of benefits for Mr. Doman. He said:

"...and despite our granting of a chart...." That is, he granted even

new cutting areas, presumably in areas less costly for Mr. Doman in the

Washwash and Tzeo drainages, even though

[ Page 5744 ]

Mr.

Doman already had an adequate supply. I am quoting from Mr. Scarrow's

letter. Then he said: ". . and despite the fact that most other

licensees met their minimum cut requirements under the same conditions

experienced by Doman Industries."

[3:00]

What

he is saying is that there were other operators in the central coast — same difficult terrain, same difficult economy — and yet they

performed. "We have doctored the books enough for Mr. Doman," is what

he is in effect saying. Everybody else was able to perform on the

central coast. He said there were a couple of very minor undercuts,

however, on the part of BCFP and GPL to other companies — very minor

undercuts — and they reduced their cutting rights. He notes that. One

of them, if my memory serves me right, was by 3 percent. Mr. Doman had

underperformed on a grand scale. Zero cut, zero cut, zero cut, and it

still gets labelled 90 percent under Mr. Apsey. We all know who Mr.

Apsey is. He's gone back to his just reward as the chief lobbyist for

the forest industry in British Columbia.

At the end of this

entire exercise, the poor civil servants finally recommended at least a

15 percent reduction for Mr. Doman; after doctoring the books and all

the rest of it, there should at the very least be a 15 percent

reduction in Mr. Doman's privilege. Let's remember, at this point Mr.

Doman had a decade of access to the Premier's office here in British

Columbia. Mr. Doman was active in the Social Credit Party. Mr. Doman

was a former business partner with the Bennett brothers. Mr. Doman led

the delegation for the second member for Kamloops (Hon. S.D. Smith) at

Whistler. He is a very active member of the Social Credit Party. Mr.

Doman's company never paid the penalty other companies paid where

similar infractions took place. Never, never, never.

On the

mid-coast, CFI, through that same period, in real numbers, cut 98.1

percent of their allowable cut. Whonnock Industries, also with economic

difficulties, cut 110 percent — real numbers — in that same time

period. Mayo cut 103.9 percent, and CIP Canadian Pacific, 105 percent.

There was a consistent pattern with those other companies.

Curiously,

the poor civil servants finally gave up when their political masters

were not responding. Because by September 1, '87, there was another

memo listing the people who had violated their cutting regulations on

the coast, in terms of performance and maintaining the cut. This was

Mr. G.R. Ursel, in a memo to all district offices in the Vancouver

region. He listed those who had violated the 90 percent rule over the

previous year. In that memo of September 1, Mr. Doman wasn't even on

the list. History had been rewritten. That is the revisionist idea.

That is the way it is done under Social Credit in British Columbia.

Let's

remember, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Doman got this timber with the promise

of a $100 million pulp mill. If that pulp mill were to be built today,

it would cost $300 million. But because of the nature and scale of that

mill, to build a proper mill would cost $600 million. Mr. Doman has

escaped the investment and expenditure of at least $300 million from

1977 until today, because Mr. Doman is an insider. Now they've talked

it down to a little remanufacturing mill around Duke Point, which will

just have a modest amount of investment from Mr. Doman. That's what

happened to the pulp mill.

You have to ask yourself, Mr.

Speaker, about Mr. Doman's active involvement in the Social Credit

Party. Was it an altruistic interest in public policy that motivated

him? Or was it the opportunity for him and his firm to benefit from

favoured treatment? I think the files speak for themselves.

It's

interesting to see another memo, from Mr. R.D. Flitton, who then became

a deputy minister too. For those with good memories — there are not a

lot of us in this province — Mr. Flitton was one of the campaign

managers on the campaign plane for Bill Bennett at an earlier stage of

the game. On the basis of those and I guess other qualifications, he

became Deputy Minister of Forests. When that letter went out from Mr.

Flitton to Mr. Doman, it was a standard departmental letter. He

scratches it out and changes it to: "Dear Herb." He notes that there

really was some discrepancy in the numbers versus the actual annual

allowable cut and suggests that it might be looked at later. Then he

writes by hand, "Thanks," at the end. Thank you indeed!

This

is an insider's government. Mr. Doman is an insider. But maybe he is

what David Poole called an "on-sider." He is both an on-sider, part of

the party, and he is an insider with access.

There are

other examples. On March 28, '84, Mr. R.W. Thomas, district manager,

wrote to Doman Industries. He says, regarding their forest licence

A16845, cutting permit 102: "The inspection revealed that felled and

bucked materials dropped in '81 and '82" — he is writing this letter in

1984 — "still remained on the ground." Cutting that had taken place

three years earlier still remained on the ground. You wonder why

there's an environmental movement in British Columbia. There's an

environmental movement here because the people know that this kind of

devastation is going on and they know that insiders are getting that

kind of treatment. The Premier can do his campaign stunt in an airplane

over Valdez, but the reality is there in the Kimsquit and in the deals

with Doman and the other insiders that deal regularly with your office

and this government.

They then wanted a plan for removal — that is, Mr. Thomas — and on June 26, after the March letter, Mr.

Thomas then wrote to Doman: "You failed to provide us with an

acceptable plan to clean up all these felled trees from three years ago

in your Kimsquit operations. We will therefore prepare to scale the

material and bill for abandoned forest products." It's a neat question

as to whether any of those billings occurred or whether indeed they

were ever paid.

Similar problems apply to the Doman group

of companies in the silvicultural sphere in terms of their activities

in the mid-coast. The same things apply to reforestation on the

mid-coast as well. The same applies even with the question of surveys

on the mid-coast, because under this Forests minister the game is

[ Page 5745 ]

that

they monitor themselves. They do the surveys, not the Ministry of

Forests. This is a new system of being allowed to check out your

groceries in the supermarket yourself; you operate the till. That's the

new system under Social Credit. They didn't carry out their surveys,

they didn't carry out proper reforestation, they didn't build their

pulp mill, they didn't perform. In the end you have to ask yourself if

this kind of treatment of Mr. Doman is an accident or is it a pattern?

Clearly, in the relationship between Doman and this Social Credit

government, there's a pattern and it's one that favours Doman above all

the others.

If there had been true, due diligence, or

simply diligence, on the part of this government regarding Mr. Doman's

permits, licences and privileges in the coastal forests on the

mid-coast of British Columbia , Mr. Doman would no longer have any

cutting rights whatsoever. If you people with the responsibility and

trust for the public forests of British Columbia had played by the

rules — your own rules — Mr. Doman would have hardly any timber-cutting

rights left in the central coast and certainly hardly any cutting

rights to sell to Louisiana-Pacific or any other Johnny-come-lately to

British Columbia. Those cutting rights would have been properly

returned to the Crown, to the people of British Columbia, and that

should still happen. Those forests should be returned to the people of

British Columbia once they've been rehabilitated, because they've been

devastated.

The pattern, I think, deserves thorough

examination by an impartial party — not this Premier, not this Minister

of Forests — especially in view of the other case that is now before

the courts in British Columbia and Ontario.

When I review

these files and this kind of information, it brings me back to an

earlier era, the era of W.A.C. Bennett, who inherited an administration

after a particularly corrupt period of the coalition administration in

British Columbia. W.A.C. used to go around the province and say

something like this: "After all these years of the Coalition

administration, my friends, what we stand for is equal treatment for

all, special privilege for none." I can see him with his hands waving

out there: "Special privileges for none." W.A.C. Bennett didn't have a

Premier's club where you pay for access to the breakfast so that you

can influence the Premier of British Columbia; W.A.C. Bennett never

entertained that kind of nonsense. What we finally want to see in

British Columbia is equal treatment for all and special privilege for

none.

MR. JACOBSEN : It's a pleasure for me to rise

in support of what is certainly a very good throne speech. In the

debate that has taken place, I've noticed that even the opposition has

not criticized the speech itself; rather they criticize the motives and

the timing of the announcement. But are they really suggesting that

there is a time when it's wrong or immoral for a government to bring

forward good legislation? They doubt that the programs can be

implemented because of lack of funding, and they say that the throne

speech is really only a confession of past failures. In reality, the

throne speech is a result of financial success. They still criticize

the restraint program of the early eighties. They fail to acknowledge

that had it not been carried out, we would not now be able to offer the

programs that are presented in this speech.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The

throne speech starts by focusing on three important priorities:

economic growth and diversification; preservation of our environment;

and a progressive education policy. It commits itself to a financial

policy with the dual principle of encouraging a strong private sector

to generate economic growth and a prudent government fiscal management

that aims at a balanced budget. It also supports the policy to put

aside additional money in the budget stabilization fund. I've heard

this fund criticized by some in this Legislature as a devious tool of

government, but it is really a security measure that will, during a

downturn in the economy, guarantee the continuation of government

programs.

The throne speech deals with many important

issues. They have been discussed in great detail during the past days,

but let me quickly voice my approval of a few of them.

British

Columbians will be heartened by the special emphasis placed on the

protection of the environment in this speech. We recognize the need not

only to treat with care the natural environment of British Columbia,

but to do our share to protect the global environment.

People

will welcome the emphasis that government places on caring for our

seniors with several new pieces of legislation proposed to improve the

quality of life for this important part of our population.

[3:15]

Every thinking British Columbian will welcome the government's

proposed initiative in health. Our health care system is our most

valued government program. Everyone recognizes the difficulty of

maintaining the system amid the dramatic growth in demand for service

and the escalating costs associated with that. It is prudent that we

concern ourselves by dealing with the problem today and thereby

guaranteeing a good health care system for the British Columbians of

tomorrow.

All will welcome the establishment of a ministry

responsible for women's issues. In many single parent families it is

often the woman who is left with the responsibility of providing for

and raising the children. Hers is a difficult role, and I commend the

government for its decision to give special attention to her needs. Not

only is that important for the woman but equally so for the dependent

children.

The throne speech goes on to mention many more

good initiatives — initiatives that deal with such important issues as

unemployment, education, literacy, alcohol and substance abuse, and

trade development. Indeed, this is a speech of broad application and

much benefit for many British Columbians.

[ Page 5746 ]

I am pleased to see the government's continued commitment to forestry

through the throne speech reference to a significant expansion of the

provincial reforestation program. I'm convinced that forestry holds the

key to great future prosperity for British Columbia. The value of the

forest resource to B.C. in the next century will, I am sure, go far

beyond what any of us even imagines today. As an inheritance to those

who will follow us, I suggest that we plant every hectare of good

growing site possible and that we do all we can to encourage the use of

private lands for growing trees.

I want to commend the

minister on his recent action designed to reduce the volume of raw logs

leaving the province. I know there will be those who claim they are

being treated unfairly, and they will point to the export that takes

place in the states of Washington and Oregon as examples of just

treatment. But the economies and the dependence on the forest industry

in Washington and Oregon are much different from that of British

Columbia. We require a forest policy that provides much more in terms

of employment and social benefit than may be necessary in our

neighbouring states.

Many mills in the lower mainland are

faced this year with a serious shortage of logs, brought about, I

believe, by the heavy rate of harvest that has taken place during the

past two years. If I could offer one suggestion to the minister, it

would be, given the present domestic price of logs, that he obtain as

soon as possible an independent assessment of the feasibility of

bringing logs from the north coast to the Vancouver market. If it is

determined that this is economically feasible, then I believe the same

disincentive to exporting as was recently announced for the lower coast

should immediately be applied to those logs.

Let me say,

Mr. Speaker, that I welcome the important references made in the throne

speech to housing. A fundamental strength of our society is the right

and encouragement of people to own their own homes, and government

initiatives that encourage that to happen are to be commended.

When

the throne speech mentions housing, it's talking about something we

know a lot about in Dewdney. The constituency I represent along with

you, Mr. Speaker, has had a very big involvement in providing the homes

needed to meet the great demand for new housing in British Columbia.

It's something that is happening in all three of our municipalities.

The municipality of Pitt Meadows continues to experience record levels

of new home construction. Maple Ridge has the distinction of having the

highest percentage of annual increase in new housing in British

Columbia. Even the district of Mission, whose growth has been impeded

by its dependence on an obsolete two-lane highway that has not changed

significantly for 50 years, has now begun to experience an increase in

new home construction too.

The constituency of Dewdney

welcomes its role in the residential construction industry. Most of the

new residents are young working families. Many are purchasing chasing

their first home. We are pleased that Dewdney gives these people the

best value for their home purchasing dollar available anywhere in the

lower mainland. Yet the influx of so many young families puts a strain

on facilities and services. We are always in need of more classroom

space, and before one expansion of our hospital is complete, we need to

start the next one. We've had good support from the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), who is personally aware of the

circumstances we face, and likewise from the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Dueck), who regularly visits my constituency to keep abreast of the

facility needs. Despite any problems that rapid growth may cause us, we

are glad to have it. Let me say that a real pleasure for me is to talk

to the people who have just moved to Dewdney and hear them tell how

happy they and their families are to now be part of that community.

While

people are benefiting from new homes, our municipalities are benefiting

too. In Dewdney we have very little industrial development in relation

to our population. Local jobs are hard to find, so we place great value

on the economic stimulant and the jobs created in the residential

construction industry. For us it is an important industry, and it's

big; in Maple Ridge alone it's worth $50 million a year.

While

residential development is very important in my constituency, there is

a real danger it may soon come to an end. Because local jobs are

scarce, the vast majority of our people must commute to work. In the

municipality of Maple Ridge, when public hearings are held to rezone

additional lands for residential use, the council is faced with a new

type of protest: large numbers of people are attending the hearings

demanding that the rezonings not be approved. They are not protesting

because they do not want to share the community with new people, but

because more people means more traffic and the situation for them is

already unbearable.

In Mission, when the council met with

two large development companies which own hundreds of acres of what is

surely the most attractive residential land in the lower mainland, it

was told yes, the companies would like to start development of their

properties, but because of the inadequate highway system from Mission

west, the market for their homes, they felt, would be seriously

affected, and so they were not prepared to start development until

transportation improvements were made.

Providing

transportation and building highways is clearly the responsibility of

the provincial government. It is not something that if left will be

done by the municipalities or anyone else. If the province does not

provide it, it clearly will not happen. But highways and transportation

are more than just moving people that already live in an area. Clearly

they also have a very substantial effect on land use. History shows

that where transportation was available, development took place and

cities grew, beginning in the seaports of the world, the railroads of

this continent, and now along the highway system. So where the province

provides highways, these will encourage population.

[ Page 5747 ]

the north side of the Fraser is the highest reserve of high-quality

residential land available in the lower mainland. It is land that

because of poor soil conditions and topography has little or no

agricultural value. It seems to me that common sense and a concern to

preserve the high-quality agricultural land on the south side of the

river would be reason enough for the province to initiate a major

highway and transportation system on the north side of the Fraser at

least equal to that which exists on the south. Failure to do so will

surely place a great deal of pressure on all of the farming communities

on the south side of the river and will probably spell the end of the

upland agriculture that takes place there now — a great loss, I think,

not only for that area but for all British Columbians now and in the

future.

Enough said about logic; let's talk about fact. For

the past 25 years, the representatives of Dewdney have stood in this

Legislature and talked about the need for transportation and highways

in that riding, without very much success. They have argued, quite

honestly I believe, that Dewdney was entitled to a larger share of the

transportation dollar. But, Mr. Speaker, as I stand here again today,

there is a difference. In the past, the members for Dewdney gave an

opinion about what should be done with regard to transportation. Today

I want to give the facts that come from information provided by the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways itself.

Ten years

ago, when I was mayor of Maple Ridge, I was approached by the Ministry

of Highways' staff, who insisted that we approve the location of a

major new east-west highway corridor through that municipality. The

reason, they said, was that we had a situation unparalleled anywhere in

the province, where an area with our population was dependent upon one

limited traffic artery with low-level bridge crossings. They considered

it to be an unacceptable situation, particularly in the case of serious

emergency.

The location for the corridor was approved. The

population has increased in record numbers since, but to date there has

been no further action by the ministry. The recently completed Delcan

study on transportation and highways for the province suggests that for

a free-flowing

section of four-lane highway, unimpeded by traffic

lights, the capacity for rush-hour traffic is approximately 1,000 cars

per lane per hour. They suggest that that can be increased to 120

percent of capacity, which is 1,200 cars per lane, but at that point

you've reached the maximum, and you are facing problems.

What

is the situation in Dewdney? Within one year's time, from the western

boundary of Maple Ridge through the municipality of Pitt Meadows, the

traffic on the Lougheed Highway will exceed 150 percent of its rated

capacity.

In 1987 the Ministry of Highways' traffic count

on that

section of highway showed that there were approximately 37,000

cars per day using that highway. Recently, a survey was taken that

showed the traffic count has now risen to almost 57,000 cars. The

Ministry of Highways could not believe the number, and so they did

their own count. It showed that more than 55,000 cars daily used the

Lougheed Highway in Dewdney.

Let me end my comments on

transportation on an optimistic note. I know there's a major study on

transportation and highway needs for all of B.C. taking place at this

time. I'm sure that when completed that study will recommend major

improvements to the north side of the Fraser. I also know, however,

that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) is aware of the situation

that I've described here today, and I'm optimistic that with the

initiative mentioned in the throne speech he will not wait, but that he

will begin, in this budget year, to deal with our problem.

Mr.

Speaker, I've saved till last my comments on what is my favorite and, I

believe, the most important initiative mentioned in the throne speech:

the government's commitment to a strong emphasis on the value of the

family. I've heard the government criticized, and I've heard the

Premier ridiculed because of the reference to strengthening the family,

but let me cast out the warning that any society that fails to concern

itself with the health of its family unit will not prosper.

The

family is the pillar that our society is built upon; from it we develop

communities, cities, a province and a country. But let us not forget

that if the pillar crumbles, all that rests upon it will crumble also.

Unfortunately, we've reached the point where the pressures on our

families are greater than ever before. There are far too many cases

where well-meaning people are unable to keep the unit together, and the

results are often tragic.

Recently I had the opportunity to

visit several small rural elementary schools in my constituency with

special emphasis on what is being provided to the special needs child.

It was both a sad and a heartwarming experience — sad to see the young

people who must face life with a severe mental or physical handicap,

heart-warming to see the commitment of the people that cared for them.

In a situation where providing lunch is a major two-hour undertaking,

and where some of the children had to be fed through a tube, these

dedicated teachers and volunteers carried on with the determination

that these less fortunate children will not be denied the opportunity

to participate in the normal daily school routine along with children

who do not share their impediments.

However, the most

difficult part of the tour for me, I confess, was observing the

children in the resource classes. Here many young people, good

healthy-looking children, were struggling with individual instruction

to acquire an education. I'm told that many of these children are there

simply because circumstances generated by our society, and completely

beyond their control, had placed upon them an emotional burden that was

too heavy for a child to carry. They do not have the tranquility at

home that's needed to make the absorption of the school curriculum

easily possible.

[ Page 5748 ]

Later

I listened to several teachers express to me their concern over the

increase in the percentage of students entering the school system that

required that special help.

[3:30]

The problem for our families is not limited to stress; too often and

increasingly it results in violence and abuse. If you doubt that

statement, a quick walk through the pages of the morning paper almost

any day of the week will confirm it. But why does it happen? Is there a

connection between our declining social standards and the problems that

our families experience? For example, we have allowed the portrayal of

violence to become a major component in our entertainment scene, yet

we're surprised when the violence we watch becomes the reality in

society. Is there a connection between the fictional violence we watch

and the real violence we experience? I think there is.

Certainly

we have been very complacent while the standards of our society have

gone down. We have even accepted that those responsible for the change

were entitled to do so under the umbrella of individual freedom. Is it

not time to reassess what is happening, and to challenge the negative

influences, and the rights of those who perpetuate them? I know that

I'm treading on a dangerous and, to some, sacred right of each person

being able to do whatever they want, but let me say that no one in this

House, in this chamber, places higher value on our freedoms than I do.

I know our freedom did not come automatically; it was purchased by many

people at an extremely high price, and I'm keenly aware of the

sacrifice they made. But there is a difference. Their sacrifice was

made so that today we might have the freedom to pursue happy, wholesome

and productive lives. They did not make their sacrifice to provide

opportunity for the exploitation of children and the destruction of the

moral fibre of society for personal gain.

The situation is

serious. It needs our attention. Will we attempt to do anything, or

will we simply continue our complacency? Certainly that would be the

easiest, and human history has a remarkable precedent for it. At the

Good Friday service last week, our pastor spoke on our complacency as

it relates to Christianity. For example, he mentioned this incident

that happened, I believe, in New York. You may recall it. One evening a

woman walking along a street was attacked by a mugger who carried a

knife. The investigation that followed showed that 37 people had either

seen it happen or heard her screams. Each one of them chose not to get

involved; they either walked away or closed their curtains, and she

died.

I know the frustration each of us feels when we ask

ourselves the question: what can I do? Let me answer that question by

asking another. If you and I, who are elected to this chamber to care

for the needs of this society, are not prepared to do anything, then

who will? Unfortunately, the most likely answer is no one, and society

will bear the consequence.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that

strengthening the family is noble work indeed. The value and importance

of the family goes far beyond our present-day assessment. It has its

beginning in Scripture, where it is regarded as the most important of

all human institutions.

Some years ago Mother Teresa, one of the truly great people of this century,

won the Nobel prize for her work among the dying people in the streets of Calcutta.

The world media focused upon her and she was asked how it felt to spend her

life among the sick and the dying and the have-nots in the world. In her answer,

Mother Teresa said: "God did not call me to be successful but rather to

be faithful." There's a difference, you see, between being successful

and being faithful. If you are very fortunate, you can be both.

Some time later, Prince Charles visited India and was introduced to Mother

Teresa. The two of them spoke privately. Later she was asked what she had said

to the Prince. Mother Teresa said: "I told Prince Charles that I cannot

do what he can do, and that he cannot do what I can do, but that together we

can do something beautiful for God."

closing, Mr. Speaker, may I borrow words from that great person and say

through you to my friends and colleagues in this Legislature that if

each of us will begin to acknowledge the difficulties our families

face, and if all of us will commit ourselves to doing all that we can

to strengthen our families, then I am confident that you and I too will

do something beautiful for God.

MS. EDWARDS : In this

my third response to government's Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker,

I've decided to launch immediately past the formalities and into the

real issues for my constituents. The real issues for my constituents

are the issues of resource management, hazardous and regular waste

disposal and access to post-secondary education and training. I think

those are the most important.

These issues relate to our

aspirations for a sustainable development and healthy future. We see

the necessity to better plan the use of our resources, to come to grips

with the problems of waste and to offer our people, young and old, the

best education we can. We believe that Kootenay residents deserve all

those things every bit as much as the residents of any other part of

British Columbia.

The announcement of the Minister of

Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) last week

illustrates again the cloudy thinking of this government. The cloud

seemed to move in at about the Monashees and the government can't see

the Kootenays, unless it is a place where it wants another infusion of

electrical power — but not when it's planning better access to advanced

education and training. In response to that announcement, I have to say

it is only marginally easier in some cases for some students to attend

institutions in Kamloops and Kelowna than in Vancouver, to get third-

or fourth-year university courses. Prince George and Nanaimo would be

much more difficult in nearly every case.

[ Page 5749 ]

What

I have to ask is: what does the government have to offer the people in

my constituency with the ability but not the money to attend university

away from their homes? What about those people with families, jobs and

special needs which hold them to their homes? I want to know what

process is new and better for the residents of Elkford and Sparwood and

Fernie and Cranbrook and Elko and Yahk and, of course, Grasmere. How

many of the new spaces promised for this province will go to address

the very specific problems of people in my area? Not enough.

The

glowing talk of the throne speech has not been substantiated by the

minister's statement last week. Kootenay citizens see a bleaker and

bleaker educational future for what even the minister calls a lifelong

pursuit: that is, the getting of education. The government justly

boasts how our high school students score very high on math and science

tests. They announce this against the backdrop of other figures which

show the extremely low participation of British Columbia people in

post-secondary education and the even lower participation of people

from the rural areas of British Columbia. The figures also show that

the single best indicator of the employment stability and income level

of Canadians is the level of education. Therefore the pickings for

Kootenay people, who do see education as a lifelong pursuit and who do

want to pursue it.... In fact they have a very meagre outlook, from

what's been offered in the throne speech.

What we in the

Kootenays want to know is: how we can offer our children a future in

the rural areas of the province? How can we keep them involved in the

decisions that are important to us — decisions, for example, about

resource use? This is the new infusion we need of young people who

understand the traditions in these areas. They are committed to the

vitality and the integrity of the resource itself. For example, the

hearings recently held in Nelson on the forest resource and forest

tenure in this province excluded by their very geographical location

most of the people from my riding. Most of them were unable to take a

day off work. The hearings were on a Monday; they proceeded all day.

Most people from my riding were unable to attend a location 150 miles

away.

What I will do during this session is continue to

tell the minister what the people who didn't attend the hearings would

have told him. They are saying similar things to what the people who

were there were saying, and they were opposed to what was going on. The

issues remain in the proposal that the minister put forward.

One of the major issues, for example, is that only one type of user of the

forest resource is considered in the proposal put forward. The people of the

Kootenays believe that the many users of the forest resource have to be recognized,

not just the timber extractors. Many users need to have a say in how the public

land is managed. They also need to have a say in why the minister would propose

to put two-thirds of the Crown's forest land into TFL tenure. The minister

recognizes that TFL tenure is as close to private tenure as you can get without

giving the land away. But he says that he wants to give the companies a sense

of proprietorship so they will manage the land better than the government has.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we would question that very strongly. We think that

in many cases the companies have had too strong a sense of proprietorship, in

the sense that they felt they had some kind of ownership.

What

we need is a sense of stewardship. If the government wants to escape

its responsibility as a steward, why does it think private industry

would want to carry out that responsibility? What does it expect of

this fox in the chicken coop? Does it expect the fox to serve chicken

at seven to the barn cats who come in their tuxedos?

The

minister's TFL proposals have received general condemnation and should

be abandoned. Let the minister find some better way to improve forest

management, such as a strict requirement to achieve sustained yields.

We in our riding are quite willing to attend again and make these

positions clear to him. We are looking for a better response than

simply the across-the-board putting of forest tenure into TFL licences

for large forest licence-holders.

The TFL process has

recently addressed an issue of great concern in my riding and

throughout the whole of the East Kootenay, in fact: range management.

There is a lot of talk about range management — three reviews, in fact — but very little indication of commitment. The only thread that one

can trace through these three reviews and processes is that the

government wants to give away management of the land. They want to let

somebody else do the managing. Under the proposals for TFLs, access, if

nothing else, would be controlled by the forest industry. That would be

fine, except that under its proposal to review and restate the goals,

and to again lay out how range is to be managed, it suggests that range

management should be done by the agriculture industry.

that doesn't provide contradiction enough, we also wonder what happens

when another minister, the minister of the Kootenays, is also trying to

review and to decide what should happen to range, through the Closkey

report. What, Mr. Minister, can we see in this of commitment to the

resource itself? Do we see any promise of the kind of inventory that we

need, of the kind of cost-benefit analysis? Do we have some real

commitment to doing capability studies and then managing on the basis

of the best and most appropriate capability for the land? How are we to

know what the government is going to do with reports — two from one

ministry; another from another ministry — and how is the public

supposed to participate in this process? How is the public to get its

say and to know what might come out when the government goes at

something three ways to nothing and looks as though it has its own

particular ideology on the agenda? That is what is happening. This is

of great concern to the people in the Kootenays.

[3:45]

[ Page 5750 ]

look forward with great trepidation to a promised new games farm act. I

don't know why, because it hasn't been stated publicly, the government

has decided to change its mind and go at game farms again, when that is

not what it said it would do in the last sitting of this House.

I said before, the government likes the Kootenays to pioneer

electricity production, and the Fording Coal thermal generating plant

in the Elk Valley could well become the first coal generating plant in

British Columbia. The throne speech promises an energy policy which

will assure British Columbians of — and I quote — "inexpensive, stable

and environmentally sound sources of energy through the future."

Putting these things together, people in my riding look forward to a

serious and comprehensive public process to consider the environmental

impact of turning to generation of electricity by coal. The discussion

is extremely far-reaching, particularly to the residents of coal

communities, and the time for public participation is now. I anticipate

that this will be a very positive process wherein the goal is to choose

the best direction for sustainable development and where no conclusion

is assumed before the talks begin.

In that spirit of

problem solving and cooperation, I would press the government for

serious consideration of the recreational uses of Lake Koocanusa. This

is not a new issue, and various ministers know of my interest in it.

The problem continues. Predictions again this year show extremely low

water levels. Marinas and camping resorts can't hold their clientele

when the water levels can be so low that the boat ramps don't reach the

water. The fish stocks cannot reach healthy levels when the water

variations are extreme and continue from year to year. What we want to

know is, where is the recreational nirvana that was promised when this

fertile valley was expropriated to become a reservoir behind a dam? The

agricultural production and the wildlife habitat were all lost to this

promise, by the way.

The

people in the area want to work

together and achieve a reasonable accommodation. They need government

support and they want to work with government support. I am going to

seek some meetings that will consider that support. Related to these

possibilities is a call for an environmental endowment commission

related to the Flathead River. This commission is called for in the

International Joint Commission report on the Sage Creek mine proposal

which was released recently. In deciding that the Sage Creek coal-mine

should not proceed because of the pollution it could create, the IJC

proposed ongoing planning by Canada and the U.S. to direct use of the

river basin, which could become a world heritage site.

similar process — this kind of a commission — has existed in the Skagit

Valley to direct development that is agreeable to both countries, and

the opportunity exists to create this as a commission where an exciting

group of people could lead the way in watershed planning. The Governor

of Montana has already made a similar proposal. In this session I am

going to encourage government to take the IJC's excellent suggestion. I

certainly pledge my support and the support of my constituents for such

an extremely valuable project. If this kind of thing works well we may

indeed be able to apply the same kind of principle to planning on Lake

Koocanusa.

Mundane — much less romantic, I guess — problems

persist. The problems of solid waste disposal plague Elk Valley cities,

and we look forward to some direct leadership and some support from

government in rationalizing the disposal process. What we want to know

is, will the government be adding dollars to its declared war on waste

or is it only going to consult with the UBCM as promised in the throne

speech? Will it make possible some community action on recycling by

priming the pump? We need funding help. If it's there, I know we can

make some positive progress on recycling and moving on the solid waste

program. There are people waiting to carry out projects.

The

throne speech promises to strengthen services that will be available

through the Ministry of Environment mark an about-face by the

government. It's a welcome one, I hasten to add. In my area we are

acutely aware of the dangers to our fishery and wildlife resource

occasioned by the extreme shortage of conservation officers. On another

tack, we are also uniquely aware of the absence of regulations and

enforcement to ensure that no community receives a shipment of

hazardous waste such as PCBs before the receiving site has been

permitted. Recent amendments made by the Minister of Environment do not

yet ensure that such breaches of the regulations are adequately

policed, We will watch carefully to see what changes are proposed,

which ones are carried out and what kind of policing and monitoring is

going to take place in this province under the promises of the

government and the recognition by so many British Columbians that the

environment is far more important than we have previously made it to be.

the area of energy, mines and petroleum resources where I critique the

ministry, I look forward to the Mines Act amendments because we

definitely need "...improved protection for mine workers, and greater

environmental and reclamation standards."

What I must

oppose is the distortion of the democratic process which is being

achieved by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon.

Mr. Davis) in the Vancouver Island gas pipeline issue. Mr. Speaker, the

government has promised whatever actions necessary to accelerate to

completion the Vancouver Island gas pipeline: that is, whatever actions

are necessary — without condition. This is in the face of current

hearings by the B.C. Utilities Commission into the feasibility of the

pipeline proposal. "Is it feasible?" the commission is told to say,

while the minister is saying: "We shall go ahead anyway."

The

government's unequivocal declarations constitute a significant club

over the head of the commission. The government has imposed a time

deadline on the commission, which is a first step in the

[ Page 5751 ]

withdrawal of the democratic process. Now it states its determination to proceed, no matter what. And what will be the cost?

the commission to buckle under and say: "Go ahead, we can't stop you"?

What happens if the commission — even from its extremely time-limited

hearings — finds that a large degree of higher environmental and other

costs would be related to the proposal? What happens then? Who's going

to bear these costs? These are costs that the government says will have

no bearing on its push to a hasty completion of the pipeline. So will

the consumer pay? If the consumer pays, what proportion of that will be

residential or industrial?

Or if the consumer isn't going

to pay, will the taxpayers pay? How are the taxpayers going to know

what the load is going to be? Do we have another great megaproject that

the government decides it needs for its own electoral success and is

pushing it ahead, no matter what the consequences as far as costs are

concerned?

How

does the minister justify this

short-circuiting of the commission? A process has been fouled; the

commission is being insulted. The people of the province deserve due

process, and in this case, due process has been denied. If the minister

has any defence for his bulldozing, he has chosen to state none. His

obvious goal is to snatch the federal $150 million before it is

withdrawn; therefore he's willing to do anything. It's some spectacle,

Mr. Speaker. The distortion of the democratic process by this election

"gimme-game" makes British Columbians the losers, no matter which way

it goes.

I am looking forward to action on the

establishment of a ministry of state for women. I'm wondering if it

will address the needs and aspirations of most women in the province,

and I hope it will. I think it's an excellent time to establish an

advisory committee to help establish the goals for that industry.

The

throne speech has certainly inspirited me. I look forward to a lively

and productive third session of the thirty-fourth parliament.

MR. BRUCE :

It's a pleasure indeed to rise today and speak in support of the throne

speech. I happen to think it is a good throne speech. That's not to say

that all throne speeches are good throne speeches, but in this instance

it is a good throne speech. I think the opposition should take that

into account in the remarks they have been making, and I've noted a

trend through some of their remarks that they do think that, in many

parts, it is a good throne speech. But when you're government, there is

a very fine line between leading and following. We've heard a number of

things, particularly from the Leader of the Opposition, on the aspects

of following, being behind, leading and the like. I think it's

important that we talk about that a little bit.

This throne

speech does listen to the people; it truly does. When one listens and

hears what's going on in respect to the environmental issues....

Granted it has been said for some time, but this government is taking

the lead today in regard to the environmental issues. That's happening

around the world and certainly across this country, and it's certainly

happening here in the province of British Columbia. We are listening to

the people of British Columbia. We are providing leadership.

When

you look at the throne speech, what's being said in regard to

education, and what's just been announced most recently in respect to

advanced education and new placement opportunities for people to gain

advanced education, there's definitely leadership being provided there.

We're maintaining the balance. Most importantly — and I think most

importantly for the opposition to understand — we're maintaining the

balance in providing a strong and viable economy so that we can do

those other things: those good social programs that are necessary and

important for the people of British Columbia. Of course, tomorrow we

will hear much more in regard to the economy and the state of the

financial affairs of this province with probably one of the best budget

speeches that has ever been presented here in the House for the

province of British Columbia.

When I listen to the Leader

of the Opposition, I wonder what it is he and the rest stand for. What

are they really in favour of, and what are they opposed to? I quote the

Leader of the Opposition in the throne speech of 1988: "This government

is unrepresentative of the needs and aspirations of the average British

Columbian, and it's unresponsive to the opinions and ideas. It is out

of touch with British Columbians." Then, if you listen to the quote in

the throne speech of 1989, he says: "It's clear that the people of

British Columbia are way ahead of this government. It's clear that for

this government to find out what British Columbians are concerned

about, they have to check the polls." Well, what are the polls?

Certainly

there are polls done by professional pollsters; then there are polls

done by having a whole array of standing committees and special

committees touring the province and listening to what the people of

British Columbia want. Then he says: "British Columbians know what the

challenges are. We don't want another study; we want solutions." Well,

what's it to be, Mr. Leader of the Opposition? Do you want

consultation, or do you want to just ram it down the throats of British

Columbians? Is that what a socialist government would be: ramming their

policies down the throats of British Columbians? Or would you go out

and listen and talk to the people of British Columbia and find out what

it is they want?

This government understands that. This

government has gone to the people, and this government believes in

consultation. Check the record. You had the Forests and Lands

Committee, Project Pride, the Rabbitt committee on recycling, the

Sullivan report on education — an excellent report — and a host of

other reports that have been done.

MR. PETERSON : With affirmative action following.

[ Page 5752 ]

MR. BRUCE : Thank you, my colleague. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, this government does believe in consultation.

would like to offer a little advice to the Leader of the Opposition. It

doesn't come from me, but from a former member of their party, Mr. Alex

Macdonald — the longest sitting MLA in NDP history. This is a little

advice they should take to heart. He says: "We spout clichs because

we are not thinking things through.... Socialist movements everywhere

are in a quandary, one that faced the CCF in 1943 and faces the NDP

today..."how much in the way of principles should be spent, or thrown

away, in order to win votes?" Does that mean that all of a sudden the

socialists of this province are becoming free enterprisers? Is that

what Alex Macdonald was talking about? Should they throw it away and

let the socialist principles go? Have they seen the light? Will they

now become free-enterprisers? I wonder just how far they will go for

political expediency. Oh, it pains my heart to wonder how far they will

go.

Let us go back to what Mr. Macdonald said. "We spout

clichs because we are not thinking things through." Important words,

my colleagues; I hope you take them to heart. The people of British

Columbia know what the socialists stand for. Oh, by golly, they know.

Let me quote part of the constitution of the New Democratic Party: "The

production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to

meeting the social and individual needs of people and not for profit."

Well, by golly, the people of British Columbia understand that very

well.

[4:00]

It was interesting to

listen the other day when the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) was

speaking. He was somewhat gloating — and I give that to him — in regard

to the by-elections. I congratulate those new members that have been

elected through those by-elections to sit here in the House. He was

going on at some great length on the fact that they had won not one,

not two, not three, but four by-elections, that they were on a roll,

and that those of us here who believe in free enterprise and the right

of individual expression and the need to climb as high as one can in an

effort to bring others with you.... He'd gone on at great lengths about

these by-election wins. I thought that was quite interesting. I thought

to myself that that was good for the by-election wins, but who won the

general election in 1952? In 1953? In 1956? In '60, '63, '66, '69? And

then there was a little blip in '72. Gosh, the people of British

Columbia knew what they'd done wrong. Then we won it again in '75, '79,

'83 and '86. So let them have those four by-elections. One general

election out of 12, Mr. Speaker. And today, in this great country of

Canada, only one government is a socialist government.

Yes,

ladies and gentlemen, ordinary and average Canadians truly understand

what good government is all about. They know, when it comes to a

general election, who they want to represent them and to govern the

affairs of this province.

It always amazes me. I wonder

sometimes: who are these ordinary, average Canadians they always

mention? Is it average Canadians, or is it average ordinary or ordinary

average? I don't know.

Are they the teachers, who are

entrusted with ensuring the future of this province, of this country,

of teaching our young people? They surely aren't ordinary or average

Canadians. They provide a great service to the people of the province

of British Columbia. It can't be the loggers, who are daily faced with

very difficult and dangerous situations, and who help to forge the

economy and provide a strong and viable economic base for us. It can't

be the fishermen out on the high seas, or the miners down in the shafts

or working on the pits — another dangerous job — or the truck drivers

who move the goods and services throughout this province.

Who

are the ordinary and average Canadians? It can't be the mentally or

physically challenged; by golly, they are more extraordinary than most

of us sitting here in the House. Or the nurses who provide care and

concern for people in sickness or time of trouble. Or our ambulance

drivers.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? I don't believe

there are ordinary or average Canadians. In Canada, in British

Columbia, the people are extraordinary. They are not average; they are

not ordinary. They know what they want for the province of British

Columbia. It's important for us as a government to listen to the

people. It's important for us to understand what by-election losses

mean. It's important to hear the concerns and aspirations of people

throughout this province. But in the final analysis the people know

that they do not want socialism. They have proved it time and time

again.

The NDP have come out with much about sustainable

development. The other night there was an interesting comment about

sustainable development that I caught. I believe it was the Leader of

the Opposition who said that sustainable development is economic growth

that doesn't harm the environment. Sounds great; sounds absolutely

wonderful. It's something we all believe in. But how can you cut down

trees without hurting them? How can you build new roads without

altering the landscape? How can you transport people and goods without

residual effect on the environment? How can you mine without removing

minerals from the earth?

Yes, it sounds good, sustainable

development. I quote again: "Sustainable development is economic-dc

growth that doesn't harm the environment." Alex Macdonald, where are

you when they need you? Let me quote again: "We spout clichs

because we are not thinking things through." I believe it's important

that they do think things through.

Let me come to a little

community in my constituency, the community of Lake Cowichan, one that

has faced some difficult times in the last few days, finding itself in

the throes of fighting for its own survival. And believe you me, this

community will survive.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Miller) in his comments here made some mention in respect to me. He

says: "Let's show some defence in terms of the production jobs of the

people in your constituency."

[ Page 5753 ]

I'll

tell you, there's nobody in the constituency of Cowichan-Malahat or in

the province of British Columbia who will fight for those jobs and

those people in Cowichan-Malahat harder than I will. When those

announcements came through, it was I who called for a full

investigation — and got it. It was I who called for restraint on log

exports — and got it.

I don't mind taking the heat from the

Premier. I don't mind taking the heat from cabinet or from members of

caucus if it's necessary. But when it comes to the affairs and the

ability of the people in my community to live and to prosper in that

community, I will stand with them, beside them and in front of them. I

don't need some member from another constituency starting to preach to

me or telling me to stand up and protect the jobs of the people in my

constituency.

On March 22 he said: "I'm totally opposed to

raw log exports in this province" — a great statement, another

clich. But on March 26, on the CHEK television program "For the

Record," after some questioning by one of the panelists about his

statement on raw logs export and the fact that we do export some logs

today and that some of those exports are necessary to break into new

markets so that we can sell dimensional lumber — this is called linkage — and after some pressing, this same member, who on March 22 had said

in this House, "I'm totally opposed to raw log exports in this

province," said: "I'm not opposed to looking at the concept of

linkages, as long as we're not selling ourselves short." That means

that we're not totally opposed to log exports. Where it can be to the

advantage of the people of this province, then by all means let us look

closely at it and see if we can develop it for the overall advantage of

the people of British Columbia. That's what he should have said here on

March 22. Where do they stand? Where does the forest critic of the

opposition stand? Is he in favour of log exports or is he opposed to

log exports? We'll have to wait and see. Again and again it comes back

to our good old friend, Mr. Macdonald: "We spout clichs because

we're not thinking things through."

A little more

seriously, in respect to the forestry situation and that which I find

myself in my community and my constituency, and what's happening in

Lake Cowichan, it is important that we as a government and all people

understand that in the forestry sector there are two major players. The

major integrated companies that find themselves in the marketplace

today have their shareholders, but there's another set of shareholders

that we must be cognizant of and ensure that their fair representation

be made: the shareholders of the province of British Columbia. Industry

today, the integrated companies, must fully appreciate that they are

welcome to do business in the province but that they have two

shareholders to answer to when it comes to making adjustments or the

rationalization of their operations, as they use that term: one, the

shareholders of the corporations which they represent and, two, the

people who own that resource, the citizens of British Columbia.

Through

all of this, in respect of the forestry sector, which fuels the economy

of this province and is what provides us with the social programs, the

health programs and the educational programs, there must be room for

all: the integrated companies indeed, but truly the independent

operators, the contractors, the mom-and-pop shops, the silviculture

operators. This government must ensure that there is fair and equal

competition in the forestry sector. This government must make sure that

the small guy has the opportunity to participate in this forestry

sector.

I have called for a royal commission, and I say

that not to embarrass the government nor the Minister of Forests. I

don't envy his task in the difficult presentations that are made and

all that's before him, the pushers and the shovers and all those

wanting to participate in the forestry sector. It is a difficult time.

But I look at the aspect of a commission or a public review in the

forestry sector as the basis for us to be able to tell the story, to

set the record straight, to be able to lay out what we are doing well

in the forestry sector. There are many things in this province and in

this industry that we do well, that are world class, that we lead in.

Often when you hear the criticisms of the forestry sector, all you hear

about is the negative side. One would almost believe that we know

nothing about forestry. In fact, that is not true. I believe that a

royal commission on forestry or a public review would allow us to set

those benchmarks.

[4:15]

Today, when more than ever before in the history of this province

there is that demand, that response, that interest in the forestry

sector, it would be good for us to allow the people of this province to

speak about it and to understand better what is actually happening in

the forestry sector. With that, no doubt, we will hear of those

problems faced in this industry, both in the formal sense of forestry

and in the larger sense of the environmental issues. In the final

analysis, it would be good for all of the citizens of British Columbia,

and we'd be able to move into the next decade with a good course set.

It would allow us the opportunity, as I say, to speak about what we do

well. It would also allow us the opportunity to hear about the concerns

and aspirations that the people in the total community of British

Columbia wish to offer their comments on.

I think it's

extremely important that in this throne speech there has been great

mention about the environment. As a member from the opposition

mentioned, it is not a partisan issue, and truly it is not. It is a

situation that not only big industry must deal with but all of us must

deal with. It is one in which government clearly has got to set the

trend, and I believe there have been some good first steps.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

It's an educational aspect,

dealing with the environment. There are many things that we can do

individually as citizens to enhance and improve our own environmental

well-being. It's interesting to

[ Page 5754 ]

note

that last year I had a meeting in the community of Crofton, where I

live.... Of course there has been much said about the dioxin issue and

about the blue heron colony.

I arranged a workshop drop-in

meeting so that people could come, hear about the dioxin issue and

speak with some of the ministry officials involved in it. While I was

talking with one citizen there, along with one of the officials from

the ministry came another chap who was sucking away on a cigarette as

hard as he possibly could. He was deathly concerned about the whole

issue of dioxins.

I jokingly said to him, knowing him quite well: "Listen, Bob, you don't

need to worry about dioxins one moment." He said: "Why is that, Graham?"

I said: "Bob, you'll be a dead a long time from puffing on those cigarettes

before the dioxins ever get to you."

It's

often that we jump in with respect to environmental issues and get

fairly emotional about them when there are things that we could do in

our own back yard, each and every one of us. It was interesting to hear

another member on the government side speaking about the environmental

issue and about white paper and brown paper and the whole bleaching

process, which involves the dioxin issue. I'd like to see this

government go to brown paper. Let's take the lead. Let's show the world

that brown paper is something we can all use as well as white paper,

and probably with resounding success. Here is some brown paper already.

Those

types of initiatives are small, but they can be fairly meaningful. I

believe by what's been stated in the throne speech, and hopefully what

we will see in the budget.... I know what we'll see during this

session. We will see major initiatives concerning the environmental

issues in the province of British Columbia. We will see that it is not

something to be taken lightly. It is extremely important for each and

every one of us to deal with this.

Where government must

deal strongly but fairly and firmly with industry, then so be it. Let

us encourage and invite new industry to this province, but the cost of

doing business here must ensure a healthy and clean environment. Let us

build that into the equation. I have great faith that we will follow in

that direction and indeed will lead in that direction.

was also interested to hear in the throne speech about the round-table

discussion relative to the native Indians. I urge the government to

reach out with a strong commitment to the native Indian population of

our province. Let us re-examine our policies, if need be, to assist the

native Indian people in achieving a full and equal standard of living.

We must deal with the injustices that are real or perceived, but there

truly is a need for us as a government to take that leadership.

speak often with the chief of the Cowichan Indian band, which,

incidentally, is the largest Indian band in British Columbia. I know

him well. He and I have grown up together, and I know the weight that

he feels on his shoulders in dealing with many of the social and

economic problems faced by his people.

He has said to me: "If there is a way you can help, please help; but we must, in the end, do it ourselves."

For

the eight years that I was mayor of that community, and now these few

years as the MLA, if there is one thing that I am able to accomplish

that I would really like to accomplish, it is to improve and enhance

both the social and economic standards of living for the Indian people

in my community and in this province. The round-table meetings are a

good step; they are a step in the right direction. I urge the

government to let them be meaningful and let them be productive.

Canada

is the greatest experiment of living in harmony you will find anywhere

in the world. I have had the good fortune of travelling much of this

world. We in this country have an opportunity that few others in this

world will ever experience. This is a country of cultures living

together. Whether it is dealing with the concerns and the aspirations

of the Indian people, whether it's dealing with the two-language

multiculturalism aspect of this country, let us remember that this is a

country of peoples as diverse as the world is large, living in harmony.

There is no country in the world like Canada. There is no province in Canada like British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The second member for Dewdney requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. JACOBSEN :

In the Legislature this afternoon are my wife, Launi; our son Tory, who

will be celebrating his tenth birthday tomorrow; and our daughter

Heidi, who will be eight in about a week and a half. I would like the

House to give them a very special welcome.

MR. BARLEE :

I will try not to be too partisan in this, but I will probably end up

being fairly partisan. I am referring to the Delcan report on highways,

which is of some concern to my constituents in Boundary-Similkameen.

After a close perusal of the report and the recommendations therein,

there seemed to be five major flaws — or perhaps oversights. I would

like to point these out to the Minister of Transportation and Highways

(Hon. Mr. Vant), the hon. second member for Cariboo.

Firstly,

as the hon. member for Cariboo knows, and as you know, Mr. Speaker, the

Hope-Princeton Highway was completed in 1949, about 40 years ago. Much

of it, in fact, follows the historic Dewdney Trail of the 1860s. In

those days it was called the All-Red Route. It took prospectors and

gold-miners all through the interior, into places that are largely

forgotten now, places like Vermilion Forks, Granite City, Phoenix and

some places that still stand, places like Hedley, Rossland and

Greenwood.

A lot of rather fascinating characters walked

along that particular trail. One of them was a guy who called himself

Willie Williams. He referred to himself as the highest judge in the

highest court in the

[ Page 5755 ]

highest

city in Canada. He was 6 feet 8 inches tall, so he was indeed the

highest judge in Phoenix; it was the highest court in Phoenix because

it was the only court in Phoenix; at that time, that now vanished town

was the highest city in Canada at almost one mile in altitude.

There

are other characters as well. One of them the hon. member would like.

His name was Father Pat, an Anglican priest who wandered all through

the mining camps of the Pacific slope. Father Pat Irwin was an Anglican

priest who saved souls by words, but often fought with his fists.

One

of the other characters was a man called Scott McRae. He was, I think,

notorious in the Greenwood area because he was the man who wrote the

song "Home on the Range." He called it "The Miner's Lament." If you

examine the words of "Home on the Range," it is not a cowboy song; it

is a miner's song. It says: "Where seldom is heard a discouraging word,

and the skies are not cloudy all day." No prospector wants to go out

and prospect and hear a discouraging word, nor does he want to go and

prospect when the skies are cloudy or when it's raining.

This

is kind of unique country. Its mining towns of the past.... This

highway, the Hope-Princeton, has served the interior and its people

well for four decades. Unfortunately, the highway has by and large been

ignored by the Delcan report. I drive this highway about ten times a

month. I have never seen the Hope-Princeton in such poor condition. In

fact, yesterday when I came over it, I decided to count how many cracks

there were right across the highway in two miles. The figure was 107.

This highway is little more than a goat-path.

I would

anticipate that the hon. member for Cariboo would realize the

importance of the Hope-Princeton and Highway 3 to the southern

interior. This highway has to be upgraded, and there is no indication

that it will be upgraded in the recommendations of the Delcan report.

The highway itself has only four major obstacles: one is a place called

the Bluffs; another is the Similkameen Canyon, which is almost

impassable; the third is Copper Creek; and the fourth is Whipsaw Creek.

All of these obstacles are among the most dangerous obstacles in

British Columbia, as far as highway accidents are concerned. So it has

to be upgraded, and it's high time it was upgraded.

Secondly,

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member for Cariboo

that under the Delcan report the southern Okanagan, the Similkameen and

the Boundary district are not only ignored from the Hope-Princeton and

Highway 3 perspective, but we are also treated as, I would think, poor

second cousins. The extension known as the Okanagan connector perhaps

should be more correctly known as the Kelowna connector, because that

proposed extension benefits Kelowna mightily but serves the south

Okanagan very poorly. There are several reasons for this. One is the

proposed exit on the Okanagan connector. It is a 30-mile-an-hour

hairpin turn, and once this exit is missed, there is no second chance.

We think there should be two exits. There should be an alternative exit

many miles up the Hope-Princeton or west of the Okanagan connector. I

think the fine example there is Hope. Hope has two exits both ways. But

once the Coquihalla was completed, Hope suffered economically,

disastrously.

I think that independent studies have

projected rather interesting figures. One is that when this Okanagan

connector is finished, we will lose 1,600 cars per day in July and

August. That's nearly 50,000 cars a month. At two persons per car

that's 100,000 people a month, mainly tourists in July and August.

Tourism is one of the economic mainstays of my constituency; many of

the small businesses depend upon it. We cannot afford such a heavy

economic drain. We don't want another Hope. I would hope that the hon.

member for Cariboo, the Minister of Highways, will take steps to build

an alternative 22-kilometre exit to the south Okanagan route on the

Okanagan connector.

[4:30]

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out to the hon. member for

Cariboo that my constituents are deeply concerned about the condition

of and the failure to upgrade Highway 97. Highway 97 is an

international highway. It runs north and south in both the United

States and Canada, but on the Canadian side it has some classic

obstacles. Two of these danger spots are called Graveyard Hill and

Deadman's Lake. It's a tough highway. But from Peachland to the border

this highway by and large has been ignored by the Delcan report.

Highway 97 should be four-laned from Peachland to the border. It's the

lifeline of the south Okanagan. All along that route little towns like

Oliver and Osoyoos and Okanagan Falls, and Penticton too, depend upon

it to bring tourism into the south Okanagan, which we need.

hope the hon. member for Cariboo will consider the impact of the plans

under the Delcan report, and that it does not serve our constituency

very well. Boundary-Similkameen has an unemployment rate of 17.6

percent. When everything else is considered — the welfare recipients,

the people who don't qualify, Indians and so on — our true unemployment

rate is just over 30 percent. I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that the

hon. minister from Cariboo will rectify these mistakes, which if

carried through would impact negatively on Boundary-Similkameen. We

cannot afford such a highway.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MS. A. HAGEN :

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to conclude the debate this afternoon on

behalf of the opposition benches, as we finish our six days of

discussion of what the future holds for us in this thirty-fourth

parliament.

I believe the most important initiatives of

government in this session will be those related to education, in

policy that has already been announced by the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Brummet), in legislation which the throne speech announces

will be presented during this session, and in the budget, of which we

have some presentiments in earlier an-

[ Page 5756 ]

nouncements

by the minister, with further detail to follow tomorrow. The government

is taking steps that will have very important results in the education

of our children, and because they are our principal resource, the

education of our children has wonderfully important implications for

the future of the province.

I'm speaking today for the

first time in my role as education critic for the New Democratic Party

caucus, and in that role I want to be able to very strongly reflect

something that I know exists in the community at large, and that is

support for education. I think all of us in this House acknowledge and

recognize that. It has been manifest in many ways, but most

specifically in the report of the Royal Commission on Education, "A

Legacy for Learners."

I'd like, at this time, to

acknowledge the work of Mr. Barry Sullivan in the preparation of that

report, which he did during a time that was very difficult for him and

his family. I believe that he presented a model in the preparation of

that report: a model of hard work among the parties who prepared it and

of consensus-building toward its final recommendations.

speaks with a voice that represents young families and students both

young and in their lifelong learning mode as well as people in the

economic fields of business and industry and older people who look upon

education as an opportunity for their grandchildren. It speaks of

educational opportunity, quality and access.

I think it's

worthwhile to look at some of the conclusions that Mr. Sullivan and the

hard-working members of his commission arrived at in what they called

"The Challenge." He speaks about education as a vital provincial

resource, its importance to the youngsters who attend our schools, the

importance of the teachers who work with these students daily and the

importance of parents and many organizations in helping to shape the

character of schooling. Education is a community and a cooperative

enterprise that requires a tremendous amount of energy and dedication

on the part of all of us.

Throughout the report he notes

the imperative for change, renewal and transformation. He notes that

the report is but the first step in what he calls "a larger and more

instrumental process." He describes that process, and I think it is one

that we should note as a guide for us. He calls it a truly difficult

task, and he bequeaths that task to school governance officials at

provincial and local levels, school staffs, their communities and

representatives of professional and other educational organizations. He

challenges people to work together cooperatively to develop structures,

processes and avenues of communication that will allow for the

discussion and resolution of competing democratic ideals and values — very much emphasizing the need for public participation in educational

matters.

Against this background, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments in the

time available about the beginning of the implementation of recommendations

of the royal commission. I want first to commend the Minister of Education for

his prompt action in dealing with one of the first recommendations: to set up

an education policy advisory committee and to define a process for consultation

leading to the decisions that the minister, the cabinet and this government

would take around policy and the long-awaited rewriting of the School Act.

That

particular initiative has provided opportunities for the public and for

what we call stakeholders — trustees, teachers, senior officials,

parent representatives and representatives of the community at large — to have input into government policy — under a very tight timetable, I

might note. But the government made it clear that it wanted to act and

to act quickly.

I think it's worthwhile to look at some of

the first initiatives that have been taken, some of the problems that

have arisen from those initiatives and some of the concerns, so that we

may learn from those first initiatives.

The very first

action coming out of the royal commission implementation plan relates

to the early years of schooling: kindergarten and primary. I think

that's quite symbolic, because these are the youngest children coming

into our system, and we all know that what they experience in their

early years of schooling sets the stage for their educational

opportunity and success, the development of those children — both

personally and as citizens in a democracy — and the choices that they

will then make to participate in our society and economy.

Let

me get very specific around some of the details of the first policy

implementation and what has occurred over the two months, almost to the

day, since the minister first announced a number of policy initiatives

stemming from government decisions. The announcement relating to

kindergarten and primary has, in fact, two policies in its components.

One is that students will be able to enter kindergarten twice a year,

in September and January, with an implementation date of January 1990.

The second is that the government plans to upgrade the primary system — something that has been stated but not yet really very thoroughly and

clearly defined.

The timetable is incredibly short. We are

talking about a change in the most important initial stages of

education and a very significant part of a student's school years: four

years out of 13, almost a third of a student's school experience. It is

significant that the initiative to move with dual entry has come before

the initiative to upgrade the system. We are going to be dealing with

some refo