1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

155 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Premier's circle. Mr. Sihota –– 155

Mr. Williams

Mr. Rose

Presenting Petitions

Mr. Gabelmann –– 157

North-south transportation boundary. Hon. Mr. Michael replies to an oral question –– 157

Ministerial Statement

Log scaling at Shoal Island. Hon. B.R. Smith –– 158

Mr. Williams

Tabling Documents –– 160

Throne speech debate

Mr. Blencoe –– 160

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 163

Mr. Gabelmann –– 166

Mr. Jansen –– 169

Mr. Barnes –– 172

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 175

Division –– 178

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are a

number of representatives of the B.C. and Yukon Community Newspapers

Association. They are here in Victoria for their annual convention, and

cabinet had the pleasure of sharing lunch with them today. A free press

at the grassroots level is an important part of our democracy, and

their member newspapers fill a very important role in our province.

Might I ask all members to join me in bidding a warm welcome to

these, the people who are the voice — and oftentimes the spirit — of

their communities.

MR. ROSE: Sitting today in the members' gallery is the spouse

of a great Canadian, a former leader of the New Democratic Party and

for 17 years the innovative Premier of Saskatchewan. He was my

political hero and an outstanding Canadian, one who, as a politician,

proved that you could be humorous without being shallow. I'd like the

House to welcome Mrs. Inna Douglas.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In our gallery today, Mr. Speaker, are two

distinguished visitors: Mr. Alfonso Herrera-Salcedo, Consul General of

Mexico at Vancouver, and Mrs. Herrera Salcedo. I ask the House to bid

them welcome.

As well, in the members' gallery today, taking time off from school

during the spring break, is the very important teacher in my family, my

daughter Barbara, and I would ask the House to bid her welcome.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I invite the members to join me in

welcoming Agnes Cunliffe, my wife's mother, who is visiting us today

from sunny Tsawwassen.

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

afternoon is a very special young man in my life, my grandson. I would

ask the House to please welcome Johnathon van Dyk, who is visiting us

from 100 Mile House in the Cariboo.

MR. JACOBSEN: Visiting from Dewdney today are Edwin and Carol

Peters. Mrs. Peters is a member of the Mission municipal council. I'd

like the House to welcome them, please.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in

welcoming Mary and Ron Bacon from Prince George. Ron Bacon is the

principal of a senior secondary school in Prince George.

MR. MESSMER: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce the Garraway

family from Summerland who are with us today. Jim Garraway is a constable in

Canada's finest, the RCMP. His wife, Marlene, is a school teacher, and they

have with them today their two children, Derek and Karmyn. Would the members

please welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to ask

the members of the House to join me in welcoming Mrs. Mabel Short and

her daughter Vanessa. They are from the constituency of

Vancouver-Little Mountain. Vanessa was one of the very first people to

buy a ticket on our lower mainland SkyTrain, which is just over a year

old. I would like to ask all members of the House to welcome Vanessa

and Mrs. Short.

MR. JANSEN: I'd like to ask the House to make welcome special

guests from the beautiful community of Chilliwack. First of all, my

friend, companion and wife Wilma, and two of my children, Theresa and

Darren, are here today; and Alesa Bella, who is a reporter from radio

station CHWK. Please make them welcome.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have two

very important representatives from my riding. They are representatives

of the Vernon Homebuilders Association: Mr. Fred Whitbread and Mr.

Brian Usher. They are very influential in the housing and construction

industry in my community. Please make them welcome.

MR. DE JONG: It's my pleasure to introduce a number of people

from the Central Fraser Valley riding today, all very strong supporters

of good Social Credit government. First of all, Mr. Peary, who is the

principal of the Abbotsford Junior Secondary School, and also a newly

elected alderman for the fastest-growing municipality of Matsqui. Mr.

and Mrs. Shewan, who operate one of the finest flower shops in the

valley, my wife Ann and our youngest son Cameron are with us in the

members' gallery today. I would like to ask this House to give them a

cordial welcome.

MR. CHALMERS: In the gallery today we have four visitors from

the sunny Okanagan, who took a break from that constant sunshine to

come down to Victoria for a few days. I'd like you to first welcome the

president of the Canadian Home Builders Association, Kelowna chapter,

Mr. John Zuk, and his lovely wife Valerie. Also we have in the gallery

Joanne Henderson and Marg Wigelsworth. Marg is from Penticton. They are

down to enjoy the golf courses in Victoria. Please make them welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a day for homebuilders, I guess. From Prince George, would the House please welcome Mr. Warren Jennings.

MR. CRANDALL: Mr. Speaker, it's not a common occurrence that

the member for Columbia River will have the opportunity to introduce

guests, because of our distance, but today I would like the House to

recognize and welcome my wife Norma and four of our five daughters;

also my MLA assistant, Davene Dunn, her husband Davin and two children.

Also in the gallery today is Mr. Alf Lennox, who is the director of

religious liberty for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in B.C., of

which I'm a member. I'd appreciate it if the House would welcome them.

Oral Questions

PREMIER'S CIRCLE

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question for the Premier of the province. The Premier promised open government during the

[ Page 156 ]

election campaign. Now he is proposing to charge

$1,000 for people to meet with him. That, in my view, is certainly no

different than the Bennett government prior to this one. Does the

Premier not see anything wrong with this process? Is he willing to tell

his party to reconsider the Premier's Circle plan?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's unfortunate, but the member

obviously forces me to do a bad commercial in that I have to say I

don't think it's that great a bargain considering I'm as open and

available as I am and do travel the province and meet with people

everywhere. But I'm hopeful it will work and raise a lot of money for

the party, and I promise that if it does, as I expect it will, I will

advise the opposition and they can do something similar. I'm not sure

whether they could ask the same sort of price, but at least it would be

worth a try, and I would be happy to advise them.

MR. SIHOTA: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. That was a bad

commercial, first of all. Secondly, let me say that the answer was

incredibly frivolous.

I want to ask the Premier this: has he reviewed the provisions of

the Criminal Code and in particular provisions with respect to

influence-peddling, and has he sought the advice of the

Attorney-General in this matter?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm sure that the questions and the

answers here are judged by the people generally. But let me reiterate

that every political party in this province should take every

opportunity to raise moneys in order to keep the public properly

informed as to its activities; and I would recommend that to any and

every political party.

[2:15]

I suppose one of the clear differences here is that I, as a British Columbian

having lived here for many years, and not perhaps being one who couldn't

be totally informed on most things — I believe I have the information — have

no idea as to exactly how the opposition party raises its money. But I have

no qualms about making public for all British Columbians how we as a party raise

our funds. That's openness; that's availability; that's truthfulness;

that's honesty; and that's what you're going to see from this government.

MR. SIHOTA: It may be interesting, but we will pursue the matter of full disclosure of election expenses at a later time.

The Premier is right: he has no idea. He has no idea as to what the Criminal Code says — that's what I say.

Mr. Speaker, the point is this. Mr. Roche La Salle, at the federal

level, resigned in similar circumstances. How is it that the Premier

can say that this situation is any different from Mr. La Salle's

situation? Please explain.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Let me say again, Mr. Speaker, I think

perhaps the fact that we're spending so much time in front of so many

people when there is so much to be done on this particular question

bodes well for government. Obviously, if that's the most important

question to be asked at a time when we should be addressing any number

of issues that might better be addressed here, I'm pleased with that.

Again, let me say that I take great pride in the fact that we're open,

above board, honest, it's out there; and I can assure all members of

the House that it will always be that way with this government.

MR. WILLIAMS: I see in today's Victoria newspaper that the

Premier said, on reflection — the first time he reflected about this

question — that maybe he, or they, shouldn't have called it the

Premier's group or circle; that maybe it should have been the Bill

Vander Zalm club or something like that. Maybe the Premier could

explain to the House why he said that on reflection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could give any

number of reasons, but the one that came to mind immediately was that

if it had been called the Bill Vander Zalm club, it might have caused a

good many people submitting their funds to contribute not only from

British Columbia but hopefully from other areas too. It may be that as

it stands there could be some confusion in Alberta or other places

where they wish to contribute likewise. So I'll take that suggestion as

something that might be considered in future.

MR. WILLIAMS: Clearly it appeared that on reflection there

was this basic question about the Premier and the title of Premier in

this province being used in this manner, in terms of huckstering for a

political party.

Is the Premier prepared to reconsider this kind of huckstering?

We've seen a range of huckstering around this office already, but at

this level we have not seen the likes before, other than Mr. Bennett.

Is the Premier not prepared to reconsider this kind of huckstering for

access to his office?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, as long as we want to

pursue this particular question, I will be happy to oblige. Again, let

me say that I think a lot of people would be happy to be involved and

to contribute. I think what I am doing as the leader of the party is

giving recognition and certainly showing appreciation for the

contributions made. I know that obviously there must be many an event

which is sponsored by those who are supportive of the opposition, where

members of the opposition regularly attend, and I commend them for

that. There is nothing wrong with this.

Let me assure all members, if I need to — and I don't believe I need

to, but I will in any event — that the Premier's office and this

Premier Bill Vander Zalm is probably the most available person anywhere

in British Columbia, and that isn't restricted to those who happen to

be supportive of the political party that I am with.

I meet — more and more all the time — with people that were or are

or may have been of the NDP persuasion, and they too are coming to Bill

Vander Zalm, because not only is he available and responsive but he

attends to their problems without fear or favour. So if there are

members from Vancouver East, regardless of the political affiliation or

what party they support in an election — or members from Esquimalt or

anywhere — I can assure you that those people can come to me. I will

certainly make every opportunity available to listen to them, to meet

with them and to hear the complaints, regardless of what it's with. If

I can somehow address it through the good offices and the services of

those who serve on this side of the House, please let me assure you

that I will be open, available and cooperative in every way possible.

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

Attorney-General. Despite the Premier's flowery language on all of

this, and in light of the fact that the Attorney-General is the chief

law enforcement officer of this province, and in

[ Page

157 ]

light of the fact that people don't pay a thousand dollars for nothing,

and in light of

section 110 of the Criminal Code, has the Attorney-General provided

the Premier with any advice with respect to violations of

section 110 of the

Criminal Code with respect to the program dealing with membership in the Premier's

Circle?

HON. B. R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I think the member for

Esquimalt trivializes the Criminal Code and question period by imputing

criminal activity, possible or perceived, on the basis of somebody

raising money in a political party. Can he say, and can the members of

his party opposite say, that they have not raised money on the basis of

be at any given time? It is fund-raising purely and simply. To come in

here and wave the Criminal Code around trivializes the Criminal Code

and trivializes question period.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the Attorney-General can then advise the

House what it was that caused the investigation with respect to the

previous Minister of Forests and Lands (Mr. Kempf) around a similar

question.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I have no intention of saying more on that

matter than has already been said. Presently, an investigation is being

undergone by the comptroller-general which was ordered by the Premier —

and was ordered promptly, too, before there was any allegation by

people opposite. To prejudge that, or to try to discuss other

complaints that were made at that time, is to prejudge or try to

suggest that that member is guilty of something he is not even being

looked at for.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Attorney-General misses the point, Mr.

Speaker. The question was with respect to the fishing trips by the RCMP

around the question of influence peddling, which is not something the

Attorney-General dealt with.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I thought the member was talking about the

third matter involving the office. The other matters which I spoke of

within the last couple of days, the circumstances that I related then I

will certainly relate to the House: that is, that in April 1983

allegations were made against the member for Omineca. Those allegations

were investigated by the RCMP and reported on in July 1983; no action

was indicated against any person.

On February 10, 1987, an allegation was made as well, and that allegation was

immediately investigated by the commercial crime

section of the RCMP. It related

to a company by the name of Tidewater. That matter was investigated by the commercial

crime squad on February 13, 1987 — three days later — having investigated around

the clock and having interviewed the major witnesses. The report that was given

to me by the Deputy Attorney-General was that no criminal action of any kind

was indicated against any person. So in those circumstances it would have been

wrong to reveal the investigation, it would have been wrong to have done anything

to suggest that because an allegation is made against a person they should step

down or that any other action should be taken. Now those were the allegations

that were made against the member, and those are the matters that were done.

The present matter being investigated by the comptroller general came to the

attention of the Deputy Attorney-General on March 3, 1987, and action was taken

on that within a matter of days again.

MR. ROSE: Just one brief supplementary, and I think to get

back to the point — get rid of all the details . When the Premier

compares using the name of the opposition leader to raise money, isn't

the distinction here that the Premier is the first minister of the

province? He's not the head of some opposition party. He's got

contracts to let, he's got bridges to build, he's got jobs for the

boys. Will he please reconsider?

MR. WILLIAMS: Crown corporations to sell.

MR. ROSE: And Crown corporations to sell, and all the rest of

it. And would he agree that the appearance of this from a high officer

— the highest officer in our province — is all wrong?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, no, it's not wrong.

Presenting Petitions

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to

present a petition. It's a petition with 6,342 names, concerning

Strathcona Park. Briefly, the petition requests that the decision on

park boundary changes be postponed and the moratorium on industrial

development within Strathcona Park be reinstated until after public

hearings are held, as promised by several Ministers of Parks.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I wish leave to give an oral

response to a question put to me by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Miller) during the question period on the March 12 sitting of the

Legislature. I ask leave now, after question period, owing to the

length of the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave is required.

NORTH-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION BOUNDARIES

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The question, Mr. Speaker, was: "Has the

minister planned to approach the Canadian Transport Commission with

regard to changing the demarcation boundary between north and south of

this province from its current position of 55 degrees latitude to a

more southerly latitude of perhaps 54 degrees?"

[2:30]

The response is that the federal government, in its "Freedom to

Move" policy paper and subsequently in Bill C-18 amending the National

Transportation Act, has proposed to deregulate the airline industry in

southern Canada but maintain a vestige of regulation in northern

Canada. This deregulatory policy would be implemented through use of

the fitness test entry criteria in southern Canada, while new air

carriers in northern Canada would have to show proof of public

convenience and necessity to gain entry. Those carriers wishing to

operate between the southern deregulated zone and the northern

regulated zone would also be subject to the PC and N test.

In western Canada the demarcation line for these zones has been set

at the 55th parallel of north latitude, which passes just north of

Prince Rupert and Prince George and just south of Dawson Creek. This

leaves British Columbia split at

[ Page 158 ]

about its middle, with half of the province

regulated and half deregulated. The purpose of this line was to give

some recognition to the needs of small northern communities by offering

some protection to its low-density transportation markets and to the

air carriers operating in them. Allowance for financial assistance to

ensure that essential services are maintained is also included in the

new legislation, but the provisions are judged to be virtually useless.

Before drafting these provisions into the new Bill C-18, federal

officials canvassed northern areas for opinion on the effects of

deregulation. The two territories and some communities in northern

Saskatchewan and Manitoba supported the northern regulated zone. In

British Columbia there were no comments nor submissions on the federal

proposal, except from one carrier in Fort St. John who opposed it.

In its initial comments on the "Freedom to Move" paper in 1985,

British Columbia stated that it did not wish to see the province's

airline industry forced to operate under two different sets of rules.

Further to this, it was suggested that the benefits of competition

should not be denied to northern communities and that the demarcation

line should be moved north to at least the British Columbia-Yukon

border on the 60th parallel. The province continues to believe that

northern communities will benefit most from a competitive airline

industry which will ensure that services are maintained at the lowest

overall cost. Although some service adjustments can be expected

initially, reduction and/or elimination of services is not anticipated.

In any event, the legislation provides for the line to be adjusted by

orders-in-council.

I thank the member for the question, as it has been a lesson to me as well in researching the answer to the question.

LOG SCALING AT SHOAL ISLAND

HON. B.R. SMITH: I want to make a ministerial statement on

the subject of Shoal Island and matters that were raised in this

chamber yesterday by the member for Vancouver East. In his remarks

yesterday the member reiterated the long history of Shoal Island, and

repeated the oft-made charges that the revenue of the Crown had been

cheated, that the ombudsman had been blocked, that there had been a

court case — he revealed — and that that court case had been held in

camera and it had not been possible to know the results of the

settlement. The member did his own

summary of a decision of the chief

justice which has not yet been made public. I would normally let

something like this go, but he's purporting to give conclusions of the

court; and he also makes a number of allegations against a number of

public servants, who he suggests all left the Forest Service because

they were afraid of the lawsuit. Therefore I am going to make a

statement for the record, because I think it's important.

Shoal Island was a dry land log sort in Crofton which opened in 1978. It was

a new method of processing timber. During the period 1978 to 1981 a number of

independent logging contractors delivered logs to Shoal Island for B.C. Forest

Products, and there was an agreement that they were to be paid on the basis

of volumes determined in the Crown scale of timber. During that same period

–– 1978 to 1981 — there were apparently a number of concerns expressed

by logging contractors to B.C. Forest Products regarding the accuracy of the

scale. These concerns were never expressed directly to the Crown, nor did B.C.

Forest Products pass on the complaint. A contractor by the name of Traer and

Mahood started delivering logs to Shoal Island in 1981 and found that their

scale results from Shoal Island were below what was expected. As a result, they

sent independent scalers into Shoal Island who checked the accuracy of the government's

scale. The results of this check were allegations that the government scale

was inaccurate. When these were brought to the attention of the Forests ministry,

immediate action was taken to determine the validity of the complaint, scale

checks were immediately introduced and changes in procedures at Shoal Island

were inaugurated.

B.C. Forest Products themselves, Mr. Speaker, came to a settlement

with the four contractors in 1981 on the basis of a 6 percent under

scale, and those payments were made for a period beginning in 1981 to

the discovery of the under scale. The Crown's legal advice was that it

could not properly determine the amount of the under scale, and

therefore it had no statutory authority to make additional stumpage

billings to B.C. Forest Products.

The ombudsman then brought this matter into the public area,

investigated it and indicated that the Crown should bill for unpaid

stumpage. This is the charge that the member opposite has made again.

So in April 1984 the then Minister of Forests, Mr. Waterland, had an

inquiry made into log scaling, conducted by Mr. Don Grant, who was a

senior and experienced employee of the Vancouver region. He made

inquiries and reviewed evidence, and he made a report, in which he

concluded on June 17, 1985, that there was not sufficient evidence on

the basis of his investigation to prove discrepancies outside the

limits, and he recommended the scales as billed be accepted as correct

and no further adjustments be made.

Litigation was started as well by a number of these contractors

against B.C. Forest Products and against the Crown. They were seeking

compensation for unscaled timber. After the Grant report, this

litigation was vigorously pursued. In the spring of 1986, the first of

the cases involving Kyuquot Logging against B.C. Forest Products and

the Queen was ready for trial.

In this litigation, the Crown alleged a claim against B.C. Forest

Products for unpaid stumpage, so we asserted that claim to see if it

would stand up in law, so that in the event of any under scale

determined by the court, the Crown would be in a position to determine

the validity of supplementary billing.

When this case came for trial, Mr. Speaker, it was agreed by the

parties that rather than go to trial, which would have taken six months

of court hearings, it would be in the much better interests of all and

much less costly if there was a ministerial. This is a new procedure

that the Supreme Court has introduced in the last few years. A 17-day

mini-trial was held before Chief Justice McEachem, and in that

proceeding the various lawyers produced summaries of the evidence for

trial which were not challenged by the other parties. The hearing took

place before the Chief Justice, and all aspects of the case were

canvassed.

The question of whether that should be public or not was before the

Chief Justice, and the position taken by the contractor and by the

Crown was that it should. But B.C. Forest Products disagreed with that,

and the proceedings were ruled to be closed at that stage. After the

mini-trial, the Chief Justice reserved his decision, and he gave his

decision to the parties in September 1986.

There was further argument again as to whether that should be made public, and we took the position that it

[ Page 159 ]

should. But the report was not made public because of the objection of B.C. Forest Products.

I am going to mention this report, because it is important that we

do so rather than accept thirdhand commentary made by a member of this

House, which is incorrect on a number of material issues. In his report

the Chief Justice — it was a lengthy report — indicated that he had

never seen a case where so many persuasive reasons had been adduced and

so much evidence. He said there were no allegations or suggestions that

there was any intentional impropriety on the part of any party. That

was one of the claims: that there was some kind of a conspiracy to

defraud the revenue of money and to keep money from going to

contractors and keep it with the forest company.

The case was concerned exclusively with unintentional want of care.

It was concerned with the adequacy of the scaling procedures at Shoal

Island, which were complex, and after an analysis of the reports which

were submitted in the trial, the Chief Justice concluded that there was

an under scale at Shoal Island. He found that the quantum of the under

scale was very uncertain, and he admitted difficulty in coming to a

conclusion as to the quantum.

In the end, he held that a proper disposition of the claim would be

a payment by B.C. Forest Products, to the logging contractor, in an

amount based on an 8 percent under scale. The contractors had claimed

as much as 19 percent, and the ombudsman had determined roughly 12

percent. The Chief Justice came up with 8 percent. He also found that

the province of British Columbia was not obligated to make any payment

to the contractor. He held that the purpose of scaling was the

calculation of stumpage revenues to the province, not to the

facilitation of private transactions in logs, and he said the only

remedy available to a person who has a belief that a scale is

inadequate is that of requesting a second scale. In the event that that

doesn't take place or is too late, the government scale governs.

Finally, the Chief Justice indicated that he was not satisfied that

the contractors had taken reasonable steps to inform the Crown of

suspected under scale. Their failure to advise the Crown of their

suspicions until 1981 was further reason to deny them compensation from

the Crown, and even if the Crown had been found liable, the Chief

Justice would have substantially discounted the amount of liability as

a result of contributory negligence.

So the Crown's claim for stumpage against B.C. Forest Products was

dismissed by the Chief Justice. He indicated that because the Forest

Act is a complete code with regard to the collection of stumpage, the

Crown cannot succeed against B.C. Forest Products by showing that some

amount of timber has been missed in the log scale. He said the log

scale is conclusive: "I do not think the province has any other cause

of action against B.C. Forest Products." That meant that the Crown's

position in not pursuing the claim against B.C. Forest Products

initially was upheld.

On the basis of this mini-trial report, negotiations were conducted among the

parties. Now a settlement has been arrived at. In the settlement, B.C. Forest

Products has agreed to pay Kyuquot Logging the amount of $1.5 million inclusive

of interest and costs. It has also agreed to pay the sum of $300,000 to four

other logging contractors who had commenced actions. The Crown, for its part,

agreed not to pursue its claim for stumpage, which the Chief Justice had said

was not a valid claim, and the Crown made no payment in the Kyuquot Logging

case. But the Crown did make a payment of $300,000 towards the four logging

contractors.

The settlements are now complete except for some minor

technicalities in completing the documentation. The decision of the

Chief Justice would have been made public by us following the

completion of that documentation. On March 5, 1987, our lawyers

appeared before the Chief Justice requesting that the mini-trial report

be released. It has not been released, but the parties are free to

release it themselves.

Mr. Speaker, those are the facts. When I review the remarks of the

member for Vancouver East — intemperate remarks — in which he makes

wild allegations as to what the Chief Justice found when he didn't find

it; when he points the finger at various public servants who are no

longer in the employ of government and cannot defend themselves, and

suggests that they retired because of lawsuits; when he does all those

things without being in possession of the decision of the Chief Justice

or in possession of the facts, I think it's very disappointing, and a

very disappointing beginning for a Legislature which has been marked by

good, positive debate on both sides.

I'm going to file the decision of the mini-trial of Chief Justice

McEachem, and I invite this member to review that file and to withdraw

the comments and remarks that he made in this chamber and to emulate

the example of the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari)

who, when she found that she had made a mistake, came honourably before

this chamber and withdrew.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister must have leave to file the report.

Leave granted.

MR. WILLIAMS: You know, we've gone through a long exercise

over the last couple of years in terms of the whole issue of

uncollected income from our great forest resource in this province. The

Americans had a quasi-judicial case going on for a couple of years.

They concluded that in another area we had very serious problems of

under collection of economic rent — i.e. stumpage — in British

Columbia, so serious that in the end the new Premier of this province

ended up accepting their point of view. As a result of that, we now, in

this coming budget, will have $400 million in new revenues properly due

the people of British Columbia, because the Americans were doing our

policing for us. The Americans were doing our work for us in terms of

proper management of our Crown resources in the form of public timber.

This whole exercise around Shoal Island....

In terms of the courtesies of this chamber which this member talks

about, I would say that in every other chamber in the land his

statement would have been provided for a member like myself in the

opposition at least one hour before. That kind of courtesy we expect in

the future, Mr. Minister, if this House is to carry on in a proper

manner, as other legislatures in this land.

Let's look at that record. Who did you farm this job out to, in

terms of reviewing those problems, from your Forests ministry over

there, when you were Attorney-General still? You farmed it out to a

medium-level civil servant who was responsible for the whole issue in

the first place, an impossible position for the manager of the

Vancouver forest district. That's how you dealt with it.

[2:45]

[ Page 160 ]

You suggested yourself at an earlier stage that the ombudsman was

exceeding the authority of his office in so zealously pursuing some of

these matters. Well, we have that former ombudsman to thank for his

serious attitude toward these serious questions. What happened after

the check by Mr. Mahood and his partners at Shoal Island, Mr. Speaker?

What happened is that all of a sudden all of the loads, all of the

shipments into Shoal Island were heavier, bigger, of greater volumes on

average than they had been for all the years before. The pattern was

abundantly clear. Once there was proper checking, the numbers

increased. If it was a random kind of problem, why, there would have

been some ups and some downs; but it was all down in this case.

We've had a period of five years or something like that, under the

former minister and under the former deputy minister, Mr. Apsey, of

sympathetic administration, where the rules and obligations were not

followed. I suggest that the problem at Shoal Island was simply part of

that bigger issue of not following the rules that were set out there

for the industry to follow.

What we desperately need is a full inquiry into how much the

short-measure was across the board in British Columbia over the last

five years. It does raise the very serious question, which is not being

pursued — because what average citizen, what average contractor, could

pursue it? — of negligence around the Crown. I suggest, Mr. Speaker,

that that has never really been addressed, because the average citizen

can't afford hundreds of thousands of dollars for a court case

involving negligence by the Crown.

But I suggest to you that negligence there was — negligence at Shoal

Island and who knows how many other places. Belatedly we're getting

some information. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, this is part of that

whole exercise of the $400 million we lost, and how many other tens or

hundreds of millions we have lost in this Forests ministry through

inadequate or improper administration. Negligence, sir, it was.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I thought we were making great progress in giving and receiving notice

of ministerial statements. I really regretted it when I saw the

Attorney-General, whom I admire very much, stand up and attempt to

smuggle five pages of detailed information into this House that under

the rules had no business at all in this House.

I'd like to cite to you — and I would think the whole debate should

be called out of order, especially the minister's statement — on page

47 of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, written by a

distinguished Canadian sitting not too far away from me, and dealing

with the limits on statements in reply: "General arguments or

observations beyond the fair bounds of explanation or too distinct a

reference to previous debates are out of order......

So I say to the minister that if he has a statement like this to

make that's clearly out of order, he should at least have the courtesy

of either providing that statement for a decent examination and

rebuttal, not the off-the-cuff remarks left to my hon. friend, or else

bring it before the proper forum and debate it there at the proper

time. This is not the proper time.

HON. B.R. SMITH: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the

matter was not raised by me; it was raised in the throne debate remarks

of the member for Vancouver East. He is the one who dealt with

smokescreens and various things, and raised Shoal Island, and gave an

inaccurate account of a chief justice's decision. I felt that it had to

be dealt with at the earliest opportunity. I could have brought it as a

point of privilege, but I sought some instruction from the Clerks, and

I brought it this way. But I would never have brought it at all had I

not been bringing it in response to remarks made yesterday. I wanted to

deal with the matter quickly.

Hon. Mr. Michael tabled the 1985-86 annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

Hon. Mr. Richmond tabled the 1985 annual report of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I suspect the House is becoming

somewhat lively. That's our job: to ask you questions and to maintain

integrity in the province of British Columbia, in terms of the

government of British Columbia.

Yesterday, I welcomed all members to this chamber and to the city of

Victoria, and wished you all a pleasant stay over the next few years. I

also suggested that if you had any trouble with various government

agencies, we indeed have a very successful office down on Blanshard

Street which can help you with your problems. I was remiss in telling

all members — particularly those on the opposite side — that Victoria

is a quiet, pleasant town with certain traditions, and I hope all

members will leave the town as they found it — in a nice, quiet state.

Please — a request from all citizens of Victoria enjoy yourselves, but

please leave the city intact.

I want to reflect a little bit about Victoria because this is the

throne speech and we are supposed to talk about our community. Before I

do that, first let me congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your election,

and the member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) on his election to the esteemed

offices that you now hold. I wish you well in all your endeavours. I

shall miss our debates, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker was, I believe, the

buddy MLA for Victoria for a number of years in the last session, and

I'm sure I will miss some of our debates, but I wish you and the member

for Dewdney well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to dwell initially on the city of Victoria and

reflect on some of the great attributes and special flavour that we

have in Victoria, and then perhaps reflect on the throne speech in

terms of its potential impact on this great community, this beautiful

city that we all love and cherish. It is a heritage community; it is

unique; it has special talents in terms of the people that live here;

it is a great tourist community; and it is, I think, a very special

town in British Columbia.

It is the capital of British Columbia, and I want the government

members to remember that in the years ahead. It is the capital of

British Columbia, with all the various ministries, staff and people who

work here, because over the last few years we have seen a little bit of

a job loss in terms of people being moved out of this great city. So

just a little remembrance to those members in the cabinet, when they're

looking at their priorities, to remember that this is the capital of

British Columbia, and we want it to remain so in terms of the

priorities of this government in the next few years.

[ Page 161 ]

Mr. Speaker, this is a special town heritage-wise. We like to

emphasize the things we do best here. We like to emphasize our arts and

our cultural attributes; we like to emphasize some of the more

wholesome activities. We are becoming one of Canada's leading sports

centres, for instance. We will be applying for the 1994 Commonwealth

Games. All these things add a special flavour to this community. They

are the things we promote outside of Victoria.

But there have been some admissions by the government in terms of

potential policy that might impact on this community, and I refer to

the issue of gambling that this government seems to have a desire to

introduce into the province of British Columbia — that is, casino

gambling. Victoria, it would appear, led by the chief law enforcement

officer of British Columbia, wishes to introduce casino gambling onto

the Princess Marguerite. We have grave concerns not only for the impact

on British Columbia but in terms of my riding — great concerns about

the impact on the city of Victoria.

In short, we don't think it's appropriate for this community. We

have enough non-profit kind of gambling, Mr. Speaker. We don't want to

see — which I think is the agenda of this government — a move towards

private sector gambling casinos, and we certainly don't need it in

Victoria. Victoria's reputation cannot be enhanced by the clink of slot

machines and other kinds of activities. In terms of the theme of

culture, heritage and tourism, we're a very special place, the capital

of Columbia. A word of caution to those members of the House in terms

of this gambling kind of issue — gambling casinos. We are very

concerned about that kind of move.

Mr. Speaker, we have great things happening in our community. The

convention centre is on the way. It is being currently constructed. The

hole is dug. The workers are at work, and we are pleased that the

government is, hopefully — I think on request and support from this

side of the House — now a partner in that particular proposal. It took

a number of years, but that is ongoing, and the convention centre will

be a great addition to this community. We are glad the government has

decided to do that.

There are a number of other proposals and good things that are

happening in our community, and one that I wrote to the Minister of

Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) about this morning: the

Pacific Nations Place on Songhees. We're pleased to see that that

development is not dead and indeed looks like it's going to go ahead.

I've made a request this morning that the management of that particular

project be held by a Victoria-based management firm rather than

Vancouver — no reflection on Vancouver, of course, but we would like to

see Victorians manage that particular project, Mr. Speaker.

[3:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Things are happening in our community — positive things. We hope in

the next few years things will be enhanced in our community and we can

work with the government to bring great prosperity to the capital of

British Columbia.

We have a great project happening at the Royal Jubilee Hospital — an expansion

of a major project in food services. Again, that's something we from this

side — both members for Victoria — have asked for and supported. Finally and

gladly the government has responded. It's very necessary, and we hope again,

in the atmosphere of cooperation in this House, we can support and ask the government

to consider other proposals in the capital of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, other things are happening in terms of business in

Victoria. The Business Victoria office is active and alive and well and

doing extremely good things for this community, and I might add that

the government, in its wisdom, is supporting that office, I don't know

how that fits into the future in terms of the Premier's statement about

subsidies for these kinds of activities, but I'd like to report to the

Premier and to this government that that office is doing an extremely

good job. I might add that it's not chasing smokestacks — the illusive

smoke-stacks from the Philippines or somewhere else — but it's looking

at things that we do in Victoria best, based upon our talents and our

strengths.

For instance, Mr. Speaker, it's looking at the "Buy Victoria"

proposal — connecting businesses in Victoria with each other. If one

needs a particular service, the other may be able to service the other

business that they didn't even know about that was across the other

side of town. Those sorts of things are happening, and this community

is very pleased to see that. Again, we hope that will continue in the

years ahead.

Those are some of the activities that we're pleased to see happening

in Victoria, and I might add that our constituents are pleased that

this community is starting to bounce back after certain years of

difficulties with the past government. I won't go into them, but we

know that this community was hurt badly by some of the ill-conceived

and badly planned strategies and policies and legislation of the past

government. We hope we won't see that happen again.

I might add, though, in terms of the throne speech, that the item of

privatization is creating some concern in our community. When we've

finally started to see our loyal public service settle down and begin

to spend in the community and have some feeling that their jobs are

going to be intact, I'm a little apprehensive about the whole question.

The Premier has said that many public assets that we have taken years

to build may be indeed for sale. I think we have to be extremely

cautious in those areas, especially in this kind of community where we

are a public-servant town, where people work diligently and loyally for

the government of British Columbia.

When they hear off-the-cuff remarks by the Premier — "Hospitals could

be for sale if the right bidder came in or the right price was asked" —

that creates fear and apprehension, Mr. Speaker. So to the new Premier, who

perhaps is a little new at the job: perhaps a little more thought before he

speaks on these kinds of issues.

The whole question of privatization draws me to think a little bit

about the throne speech. When the throne speech came down last week,

all of us, I am sure — and I was not alone; I did the same thing —

listened to the sages on the radio or the television and the reporters

and those who analyze these things. When I was hearing that this was a

different throne speech, an ambitious throne speech, a new throne

speech and a whole new approach to government, I thought, well, that's

nice.

AN HON. MEMBER: New start.

MR. BLENCOE: New start, new buzzwords — no longer new reality

— new start, right. We've got new glowworms, I guess, who will write

the stuff.

[ Page 162 ]

But anyway, it made me think I'd go back and look at some of the old

throne speeches, particularly in 1983. I wondered if there was anything

really new in this throne speech. Well, you know, the similarities are

overwhelming, particularly when it comes to the old 18th century, free

enterprise, desperation when you've got nothing else to do, no new

policies. What do you do? You start to sell the people's assets; you

start to use that phrase "privatization."

Let me read some of the quotes out of the 1983 throne speech and see if they are reminiscent of 1987.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do they say?

MR. BLENCOE: What do they say, a member asks. Well, I thought

nobody would ask. Here's what they said. Here we are, page 5 of 1983;

it's a mandate to encourage private sector confidence by eliminating

regulatory roadblocks and allowing greater scope for the free play of

market forces. Where have we heard that before? I think we heard it in

AN HON. MEMBER: 1887.

MR. BLENCOE: In 1887. Here's another on page 7 of the 1983 throne speech, and we all remember 1983.

AN HON. MEMBER: The bad old days.

MR. BLENCOE: The bad old days, we're told. Here's page 7: "My

government will be proposing opportunities for transferring to the

private sector activities currently undertaken by the public sector."

That's 1983, but where's the 1987 throne speech? It's all new, I'm told.

AN HON. MEMBER: The new start.

MR. BLENCOE: A new start — this is the new start. This is the

1983 speech. Here we are, same page-page 7in the 1983 throne speech:

"And my government believes that the road to recovery lies through the

private sector." Through the private sector. Well, that was 1983. And

here's the 1984 throne speech: "The tendency of government to grow is

being reversed, and opportunities for those working in the private

sector are being expanded." Have you read that before? Does that sound

familiar? Here's another one here which I thought was fascinating — but

I can't find it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the point is made that here is the new

start in '87, here are the new themes of bright, new Socred government

with oh so many things to offer that are new. But what do they come up

with as the major underpinnings of their throne speech? We'll sell the

people's assets. Well, you know, here we go again. Nothing new, all the

same stuff: privatization, sell it off, deregulation, sell off the B.C.

Ferries if we can do it — and we all remember the crazy days before the

government was involved in the B.C. Ferries. But they will tell people

that it's brand new. This great, new privatization and selling off of

the people's assets will all be done in terms of the theme of job one.

Job one is to free people from government, industry from government,

deregulation. That'll be the theme.

You know, there's nothing new. If we all go back and read a little of Dr.

Samuel Johnson.... Some of you may have read Dr. Samuel Johnson. Dr. Samuel

Johnson said, in terms of those who cry for freedom for business and freedom

for industry.... Do you know what he said? "The greatest cries for

freedom come from the owners of slaves, because they want to do what they want

without any restriction, any control; unrestricted free enterprise and laissez-faire."

Do as you wish — the Adam Smith theory.

We hear governments talk about freeing up enterprise. We've heard it

all before. What it means is get rid of regulation that protects

people. It means sell off assets that have taken a long time for the

public to build up in the common interest of all citizens of British

Columbia and other places.

I'm reminded when CP, for instance, pulled out and wanted to get rid

of the Princess Marguerite. The minister of the time is not here; it's

too bad. He would reflect on this well. CP wasn't going to run the

Princess Marguerite. Do you know who were the first people at the doors

of our government at that time? "Please buy the Princess Marguerite for

us." The Chamber of Commerce. Yes, those great free enterprisers; but

when the time came that their interests were to be protected, they were

knocking on the door of government and saying: "Today we want you to

participate in the economy and buy something for us."

When it suits government or those great free enterprisers to be

involved in the economy through the government, they will do it. They

were on our doorstep: "Please buy the Princess Marguerite. We need it.

Our economy needs it. My business needs it. The people of Victoria need

it." We bought the Princess Marguerite, and thank goodness we did,

because that ship alone brings more tourists to this community and this

great city than anything else. It was a New Democratic government that

did it in the interests of all citizens of British Columbia.

I wonder if the Marguerite is again for sale to the private sector.

I doubt very much that we'll hear about that from the Attorney-General.

He'll do it by ministerial statement.

It has been said by many members on our side that this throne speech

did very little for the unemployed. It didn't talk about youth —

nothing at all. Very little help in this throne speech for those who

are desperately in need of support and in need of employment. We've

heard many members on the other side reflect on their personal views,

their religious views in terms of how important they are to their job

in politics. But I wonder how many of them....

We in Victoria are very lucky to have the head of the Catholic

bishops — one of my colleagues has already mentioned this — Bishop Remi

de Roo. I would urge all members on the other side who believe they

want to help people to read "Ethical Reflections on the Economic

Crisis" by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, and look at the

priorities of this particular paper. So far I've been somewhat light

today, but this issue is quite serious. I've heard many members on that

side, through their religious beliefs or whatever else, talk about how

concerned they are about people. Read the Catholic bishops.

[3:15]

Let me quote one statement: unemployment which deprives people of

the dignity of human work and an adequate family income, constitutes a

social evil." That is why consistently through this throne speech,

through mo tions and other amendments, we have been asking the gov

ernment to pay attention to unemployment. We don't need a war on what

certain members believe to be personal morality or standards for

people's personal behaviour. We need in this chamber a war on

unemployment in British Columbia. That's

[ Page

163 ]

what we should be declaring war on. That's the issue, and that's what we're going to speak to in the next few months.

Traditionally it's New Democrats who have stood up for those in need

and the unemployed. You can see it happening not only in British

Columbia but across the country as our party gathers momentum and

people begin to recognize that jobs and dignity and place in a

community, in terms of worth in that community, are the most important

aspects of life. Read the Catholic bishops, I urge all those who cite

their concern due to their religious beliefs about things. I suspect

they will see that the priorities according to the Catholic bishops are

somewhat different from the Social Credit priorities — they are indeed

very different — but they certainly could listen to and read closely

some of these things that the bishops talk about.

The people of this province, particularly young people, are looking

to this government for some new direction. They are looking to see if

there is anything really new, if they can expect some hope and support

in the future. A lost decade has been referred to by many of my

colleagues in terms of the last government and what it did to people in

this province. All of us on this side are prepared to help this

government take a look at its priorities. The number one challenge

facing all of us in this House in the next few years is to declare war

on unemployment and get our people back to work. That's got to be the

number one priority, because if we don't do that within the so-called

framework of cooperation, people will continue to become, as they have

in the last few years, more and more cynical about the democratic

system, about this chamber and this place — which is a very special

place, and should be — but they will become more cynical, more

apathetic, feeling that we don't care about their problems and their

desires, and their wish to be meaningfully employed. So that's the

challenge, and I hope we can certainly meet it in the years ahead.

I want to conclude by reflecting a little bit on the whole question

of integrity in government. In question period today I think we started

a very important debate. I wish the Premier were here. The Premier said

that what he's doing with his office is not wrong. I think he misses

the point, and it goes back to what I just said a minute ago about

people having faith in the institution, having faith that we're clean,

that we're honourable. He's the Premier, the first minister, and people

are looking for change. They're seeing too much abuse of power going on

in various quarters, not only in British Columbia but in other places

as well, and they want to believe again. When the Premier of this

province can glibly stand up and see no difference between doing a

little campaign for money and using the office of Premier at $1,000 a

time to raise money for a political party, it's a sad reflection on the

state of affairs in the province of British Columbia and on that

Premier. I hope he thinks about what he said, because the people of

British Columbia want integrity back in government; they want honour

back in government; they want this House to be above reproach and they

want the Premier of this province to be above reproach. I close with

those remarks, and I think we all on this side of the House reflect

them. Hopefully the Premier will rethink his thoughts.

HON. B.R. SMITH: It is a pleasure to rise in the new look Legislature

and speak here in the throne speech debate. I notice that I am receiving the

usual courtesy in my maiden address in the new-look Legislature of not having

more than a heckle every minute. I appreciate that. I must observe that about

60 percent of the members on both sides have never been here before. The Premier

is new. The Leader of the Opposition will soon be new again. We really have

had change. We have new House Leaders. All the important people who make this

place function are now different then they were a year ago. I think that's

exhilarating and healthy.

I've noticed a very good climate in this place by and large. We have

had some moments when we have perhaps departed from that good climate,

and we've had our dukes up a little bit today, but basically the

climate has been pretty good. The suggestions on both sides have been

good; the spirit of the speeches in the debate have been good. There's

a difference in philosophy, but there isn't a lot of rancour, and

there's a feeling that we all want to do things together and that we're

not going to play personalities in this parliament. We're going to try

to deal with issues and have our differences.

I want to pay a few tributes. I want to pay a tribute to the former

Premier who is now retired, because I think he was a major figure in

this country who did a great deal not only for this province but also

for dominion-provincial relations. History will show him to be a much

larger figure than was sometimes recognized during his tenure.

I also want to pay tribute to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly),

who isn't here, the Leader of the Opposition. I think that he has had

an honourable service in this House as a member and that he set a

standard of decency as the leader of his party. I wish him well.

I also want to pay respect, because the throne speech, being a new

look — it was a new throne speech, a new style — didn't deal with some

of these things. I want to say a few words about a departed member whom

we haven't spoken about. We've spoken a lot about Al Passarell, and I

deeply regret his passing and miss him. But I want to say something

about Ernie Hall. Ernie Hall was a member in this place for two terms.

He was a member from Surrey. He shared that dual riding with the

Premier. He was here during the first term that I was here, 1979-1983.

He served in a former government as Provincial Secretary, and I had

many dealings with him. I was a mayor at that time, and I can tell you

that he was a highly decent man with a great deal of integrity. In this

chamber he always set and lived by the highest principles. You always

knew that you could deal with him with confidence and with integrity.

He left this place involuntarily and relocated in the private sector.

His death was very untimely; he was far too young. I am sorry that he

is not here with us.

I also congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Speaker, who so

reluctantly took his place. The Deputy Chairman as well — I'm

absolutely delighted with her appointment and with your appointment. I

think they are superb recognitions.

Now the throne speech. Just as it's a new Legislature and a new

government, it's a new style of throne speech. Clear, concise, lots of

meat — not just potatoes, but lots of meat — practical, philosophical.

It deals with matters of substance, sets out clearly the thrust of the

government and also sets out, I think, the philosophy of the Premier on

major matters, particularly matters of economic development.

It's going to be a major thrust of this administration for sure —

economic recovery and trade. We tend to approach this from the

standpoint of improving the climate, and I know that there are members

opposite who have their doubts about that approach and about talking

about improving the climate of economic development. They don't all

believe that ministers really achieve very much when they go and try to

sell

[ Page 164 ]

people on coming to British Columbia, but I can

tell them that it makes a great deal of difference when you do that. I

know the late Ernie Hall did that sort of thing. It's very important

that we sell British Columbia and go abroad to do that. It's important,

I think, that opposition members and our business representatives do

that. Quite often when our businessmen go abroad they don't put their

best foot forward; they go and complain and grumble and say, well, my

gosh, in British Columbia the labour costs are so high and there are

strikes and lockouts and all the rest of it, and my gosh, all these

things happen back in British Columbia.

When you start to look at it, we've got a pretty good record in this

province, and particularly in recent years we've got a very good record

of stability in the job place and very few major work stoppages. With

the exception of the tragic IWA dispute that we had this past year,

we've had very few major disruptions. We've got a good message to tell

abroad, and it's important that everybody goes abroad and tells that

message. When I say abroad, I mean to Alberta and Saskatchewan and

Manitoba and Ontario and Quebec, just as I do to the Pacific Rim.

We've just come through a very difficult time with our softwood

lumber. We were forced to be in very serious negotiations under threat

of a countervailing duty, and we came through that with great

difficulty and with tremendous tension.

Our Premier, in a very short time, has made a number of major trips

abroad. I think we're very fortunate that we have a Premier who has a

very strong marketing background and who knows how to sell and how to

meet people and how to attract them to this province. We're going to

need that, and we're going to need that direly in the years ahead.

There is a strong necessity and a message in the throne speech that

we have got to be competitive in the world. This province has to be

competitive if we're going to create the kind of jobs and opportunity

that we need. The throne speech said that our industry must produce and

deliver on time and at a fair price or lose credibility and, even

worse, investment customers and jobs. That is so true.

Part and parcel of this is the debate that took place in the

Canadian Parliament earlier this week — a historic, landmark debate —

on the question of the free trade talks. While the results of that

debate were an overwhelming mandate to continue those talks and to

support free trade, I noticed with some disappointment that divisions

on that issue were largely — not solely — on partisan lines.

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH: The member who just asked me that, the

opposition House Leader, would probably know better than I the workings

of that place. I always thought that in that place matters of that kind

would be of such bipartisan importance as foreign policy is generally,

that we could rise above party lines and that we could deal with an

issue like free trade not on a partisan basis but for the good of the

country. Because how can it be said that freer trade with the United

States can do anything but benefit this country?

Not only will it benefit British Columbia; it benefits Ontario.

Ontario is no longer the Ontario of Bob White. Ontario isn't

protectionist Ontario. Ontario is an export regime. It exports far more

than it imports.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

HON. B.R. SMITH: What? That's again the kind of mentality

that we have had during the debate in the House of Commons: we think

the world revolves around Auto Pact and that the whole national trade

policy should be formed to keep Auto Pact intact. But I can tell you

that for this province as a major exporter of raw materials and a major

trading part of North America, our future and lifeblood depends on free

trade. We have got to have freer trade. That's why I'm pleased, Mr.

Speaker, that this throne speech emphasizes the important things that

we're going to market in the years ahead.

[3:30]

Hydroelectric export. This isn't the exportation of jobs.

Hydroelectric export is using valuable power that is unneeded at the

present and selling it to the Americans for a term of certain years, to

recover it later if required and to use that capital to generate more

power and more development and open up more opportunities in this

province.

Markets also for selling our coal. And why shouldn't we be selling

our coal to Ontario? Why should they be buying their coal from other

countries? If there was a national energy policy on oil, why shouldn't

it apply to coal? Why shouldn't Ontario take some of our coal?

Another commodity that we are starting to sell — and we can sell in

a major way, I believe — is our specialized professional and

educational services. We have only yet begun to realize the potential

and the markets for those services in the world. We have people all

over the Pacific Rim who are dying to avail themselves of our

educational services here. A start is being made in that direction, and

I support that.

I notice in the throne speech as well — and both members for

Victoria, I know, will be very pleased with this — the emphasis on

developing stronger business, trade and tourism links with the Pacific

Northwest and California. That is a priority, and I know they would

both support that. They're very supportive of that kind of tourism link.

I know also that they support the expanded service of the Princess

Marguerite and the Vancouver Island Princess. We are hoping, as well,

that we will have a steamship service to San Francisco this summer.

Those negotiations are underway for some direct service. If you read

our old Terms of Union, you would know that that was a promise the

federal government made to us back in 1871. They were going to run a

fortnightly — I think that was the term — steamer service between

Victoria and San Francisco. They've never delivered on that. Maybe we

should raise that in the ministerial talks in Ottawa next week. But if

we can get a private sector service during the tourist season between

San Francisco and Victoria, I think it would be a major step forward.

There's been criticism, Mr. Speaker — and I know that it's only

isolated and not widespread on the other side — that the throne speech

doesn't speak of the creation of jobs. I'm not surprised that some

would say that. Those that would say that particularly believe that

it's the function of government to actually create jobs and put people

on the payroll, whether it's at the local level or the provincial

level, and have additional public servants hired and have government

giveaway programs and create direct jobs. That is not the function of

government. What we have done is place an emphasis on economic renewal.

The throne speech says: "My government's mandate stems from its

commitment to make a fresh start in order to create a stronger economy

and jobs for our

[ Page

165 ]

people. We said we would free up the private sector and work with it as a partner to get our province moving."

Interjections.

HON. B.R. SMITH: The gentlemen opposite who are interrupting

at the moment still don't understand that government doesn't create

jobs; jobs are created by the energy of the private sector. The

government creates climate. Government has a decent tax policy. It has

a decent, stable system of public services. Another thing it has is a

stable labour climate. Those are the things that attract jobs. Those

are the things that bring capital into this province.

One of the major thrusts of the new government is going to be the

cutting of red tape and the freeing up of the private sector from

regulation. To do that we're going to have....

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH: No, that's where you are. You're in the

fourteenth century. You belong with the Luddites somewhere. You're a

pre-Luddite. You're an Elizabethan Luddite.

I withdraw. You're not Elizabethan. You belong in the eighth century.

Privatization initiatives. There's the decentralization mandate of

the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is going over this province now

finding ways that we can give back to local people closer to their

electorate than we are certain regulation and certain areas of

government that don't have to be run out of Victoria. I applaud that.

The throne speech says: "We will act to bring long-term stability in

labour-management relations." To do that the Minister of Labour (Hon.

L. Hanson) has gone on a very successful consultative tour of the

province, and he has heard a number of briefs from labour and

management and from the public. In the throne speech there is a

definite commitment to establish an economic development council with

ranks from both labour and management in that council. So I believe

that our labour relations laws can be improved, can be reformed, and

that we can have better labour relations laws to improve the economic

climate and attract capital. Those will have to be based on stability,

fairness and democracy, and also on competition of the bargaining

place. I think that with those conditions in mind we can improve our

labour relations legislation and improve it in a material way.

You will also notice, Mr. Speaker, that this throne speech made a

major commitment to improve social services, probably the most major

step in that direction in five years. Welfare rates are to be raised

for families and single parents. A very important step forward.

Education is to be strengthened.

You know, I'm glad that since I came into this chamber I haven't heard

a lot of the whining that went on on that subject over the past several years.

I haven't heard a great deal about how the education system has been devastated

— "devastated," they told us — and how the morale of everybody in

that system is so low that they all walk around with their heads only an inch

off the ground. I don't see that, Mr. Speaker. I see educators in this province

who have their heads held very high; who do an excellent job; who, sure, haven't

had much of a raise over the last three or four years, but they're still

teaching students in a positive way. They've learned during the restraint

program to be more creative than they were before. They've learned to do

things a little differently than they did before, and they are not in agreement

with the whine merchants on the other side. Whine merchants. W-h-i-n-e.

Interjections.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Those are under you. That's not under the minister of consumer affairs; that's under the member for Victoria: whine.

The Royal Commission on Education. I wish that royal commissioner

well. Barry Sullivan is an excellent choice. He really has earned his

spurs in the educational field by going around and dealing with most

school districts in this province on the very touchy question of child

abuse. I think his report was a good one, and I think he'll be well

received in the educational community. He won't go with a lot of

preconceived ideas. He's not a professor of education, nor is he

somebody who has worked in the system and has preconceived ideas. He'll

be able to go out there, he'll be able to listen and he'll be able to

bring in a good report. I know how tough that is, because I went and

did it as a minister for two months in 1981.

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Oh, no, many good changes came.

The throne speech also presents a pledge to do something for victims

of crime and for victims of sexual assault, and that, I think, is a

provision that will be applauded on both sides. I happen to believe

that victims of crime in this country have not had a very good shake.

We have one of the finest justice systems in Canada in protecting the

rights of people who are accused of crimes, and we have a very, very

good prison system and a good system of rehabilitation. But we do not

have a system that has done very much for those people who are robbed

or beaten up, raped or assaulted, and are in that justice system and

don't understand it — nobody has time to explain it to them and they're

terrified about that system, and we don't have support for them. The

only reason that anything is done for them in the system is that we

have volunteer community groups in some of our towns, and the police

have also devoted a lot of their volunteer time to helping victims of

crime. So a commitment to do something for victims of crime pleases me

greatly as Attorney-General.

Finally, I want to just speak about the throne speech in terms of

federal-provincial relations. Since becoming Premier, our Premier has

had to deal very rapidly with major federal-provincial matters. Within

days of being sworn in he attended a conference of Premiers in

Edmonton. I went to that meeting with him, and I was very pleased to

see that in a short time — in a matter of days — he had managed to make

a mark on his colleagues, have a very good degree of acceptability with

the other Premiers, and be able to discuss very complex issues with

them and have a good grasp of them. Since that time he's had to deal

with the countervail issue, the free-trade issue and a number of other

issues involving Ottawa, most of which, I guess, I could put on the

basis that we in this province expect to have more attention from the

federal government. We expect to get more of our fair share for this

province, not just in terms of more contracts, more procurement and

more jobs, but also in terms of decision-making. That is, we expect

that we will have more of a role to play in the major agencies of the

federal government — the CRTC, the Supreme Court of Canada, the boards

and decision-

[ Page 166 ]

making bodies and, indeed, the Senate of Canada — than we do now.

We've had meetings. The Premier has had meetings — when he's been to

Ottawa — not just with the Conservative members, whom we met in

Leader of the Opposition. Each time I go down I try to meet with the

Leader of the Opposition and also with some of the federal members of

the New Democratic Party for British Columbia. I know the Premier has

done that as well. So we do go down there and try to talk to our

elected members — all of us representing British Columbia as we do — on

a non-partisan basis and say: "How can we work together to do more for

British Columbia?"

I think the Premier has made a landmark beginning in this regard,

setting up a joint council, as we have done — the federal government

and the provincial government — a council of ministers, which three of

us, including the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Mazankowski.... Three on

each side and one caucus member on each side will be meeting on a

regular basis, at least once a month, to deal with British Columbia

issues and prioritize them. That is a major step forward. We are the

only province that has such an arrangement, so I applaud the Premier

for that. I think that's a huge step forward in dominion-provincial

relations.

We will be going to Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, next week to a first

ministers' conference on aboriginal rights. That is a very important

occasion as well, because there we meet not just as provincial

representatives of the national native organizations and many of the

regional native leaders who come to that meeting. That will be an

occasion, I think, in which we can make some real progress on trying to

do some things to help native people help themselves, to help them get

out from under the yoke of the old federal Indian Act and the notion of

paternalism, to allow them to develop the kind of communities that they

wish to develop for themselves, and to allow and encourage them to

continue with their own cultural development and to have agencies of

government which maybe are not the traditional agencies of government,

which they will structure and run in their own way.

They can do that, I believe, without upsetting the balance of

Confederation, and there are many opportunities for native bands to

enjoy self-government in reality. That is what we are working towards:

not constitutional tablets but self-government on the ground for native

bands. So I look forward to that meeting, and I look forward to a very

good era in dominion provincial relations.

It's an honour to speak in favour of the new Speech from the Throne,

the new administration — the administration that followed the

"Vanderslide" — and the new house of assembly, with all these new

faces, all so positive and cooperative.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to echo the comments of the

Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) by making some comments as well

about Ernie Hall. Ernie was a good personal and political friend of

mine and, I know, of many members of this Legislature. His death was

indeed untimely, long, long before he should have gone. I miss him, and

I know many other members of this House and thousands of British

Columbians who were his friends too miss him.

May I make a small correction to the Attorney-General on that. It was inadvertent,

I'm sure. Ernie actually sat for four terms, not two. He was first elected

in 1966, re-elected in '69, again in '72, and then was returned in 1979,

the same year the Attorney-General was first elected.

[3:45]

I notice the Attorney-General is keen on having a lawyer do this

royal commission into education. It struck me that perhaps we should

get an educator to do the Attorney-General's job — it would make about

as much sense. I won't say more about the logic of that than that.

The Attorney-General made some comments about victims of crime, with

which this side of the House agrees. Victims of crime have not been

well served by the justice system. Mr. Speaker, we applaud the

Attorney-General's decision to interfere in the lives of private

citizens in this way. We applaud government interference in the economy

and the society, when he suggests that the government will interfere on

behalf of victims of crime — a good decision.

Government interference is an appropriate response in many

situations. Government interference is an appropriate response too when

it comes to dealing with people who have for, in many cases, four or

five years been unemployed in this society. That does not mean putting

them on the government payroll necessarily, as the minister suggested,

but it means taking the kind of government initiative and involvement

that will result in those people being allowed to work again. There's

nothing wrong with government interference, nothing whatsoever. The

minister suggests, in terms of victims of crime, that he intends to

interfere more, and I applaud him for that.

I want to take a couple of lines out of the throne speech and make

some comments this afternoon about some Vancouver Island issues that

come from three lines in the throne speech. The first is: "We promised

an open and accessible style of government that responds to the needs

of people." Later on: "We will listen, consult and lead by example."

And then on another page: "My government will preserve and protect our

environment." So commitment to public involvement, commitment to

consultation and a commitment to environmental concerns.

I want to talk today about Strathcona Park. Strathcona Park is, as

most members will know, British Columbia's first provincial park and

was set up for economic purposes back in 1911. The government

advertised this park in a booklet called "Strathcona the Beautiful"

published in 1916 as the Vancouver Island Alps, and there were

suggestions by the government of the day that this particular park

would result in job creation in a monumental way in this province. From

a report by Price Ellison, who was the MLA for the Okanagan and chief

commissioner of lands in the McBride cabinet: "Certainly," he

says,"there is no spot in North America which combines so many

picturesque and wonderful studies in the way of natural scenery,

variety, grandiose and primeval beauty, all localities and national

parks being considered." The government of that day was saying that

Strathcona Park was more beautiful, more attractive and more

spectacular than even Banff or Jasper or any of the other spectacular

parks that exist in this country. For those of us who have hiked

Strathcona Park, all we can say to that is amen.

Mr. Speaker, there is an excellent book called Strathcona, A History

of British Columbia's First Provincial Park, written by a gentleman in

Campbell River — who had a Bob Ostler sign on his lawn in the last

election campaign, a Social Credit sign, as the Minister of Finance

knows — by the name of Wallace Baikie, a very distinguished Campbell

River citizen. It's a book that I recommend to all members. It's a

[ Page

167 ]

history of, as it is described, British Columbia's

first provincial park. This book — and I am not going to quote from it

— talks about Strathcona Park not just being as the establishment — and

I am pleased to see the Minister of the Environment and Parks in the

House.... The book talks not just about the beauty and about the

priceless asset that that particular area is for those of us who are

able to backpack into it or to get into the park and see it, but talks

about it as being an economic resource for this province. I want to

echo those comments that are made throughout this particular book.

Strathcona

Park has been butchered; it has been mutilated and, not to put too fine

a point on it, raped by successive governments in this province to the

extent that it is no longer recognizable. The dream that Price Ellison

had, the dream that the McBride government had, the dream that people

who cared about our natural resources in this province have had for

generations.... The park has been so destroyed that those dreams are

all but dead. The parks branch has been working since at least 1959 in

trying to develop a master plan for Strathcona Park, and in the

meantime we have had hydroelectric dams which have flooded the centre

of the park. We have had a major mine established in the mid-1960s

which has for all intents and purposes destroyed the southern end of

Buttle Lake, and for hikers, as long as two days hike away from that

mine the sound pollution is such that they still hear the noise of the

generating station as it produces power for that particular mine. The

mine is there; no one argues any longer — and I certainly don't — that

the mine should be closed down; it's a fact of life. But there have

been members of the government in the past and there have been members

of the parks service who have suggested that one mine in that park is

enough.

I want to talk about potential mines a bit later, but first of all I

want to read a selected bit of my mail. Before I do that I want to

quote Roderick Haig-Brown, one of British Columbia's most distinguished

citizens, who back in 1966 wrote the following words. I'm going to

quote Rod Haig-Brown's words exactly as he said them, Mr. Speaker, and

you will pardon the language in one case. This was at a time when the

proposal to locate a mine at the southern end of Buttle Lake was being

made.

"Why can't we secure parks and wilderness areas and

wild rivers and the other spectacular things of the continent hard and

fast in the heart of the constitution, so that they will be safe from

violation even if the biggest goddamned diamond mine or oil well or

underground facsimile of the whole General Motors complex is found in

one of them? Why not? Has industry some inalienable right to invade

public lands, wherever found, and destroy them?"

That was in 1966. My apologies to those members of the House who find the language offensive; it was Rod Haig-Brown's.

Mr. Speaker, the question seems to have been answered in British Columbia:

if you do find these kinds of resources in our public lands, then it's carte

blanche. The short-term economic benefits, a few jobs for perhaps ten or a dozen

years, seem to be more important to the government in power than the long-term

economic benefits of hundreds of jobs for thousands of years — if this planet

can survive. But the government can't look at thousands of years, it can

only look in terms of its tenure in office, and it wants a quick fix now. It

doesn't want to look at economic realities a decade or a hundred or a thousand

years from now.

I want to quote briefly from a letter from a husband and wife, resort owners on Quadra Island:

"Visitors from abroad sometimes come here after a few

days at Strathcona Park and always talk with envy about the virgin

forest that has been kept as a park, and the streams with water safe to

drink. This kind of park is becoming unique in today's world. Why give

it away for a few dollars today, when it will be worth so much more to

the province as a natural park for years to come?"

Another letter, from a gentleman who is a professional forester in

Campbell River. This letter went to the current Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers) when he was Minister of

Environment and Parks. "I am a professional forester with the Ministry

of Forests and Lands" — here's a public servant putting his job on the

line — "and am in favour of developing our natural resources, including

mining. I am not in favour of destructive exploitation of parks; we

have so few." He goes on: "I am a long-time Social Credit supporter but

I cannot abide by this decision." He concludes: "Please listen to the

people."

A letter from the Campbell River Environmental Council — perhaps

predictable from that particular group; nevertheless an important group

in Campbell River, given that it represents 15 different environmental

groups — makes the point that the Strathcona Park Act of 1911, which

was

an act of this Legislature, states that the land should be set

apart for the benefit, advantage and enjoyment of the people of British

Columbia. That's certainly not happening today. That's the

Environmental Council.

Let me quote then from the chamber of commerce, whose opinion may

not be so predictable. The Campbell River and District Chamber of

Commerce, over the signature of the president, says: "The board of

directors unanimously voted to demand a public hearing by the

government on proposed alterations to Strathcona Park boundaries and

classifications." To demand — that's language that only the left has

used, And here's the chamber of commerce demanding as well.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

A letter from Myrna Boulding, wife of the late Jim Boulding, whom

many members of this House have been privileged to know; a man who

fought all his life for Strathcona Park and, as he was dying, witnessed

in his last years the continuing destruction of what was for him his

lifetime work. Myrna Boulding quotes a current deputy minister in the

Ministry of Forests and Lands. When he was Deputy Minister of Tourism —

I don't think he was at this time, but nevertheless — he said that one

mine in a park at a time is enough. Myrna writes a four-page letter

which very neatly sets out concerns that the government has completely

ignored.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, there are two issues involved here that concern me. One

is the issue of the decision itself to gut Strathcona Park, to destroy

the heart of that park. To take out of that park the very area for

which it is famous — so famous, in fact, that the cover of the parks

branch brochure that promotes Strathcona Park has on it a picture of

Cream Lake, which is now no longer in the park. A bit farther south

from Cream Lake, and visible from that area, is Della Falls, the

highest waterfall in North America — now no longer in the

[ Page 168 ]

park. Both are included in what is now called a "recreation area."

What does a recreation area mean in doublespeak, in the Orwellian

language of Social Credit? It means an area where logging and mining

can take place. And is the mining a result of the Tener decision in

Wells Gray Park a couple of years ago? The minister nods his head. Why

then are prospectors allowed to prospect for new claims in that

recreation area if it's as a result of the Tener decision? Why is the

area so broad and so expansive as to allow for additional prospecting

and perhaps the discovery of additional ore reserves? That's not a

result of the Tener decision. That park has, as a beautiful feature,

the Forbidden Plateau area, which thousands and thousands of people

hike through every year. Right in the heart of that area are two

mineral claims which have now been taken out of the park. If those

claims are to be developed, roads need to be constructed, huge areas

need to be devastated, in what for international tourists is the prime

attraction of that particular park.

One concern of those of us who are heartbroken about the decision of

the government in late January to change the boundaries of this park is

the fact that the heart of the park is completely gone. Combined with

the decision to flood Buttle Lake, the decision in the late sixties to

allow Western Mines to go in, this decision destroys this park.

The second issue we concern ourselves about is process. For a

government which proclaims in its throne speech, in its election

campaigns, which proclaims at every opportunity, including question

period today in a response from the Premier, that the government is

open, responsible, wants to consult — look at the process about the

decision on Strathcona Park. It was included in the terms of reference

for the Wilderness Advisory Committee, which had a brief three months

to complete its work.

The Wilderness Advisory Committee recommendations report noted that

they were unable to make specific and complete conclusions about what

should be in or out, because they didn't have the time, they didn't

have the resources, and, for a good part of their hearings, they didn't

have the cooperation of the parks branch, to paraphrase Bryan Williams,

chairperson of this particular committee. The committee recommended

that some parts of the park come out — one of the reasons I was unhappy

with this report. But one of the things they also suggested, in

recommendation No. 4 on page 100 about Strathcona Park, is that the

proposed package of boundary changes and the master plan be subject to

a public review, preferably through a process recommended by this

committee. So we've got the Wilderness Advisory Committee saying public

process, public review, public hearings — some form of public

discussion about what the boundaries should be around Strathcona Park.

In the course of doing my job as an MLA, I want to make sure that

the government is on track on that particular recommendation. So I

write, as the minister knows, to respective Ministers of Parks. First

of all, I wrote to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, who is now

the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). He writes to me, dated August 13,

1986: "This will acknowledge your letter of June 19, 1986, in reference

to Strathcona Provincial Park. As I have recently announced my intent

to hold public meetings to receive comments respecting a comprehensive

master plan for Strathcona Park, I feel...." Here he rejects my appeal

that he have a meeting with the environmentalists in Campbell River.

"I would anticipate going to the public in late October or early November 1986."

Now as we all know in this House, there were good reasons for not

going to the public in October of last year. I accept that; we couldn't

do it in October — let's do it later. The party opposite had a

leadership convention, so we had a new minister. The Deputy Speaker of

this House became the minister. I wrote him a letter congratulating

him, and reminding him of the commitment made by his predecessor. He

wrote back to me: "As you are aware, my predecessor" — the hon. member

for Omineca — "announced his intent to hold public meetings to receive

comments on a comprehensive master plan for the park. I agree that all

interested parties should be given the opportunity to participate in

this process and plan to pursue the same course of action."

So then we had another.... First, we had a change because of the

convention, then we had a change because of the election and a new

minister, the now Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr.

Rogers). His letter: "As you note, it is this ministry's intention to

conduct public meetings to elicit public input on a comprehensive

master plan for this park."

All of us were led to believe that the government was committed to

adhering to recommendation No. 4 of the Wilderness Advisory Committee,

which recommended that public hearings be conducted on the master plan

for the park, which at that time included all of these areas which have

now been excluded. Our understanding was that we had a commitment — we

being people concerned about the issue, and the public — from the

government to hold public hearings about that public park and the

boundaries as they were at the time of the writing of the letters and

the Wilderness Advisory Committee recommendation.

What do we get? In January we get a series of events that lead to a

cabinet decision — on the last Wednesday of January and announced the

last Thursday of January — that six provincial parks in this province

have had their boundaries changed. There were some additions in some

cases, and interestingly, in Strathcona, additions that were going to

wait until the logging had been completed before the land was put into

the park; and of course, the deletions that I talked about — Cream

Lake, Della Falls, Big Interior Mountain — in the heart of that park.

Just prior to the decision coming down in cabinet, I began to pick

up rumours that cabinet was in fact going to discuss this issue. So I

wrote a quick letter. I did it in one day and hand-delivered it to the

then minister, saying I wanted him to keep to the promises that were

made — have the public hearings, have the consultation. The response I

got was a phone call from a public servant saying the minister is going

— this is in January — to take a helicopter tour of Strathcona Park and

is going to have lunch at Western Mines mine site at noon. Would I like

to join him for lunch, which is being put on courtesy of Western Mines?

I said: "Not particularly, but I wouldn't mind joining you for the

helicopter trip, because there is 15 feet of snow up there. You aren't

going to see very much of Strathcona Park in the middle of the winter

under 15 feet of snow. You won't see Cream Lake and you won't see Della

Falls, because from a helicopter it's not quite the same as it is

looking at it from below." So I said to the minister — not to the

minister, to the public servant who was doing his political work, which

I found a bit strange, but nevertheless, I am prepared to accept it

occasionally.... I said to this public servant: "Tell the minister that

if he wants to take me

[ Page

169 ]

along on a helicopter ride so I can point out to

him what's under that snow and what kind of a beautiful park that is

that they're talking about destroying, then I will come with him and

have lunch at Western Mines — however that offends my principles.

"Oh, no, you can't take an opposition MLA along with a minister on

this kind of a trip," so I was denied the right to come. So I didn't

go to the lunch that was sponsored by one of the lobbyists for this particular

decision, the mining company that has additional claims, or would like to have

the potential to exploit further mineralized areas to the south of its present

property. The lunch sponsored by this group was attended by the minister. Is

that not a conflict of interest? He expected me to go along and join him.

So I said: "No, I'm not going along in those kinds of circumstances.

I'm not going to compromise my principles." The minister may be

prepared to, but I won't. I then get a letter from the minister

regretting the fact that I didn't come to have a discussion with him

about what could be done about the future of Strathcona Park. Is that

open government? Is that how government consults? Is that how the

people of this province are able to have input into what is a

fundamental decision on Vancouver Island? Is that how it works?

The MLA for part of the park — not the whole park; the member for

Comox has a great chunk of it, anti the member for Alberni a chunk

more.... Is that how the public gets its input — lunch sponsored by a

major potential beneficiary of the decision to gut the park?

Madam Speaker, I have asked a question of the minister on this issue

and got the wrong answer. Today I presented a petition containing 6,342

names, a petition gathered in a few weeks. I have since been advised

there are hundreds more names out there that weren't ready and weren't

collected yet, so I may be doing it again at some point.

I know that the government has had hundreds — if not a thousand or

more — of letters on this issue because I have had hundreds. Isn't this

a case where W.A.C. Bennett's famous second look is appropriate? Isn't

it appropriate now that the government say: "Wait a minute. Perhaps

we've made a mistake. Perhaps there is a way we can deal with this

differently." Perhaps there isn't. Perhaps the decision that you have

made is the only decision that a government could make. But make that

decision after you've consulted the people of this province, after

people have had an opportunity to talk to you about it.

That's not a weird, radical idea coming out of left wing. That's an

idea that was promised by Bryan Williams' committee and by three

successive ministers of this government and the previous government. So

what's wrong with doing it? Is the government afraid of hearing what

the people might say about Strathcona. Park? For thousands of British

Columbians and an increasing number of people from all over this world

who hike in that park.... Are they worried about what those people

might say with respect to the decision that was made by the government?

What is there to be afraid of? What's the government's concern? What

is wrong with following the words of the throne speech? What's wrong with

consultation? They certainly didn't have the consultation in the wilderness

advisory committee process. I had to drag a meeting out of that group to come

to Campbell River, and they came on New Year's Eve or the day before. It

was short notice. It didn't even get in the newspaper that they were going

to be there. Only about 20 people knew about it, much less were able to attend.

The process there was short circuited, because at that point, and even subsequently,

the commissioners didn't have full cooperation from the parks branch. We've

not had a full public review, as has been promised since 1959 by successive

governments, Madam Speaker.

I invite the minister to do two things. One is to postpone the

decision until after the public hearings have been held, and I suggest

you can get that underway in the next few weeks and months. It can be

completed by late spring. The process doesn't have to take too long.

Make the decision after you've had those public hearings and after

you've done one other thing — that is, come hiking with me in

Strathcona Park so you can see for yourself how fantastic and how

beautiful that park could be.

MR. JANSEN: Madam Speaker, greetings to you and all hon. members of the House.

It is with a great sense of pride and humility that I rise in this

chamber to participate in a debate on the Speech from the Throne —

pride in this institution of democracy in which we now participate, as

our forefathers did since the first Legislature of the province in

1872; humility in that the electors of the constituency of Chilliwack

have entrusted me with the honour and privilege to represent their

interests in this, the thirty-fourth parliament. Before I proceed, I

would like to ask this House to welcome a special guest here this

afternoon, Mr. Fred Feistmann. Please make him welcome.

[4:15]

At the outset, may I extend my sincere congratulations to Mr.

Speaker on being elected Speaker of the House. I look forward to his

learned guidance and leadership in ensuring that the dignity and

decorum of this assembly is preserved. I share with my colleagues an

earnest desire to be true to our ideals and practical in our actions as

we serve as Members of the Legislative Assembly of this beautiful

province.

I extend also warm congratulations to the first member for Dewdney

(Mr. Pelton) on his election as Deputy Speaker and wish him all the

best in his endeavours. I know full well his high character, service

and loyalty to his constituency and to our province. May Mr. Speaker

and Mr. Deputy Speaker be blessed with the special wisdom and inner

strength that is essential in presiding with absolute impartiality over

this honourable institution as democratic government is exercised

through free and untrammelled debate and discussion.

May I also take this opportunity to extend warmest congratulations,

and those of my constituency, to the first member for Richmond (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm), the Premier of our province. It is indeed exciting

and an honour to be part of a party and a government represented by a

leader whose commitment to a stronger economic future for our province

and determination for success is commendable indeed. His vision, his

enthusiasm, his example and his leadership have already brought

stability and respect to this Legislature and have instilled confidence

in the hearts and minds of the people, the workers and the investors of

our province.

I commend the Premier for his leadership in establishing a

revitalized government and a renewed spirit of economic enthusiasm, and

convey to him and to this House my commitment of cooperation and

initiative in this regard. May I also commend the Premier for his

considered and outstanding selection of the executive council. I know

that they will ably assist in the realization of our goals of

excellence in government. I know, too, that the staff who provide the

administrative framework necessary for our government to operate

[ Page 170 ]

are dedicated to the underlying principle of

professionalism and service, and share the enthusiasm of our government

for a new opportunity.

I congratulate, too, my colleagues on both sides of the House on

being elected as Members of the Legislative Assembly of this province.

I know all of you share with me a spirit of enthusiasm and optimism

that heralds a new beginning and a sincere willingness to put the needs

of our electorate, the people of British Columbia, before all else. It

has been said that wherever we look upon the earth the opportunities

take shape within the problems. It is my wish that together we may

develop the opportunities for a better British Columbia.

I would particularly like to express my sincere appreciation to the

people of Chilliwack constituency for their expression of confidence in

my ability to represent them in this Legislative Assembly. I pray that

I will be worthy of that confidence and that I may indeed represent

their interests and concerns with dedication and perseverance. I am

especially indebted to those people who have worked hard on ensuring

the re-election of our government, and I particularly thank Mr. Jake

Isaak, constituency president, for his support, hard work and

encouragement. Throughout our political service, we depend heavily on

those who make family sacrifices. I am indeed grateful for the

continued special support and assistance given by my wife and family.

The people of Chilliwack, like most constituencies in this province,

have continued to place their trust and support in the principles of

our Social Credit philosophy and are committed to the spirit of free

enterprise being the only logical choice for a stronger economy and a

better quality of life.

On a special note, I would like to, on behalf of the Chilliwack

constituency and indeed on behalf of the entire province of British

Columbia, extend a very special word of appreciation to the previous

member for Chilliwack, Mr. Harvey Schroeder. Harv has indeed served

this assembly and this province with distinction. He has, with his

continued optimism, his sense of humour, his high moral standards based

on deep-rooted Christian values and his dedication to the service of

our province, given exemplary service indeed in both his capacity as

Speaker of the House and Minister of Agriculture.

His unfailing sense of humour was particularly welcome during less

friendly periods in the House. One of our cabinet colleagues of long

service to the province once remarked: "Harvey was the only Speaker

I've seen who could quell heated debate and outrageous language by

simply saying, 'Mercy, mercy."' I know this House joins me in saying

thank you, Harvey, for your service to British Columbia.

Allow me for a moment to describe my constituency. Chilliwack, the

home of the famous, fertile Fraser Valley, is many times described as

the green heart of British Columbia. It is an area of land of

approximately 4,800 square kilometres, extending from the Abbotsford

border to the west, north to north of Harrison Lake and east to Jones

Hill and No. I freeway. Agriculture is the historical and current

mainstay of the economy. The gross farm income in the constituency

represents approximately 10 percent of the entire farm income for the

province. Because of the importance of agriculture in the economy,

coupled with its inherent peaceful and quiet nature, agriculture has

indeed become a way of life in Chilliwack.

Our government firmly believes that the best investment we can make

in our agriculture and food industry is the education of our young

people — young men and women who will continue the long tradition and

legacy of progressive agriculture in the Fraser Valley. Testimony to

our belief in the value of education in the pursuit of continued

economic prosperity, our government announced the construction of the

new agricultural technology centre at Fraser Valley College — the only

two-year agricultural technology program in British Columbia. The

college has been chosen as the agriculture specialty centre because of

its location in the heart of the fruit, vegetable, dairy, poultry and

beef feedlot production community in British Columbia. It provides the

students with a natural lab from which to observe the industry in

operation.

Forestry is also of major consequence to the economy and livelihood

of the people of Chilliwack. The Chilliwack forest district has an

annual harvest of approximately 50,000 truckloads of some of the finest

forest land in British Columbia. As a result, reforestation and

intensive silviculture practices have become routine. Logged areas are

planted where necessary, the plantations are brushed out and weeded,

the young stands are spaced at the appropriate time and fertilizer is

applied when required. The continual development of secondary wood

processing is also assisting this industry to become increasingly

important.

Tourism, Madam Speaker, is of ever more importance to the economy of

this province. Expo 86 was an event that opened the eyes of British

Columbians everywhere. People saw the vast potential they have to

secure a position of leadership in the further development of tourism.

This recognition will act as a catalyst to initiate further action to

explore this opportunity. The Chilliwack constituency has contributed

to this position of strength in a positive way through its Rainbow

Country promotion, a promotion that captures the spirit of our

community's friendliness and hospitality, set against a backdrop of the

beauty and natural attractions of the area. Attractions such as Minter

Gardens, Flintstone Park, the Chilliwack Museum, Cultus Lake and

Harrison Hot Springs are simply world-class and are actively promoted

at our first-class hospitality centre, which saw 56,000 people stop in

to seek information in 1986.

Madam Speaker, I have had the honour and privilege of serving the

District of Chilliwack as its mayor for three years, two years of which

I was also elected chairman of the Regional District of Fraser-Cheam,

an area of some 11,000 square kilometres extending from Chilliwack to

just north of Boston Bar. This experience, together with my business

background as an accountant in public practice and owner of a wholesale

nursery, has given me a unique and special insight into the wishes and

the character of our community.

It comes as no surprise that Chilliwack has consistently and

strongly voted Social Credit since 1952. It comes as no surprise

because we, like many other communities throughout British Columbia,

believe in a spirit of free enterprise — the freedom of our own

initiative, unencumbered by a government bureaucracy, and indeed

supported by a framework of a positive business environment. It has

been said that the highest reward for a man's toil is not what he gets

for it but what he becomes by it, and that value is held dearly by the

people of our constituency.

Madam Speaker, as I listen to my constituents I hear them tell me

they are tired of the politics of confrontation. They are tired of

politics that centres only upon tackling issues from a negative

viewpoint. They know the problems; they don't need to hear them

identified again and again. They elected

[ Page

171 ]

this government to solve problems — to take

advantage of an economy that is becoming more prosperous, to take

advantage of trade opportunities and not become mired in approaches

that only depend on yesterday's solutions.

Indeed, Madam Speaker, as I look at our major economic indicators I

see growth and improvement in this province that British Columbians

want to be part of. They want this government to help them achieve that

participation. Since our election our government has wasted no time in

beginning this open approach. On November 6, 1986, our Premier

announced a most aggressive program of major review in key policy areas

— in some areas the most extensive that have been held in decades. The

throne speech clearly demonstrated the continuing commitment this

government has to identifying issues, seeking consultation and pursuing

solutions.

I am very fortunate in my capacity of Parliamentary Secretary to the

Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and to

the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) to have

been personally involved in the Labour Code review and in the review of

the liquor policy. As a result of these reviews and public

consultation, the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services will seek

initiatives that will bring long-term stability in employment

relations. We believe such action is necessary to secure, for all

British Columbians, an unfettered access to world markets for our

products and skills.

We urge laws designed to keep the province moving and not stagnating

in confrontation that ultimately benefits nobody. During the course of

this session, the liquor policy review, which was formally announced on

February 26, 1987, will be completed. It will involve extensive

dialogue and discussions with the public and the parties which would be

directly affected by the policy. As chairmen of the review work with my

colleagues the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) and the

first member for Boundary Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt), we will complete

the most comprehensive review ever held on liquor policy.

Madam Speaker, this government is committed to an environment of

cooperation where government is a partner in the economy and the

private sector companies and their employees become leading

participants, achieving a strong, vibrant economy. This requires a view

to the future for not only those in the workforce today but also those

who will look towards making a contribution tomorrow.

[4:30]

I believe my constituents are excited about the Royal Commission on

Education as an opportunity to again step away from confrontation and

look forward to a positive approach that will mean a better education

and better future for our children. We look forward to a continuing

focus on education that complements and supports the community's desire

to develop its strengths and resources. In this regard, continued

upgrading of our educational facilities and further development of

Fraser Valley College will provide the necessary foundation to help

achieve that objective.

We are pleased with the emphasis the throne speech places on people

through education initiatives such as education savings program,

science and technology initiatives and encouragement of post-secondary

education. We are pleased also with the initiative to further assist

the independent education system in this province.

Chilliwack is fortunate to have approximately 13 percent of its

population as senior citizens — 2 percent higher than the provincial

average. Seniors contribute a great deal to the community, sharing

their wealth of knowledge, contributing their time, raising funds for

worthwhile projects and contributing substantially to a stable economic

base. We are pleased therefore to see the emphasis of care that is

placed in this sector of our population and encourage continued

development of health care facilities to ensure a world-class level of

service.

My constituency also commends the Premier on his recent initiative

to provide a constructive forum for decentralization of government to

restore more decision-making and functions to the grassroots or

community level of government. In this context, we look forward to a

review of current floodplain legislation that seeks a constructive

solution to this very sensitive issue.

I commend too, Madam Speaker, this government on the appointment of

a Cabinet Committee on Native Affairs to work closely with our native

people to provide a forum for discussion on matters of mutual interest.

We particularly applaud the initiative of this government to work in

consultation with the private sector in developing more of our primary

agricultural products into marketable processed and packaged goods.

Underlying the quiet, plodding images that agriculture and farming

conjures up in the minds of British Columbians is a dynamic, thriving,

processing industry that our government is eager to tap into. It is

apparent that the agri-food industry plays a major role in the economy,

and Chilliwack is a major player.

We look forward to the sound reforestation policy this government is

committed to, in order to continually develop a more revitalized

industry, which is a critical part of our local and provincial economy.

My constituency also looks forward with excitement to the further

development of our tourism industry, with particular reference to

cooperative promotional packages of the Pacific Northwest, such as the

Gold Rush Trail. This dynamic industry not only has an immediate impact

on the economy but also enables a window of opportunity for future

investors in our province. This, as the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr.

Reid) would say, is good stuff.

Our constituency looks forward to continued upgrading of the No. 1

freeway, to ensure the elimination of level crossings. Transportation

is a critical component of economic recovery, and we commend continued

development of the necessary infrastructure.

We also commend the government on its initiative for change in

taxation policies respecting job creation industries, with particular

emphasis on small business. This, coupled with our goal of an

international financial centre for Vancouver, will provide a positive

environment for attracting investment dollars. The generally improved

business climate in British Columbia, specific measures to encourage

international and domestic financial activity, and our natural

advantages are a potent combination which will in the coming years help

to accelerate the development of British Columbia's financial sector.

We are particularly encouraged by our government's initiative to

support current free-trade negotiations with our largest trading

partner. It is through such an agreement that a constituency such as

Chilliwack will continue to grow and prosper.

Madam Speaker, the future is built upon cooperation. The government

must be committed to open participation, to consultation and to

developing the approaches that will allow

[ Page 172 ]

business to grow, for it is on that growth that

long-term stability can be founded. It is upon that growth that those

without jobs today can look to work tomorrow. It is upon that growth

that our children can look to a future optimistically and not burdened

with the fear of economic disaster.

Many years ago a famous cartoon character said: "I have seen the

enemy and he is us." We will not let ourselves fall into that kind of

reproach. This government may say: "I have seen the future and it is

us." Cooperation, consultation and an improved quality of life for

British Columbians will become the legacy of this government. That is

indeed the litmus test of any government, and this government will

achieve that.

It is my wish and prayer, the Lord willing, that I may serve this

House and my constituency with humbleness, dignity and diligence. I

close, Madam Speaker, with a quote: "It would be well to bear in mind

that the present of today was the future of yesterday, and that it is

what it is because of human actions, the human decisions from

yesterday." And therefore, with God's help, the future will be what we

make it.

MR. BARNES: I would like to congratulate the hon. Speaker on his appointment as Speaker of this assembly.

I just have to have a few moments to reflect, being one of the few

remaining old guard of the opposition, although I'm probably one of the

younger old guard. [Laughter.] Let me just say to them that I'm glad

humour still prevails in the House, and that it looks as though it may

even improve with so much new blood — because this job is onerous

enough without us losing our sense of humour. And I know that we will

be committed to the causes that we were elected to defend.

But before I reflect on a few things that I believe I should use the

privilege to reflect on, I must say — this being the throne speech

debate, where latitude is provided to members — that, Madam Speaker, I

want to make a complaint. This is, I believe, the fifteenth throne

speech that I've participated in, and I have never in all my years had

to go outside to get into the House. The way you've got it set up now,

although the a