1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1988

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5633 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Throne Speech Debate

Mrs. Boone –– 5633

Mrs. Gran –– 5636

Mr. Sihota –– 5637

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 5641

Ms.Marzari –– 5646

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Speaker, today there is a memorial service for a very special

friend of the New Democratic Party, formerly the CCF Party. It is for

May Campbell, who passed away very recently and was an old-time member

of our party. May was 96 years old and is survived by her husband,

Walter, who is 102 years old, and her sons Curly, and his wife Mayne of

Sorrento, B.C., and Gordon of Sooke and daughter Maizie and her

husband. She is also survived by her nine grandchildren and ten

great-grandchildren. May Campbell was well-known for her associations

in this community with the Silver Threads, the credit union movement

and housing organizations. She was a founding member of the CCF and the

New Democratic Party. I'm wondering if the House would join with us in

wishing condolences and sympathies to the family for this very special

person in our party.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : That's a

sad occasion to follow with a request that the House join me in a happy

occasion, which is to recognize the presence in the House this morning

of a group of 32 students visiting British Columbia from King's School

in Winchester, England, hosted by Claremont Secondary School. They are

accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Phil Davies and Mr. Tony Thompson.

I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming our visitors.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, in the precincts and in the gallery this morning are a

host of native leaders from the central interior of the province, from

the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council. I would like the House to impart

welcome to Chief Joe Michelle; Justa Monk is here, and Edward John, and

many more native leaders who are with us this morning. They have

attended the CCNA meeting this morning. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of birthdays I would like to recognize this morning, and a couple of housekeeping items.

First

of all, I would like the House to join me in wishing a happy birthday

to one of our Clerks. Mr. George MacMinn is celebrating his birthday

today. He is not smiling about it; he is trying to sit there humbly as

Clerks do and show no emotion. He is in good company, though, because

it also is Johann Sebastian Bach's birthday, and I think we should make

note of that.

A couple of housekeeping matters for the House: members should be alerted that

this Thursday will be treated as a normal Fr

ay sitting, and there will be

private members' statements, which must be filed by 5 o'clock this afternoon.

Note also that Wednesday we will be sitting twice, at 10:00 a.m. and at 2:00.

Again, Thursday will be treated as a Friday, with a sitting at 10 o'clock

until 1:00.

MR. ROSE :

On behalf of the opposition, I would like to confirm the agreement for

the changing of the House hours. I would like to remind the very

musical House Leader of the government that yes, it is Bach's birthday.

He was born in 1685, the same year as Handel and Scarlatti. If we could

wish him a happy birthday, he'd be 304 years old now.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

MRS. BOONE :

Mr. Speaker, it comes as no surprise to this House that I am

disappointed in the throne speech. I, like my colleagues, am disturbed

that this government has chosen to study and review many of the areas

of concern to us, areas that require action now.

One area I

would have liked to have seen more about, but which is noticeably

absent from the throne speech, is the health area. I know that there is

mention of the removal of user fees for short-term stay assessments and

treatment centres. I'd like to know if this is a recognition by the

minister that these user fees have adverse effects on various people.

If so, then what about the existing user fees for physiotherapy,

chiropractic, chiropody? What about the dispensing user fee for the

elderly when they go to purchase their Pharmacare products? What about

reducing the MSP premiums that this government has raised two years in

a row? A 40 percent increase two years in a row, Mr. Speaker, is having

an extremely adverse effect on those low-income earners, the working

poor, as we know, in this province.

Why do we still have

deterrent fees on services that the minister has admitted are

preventive? Prevention is what this government is talking about, and

yet we have fees to deter people from using such things as

physiotherapy. If this government is serious about making health care

accessible, then why are they lobbying the federal government to

re-establish user fees? Surely that is not making things more

accessible to the people of this province. These are not the actions of

This

throne speech does mention something about a new medical services act,

but it makes no mention at all of what this act is going to carry. I

might say that the public are pretty wary about this; what will this

hold for us? Is it going to be more of the Socred legacy: more fees,

more cuts in the health care system? Are we going to see a new and

revised ministry that no one understands? Are we going to have

announcements of changes that have not been thoroughly thought through,

such as the downsizing of Riverview and long-term care assessments?

Both of these things were announced, started and then stopped in

midstream because of no consultation and no planning.

It's

ironic, at a time when the government is forming review groups, task

forces and advisory groups, that the Ministry of Health is ignoring the

various

[ Page 5634 ]

advisory

groups and their reports. We have an AIDS advisory group. We know that

their report and advice about medication for AIDS people has been

ignored. We know that AZT is not being provided. We have an ethics

advisory group, and we know that people are dropping out of this group

and refusing to sit on it because the reports are not being made public.

know that there is a midwifery report; we know that there is an

acupuncture report and a nursing manpower report. Where are the actions

on any of these reports? There is no action. The government is failing

to act at all. They have studied, they have reports, and yet they do

nothing.

This Medical Service Act is a surprise to many in

the medical community. It has been done unilaterally. Major players are

downright nervous about what's in store for them, and justifiably so,

because this government has shown no acknowledgement of any of its

intents with regard to health care, no plan about what's going on in

health care in this province.

[10:15]

The throne speech neglects to mention some of the major concerns of today. On April 1 —

and that's not too far away — the master agreement between the Medical

Services Plan, the government and the doctors expires. This agreement

was unilaterally ended by the government. The public is concerned about

what it is going to mean to them, what it is going to mean to medicare.

Will people have to pay their costs up front and then go back to get

reimbursed from the MSP? Is this new Medical Service Act the way to

negotiate a settlement? Are we going to see legislation in this act to

do what the government has failed to do, to negotiate a contract with

our doctors?

With April 1 approaching, I'm sure the

government realizes that it has bitten off more than it can chew. By

opening the contract to enable them to privatize the MSP — and that was the sole purpose of opening this contract, to privatize the MSP billings — they

have opened up a whole new contract and opened up negotiations for

everything that has previously been closed in this province.

I'd like to have seen this throne speech acknowledge the crisis facing our hospitals —

and there is a crisis. Every day you look in the paper and see beds cut

down, closures, people who can't get into hospital, who can't get

services. There's a lack of funds for our hospitals, a shortage of

beds, and a shortage of nurses. Hospitals are caught in binds — they can't be all things to everybody.

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE :

I'm sorry about that, member; I really miss you. I wish you were over

here in the middle, because I'd really like to chat across to you, but

I'm going to have to move so I can glance over to the side there.

Hospitals

are caught in a bind, Mr. Speaker. They can't be all things to

everybody. Right now the government has dropped the ball at the

community level on just about everything you can imagine. It has left

the hospitals to fill the void that is there for mental health, because

of the downsizing of Riverview and because of all the services that are

lacking in our communities. Hospitals are secondary- and tertiary-care

facilities first and foremost, which has been made impossible to happen

because they are consistently picking up the ball for the services that

should be provided at the community level.

We all know — and anyone in the health system can tell you — that beds are now being blocked by people who shouldn't be there. We know this, and yet this government is doing nothing — and has done absolutely nothing in the past — to solve those problems.

have home care, which is a system that I have talked about numerous

times in this Legislature. It is a system that is promoted and

well-thought-of and is an excellent way to deal with our system. Yet we

have seen no increase in that budget. We need more long-term-care

spaces. We need hospice programs and respite beds. Yet at this time we

see that the AIDS hospice in Vancouver is closing because of lack of

funds. Chronic care patients should not be taking up acute-care beds.

For hospitals to function effectively and efficiently, communities need

to have alternatives. They need to have crisis intervention, family

counselling, supportive housing and mental health services. They need

all of those things to reduce the pressure on our hospitals so that our

hospitals can run effectively and provide the services that are

required.

Unless those community services are developed

strongly in this province, we will not see any reduction in the abuse

of our hospital system or the overcrowding that takes place right now.

think that a very major concern and a major loss through the whole of

the throne speech is that there was no mention whatsoever of the major

crisis in our nursing situation, which exists not just in B.C. but in

Canada. We have talked about this for two years, but there has been

little done. We have a personnel study which has made some

recommendations. A little bit of action was done on some of them, but

there has been no movement on the major ones. Certainly wages are an

issue, but the one issue that I think is of concern to everybody is the

quality of service and the quality of care that is not available for

our people right now.

The government is fond of saying that

hospitals are autonomous and that it's up to them how they allocate

funds to their staff. However, the government allocates the money to

the hospitals, and unless the funds are there, the hospitals have

little discretion as to how to use those funds or how to provide extra

staff.

We are the second-lowest province in Canada in the

nursing care hours provided per patient. That is a shame to this

province, and it's a shame that our patients are having to endure such

a situation. What this translates into is less care for our patients

and virtual burnout for our nurses. We have cases where nurses who are

regularly working 12-hour shifts are being asked to serve 18-hour

shifts and, in some

[ Page

5635 ]

cases, 24-hour shifts –– 24-hour shifts, having at

their fingertips the lives of people in this province. Yet we have done

nothing. Nurses are very concerned about the quality of care they give,

and because nothing is being done to address the problem, they are

leaving the profession and adding to the problem by doing so. We have

more and more shortages of nurses. There are no shortages of nurses;

there are shortages of nurses who are willing to work under the

conditions and in the areas that we are currently offering them.

This

government has been promoting several myths for the past two years, one

in particular for the past year, One of these myths is that health care

costs are out of control. That's simply not true. Spending on health is

about the same share of our national income as it was five years ago.

We have not increased it substantially at all. We are spending about

the same amount as the French and German governments and much, much

less than the U.S. We spend less than the U.S. because we have a

national health system, because the government controls the costs and

is involved in setting prices and setting the incomes of the various

workers out there. Without the controls that our government has,

there's no doubt at all that our health costs would go sky-high, as

they have in the U.S.

However, it's important to say that

although they are not out of control, health care costs do have an

insatiable appetite and will grow as large as we want them to. I think

we have to start reviewing our outcomes— something that has not been done —

to find out what is effective health care. It's not just providing

everything that is asked for but it's providing effective health care.

Are all operations called for? What about the tests, alternative

treatments and medications? Are they required? Have they been

effective? Have they had the desired effect?

The bottom

line on all the services that are provided by this government ought to

be whether the patient benefits. I don't think we've seen that coming

from anything. We have never once stood back and taken a look at our

system to ask ourselves if everything we're providing is a benefit to

the patient.

Physicians and governments need to work

together to reach a consensus about the length of stay and guidelines

for testing, medication, surgery and other therapy. Nothing must be

sacred. We must get a consensus on these issues not based on personal

opinions but based on positive evidence that things work. That is the

way we must look at the health care system.

Myth number two in this area here is that this government is committed to prevention

and health promotion. For the past year everywhere we go we hear the government

talking about prevention and health promotion; yet when we get out there, we

find absolutely nothing happening in those areas. You talk to somebody in mental

health, in alcohol and drug — I know that's no longer health, but it should

be — and any of those areas, and you ask them where all those dollars are that

have been announced. They're not there for the user of the system. That's

for sure.

need more than just lip service. We need commitment to community-based

programs that will provide support to individuals. That support must

come now under the leadership of government. We can't wait, as the

minister said in his speech last week on health promotion, for a

groundswell of public support to push us into action. The government

must be the leader in this area. We must lead this province, not follow

the leadership of the public.

The people of British

Columbia know the legacy of Social Credit, and they are not for one

minute fooled that anything will come out of the studies that this

government has done. In 1987, when unemployment was higher than it is

today — some areas were at 15 and sometimes 17 or 18 percent —

we moved a motion to establish a legislative committee on unemployment,

and that was turned down at the time. Unemployment has been reduced;

suddenly it's unacceptably high and must be studied. The women's

secretariat that currently exists in this government has done nothing

to address the problems facing women today, such as poverty, economic

equality and a woman's right to control her own body, yet a new

ministry is going to be formed to deal with women's issues.

Interesting, isn't it? Suddenly we've become interested in women's

issues.

This government has a shameful history in its

relationship with the native population and has consistently refused to

deal with land claims. However, we now have a Premier's Council for

Natives. I would suggest, Mr. Premier, that one of the first pieces of

advice that Premier's council give you would be to remove the second

member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Vant) from your cabinet.

Governments

that are serious about consultation and study do so at the beginning of

their term, not at the end when they know they're not going to have to

act. It's easy enough to study things when you know you don't have to

take any action. These studies and reviews are nothing more than

coverups for government inaction, and that is what we're going to see

over this next year: study, study, study until an election comes along,

and then there'll be no action whatsoever from this government.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Too bad you weren't there last night.

MRS. BOONE :

I will be going tonight to my home community to listen to the Minister

of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) make what I hope is a statement

with regard to our university in the north. And I'd like to note that

I'll be traveling up there by commercial airline and not by government

jet, because there's no room for me on that government jet.

will be there, Mr. Premier, and I'll be listening carefully to what

takes place. We on this side have long promoted and long talked about a

university for the north. If this comes about, it does not come about

because of any action by the government; it comes about because you

have been led, pulling, kicking and screaming, by the people of Prince

George to acknowledge the needs of the north. You have never

[ Page 5636 ]

done so, and you never would have done so if the people had not taken a stand.

Because

I'm so concerned about what this throne speech does nothing to address,

I would like to move that the motion, "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful

and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in

session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious

speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the

present session," be amended by adding the following:

"And

this House acknowledges that the throne speech was an admission of

mistakes by the government on issues of critical importance to British

Columbians, including forestry, the environment and housing; and that

rather than providing a strong and clear commitment to immediate

legislative action on these important concerns, it is an agenda of

further studies, promises and delays."

[10:30]

MRS. GRAN :

It's an interesting exercise that we carry out in this House, one

positive, one negative, and I'm extremely grateful to be on the

positive side of the House. I would like to take this opportunity, Mr.

Speaker, to congratulate you, our distinguished Deputy Speaker and the

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

It gives me great

pleasure to speak today to the throne speech, as I found it to be a

document unprecedented in depth of caring. It matters not what the

other negative side of the House says; the depth of caring is there,

and as much as it makes your lives difficult, it's a fact of life. It

doesn't matter how many negative things you say about the throne

speech. I know, as a member of the Social Credit caucus, that all that

is in that throne speech will come to pass. You know it, I know it — and the public will know it. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) laughs, but we'll see who laughs last.

want to pay tribute to some of the programs that have been announced by

this government. I particularly want to point out to the House that the

Premier of this province has probably been the best listener In the

history of the province, and I think that that is evident in every

program that has been announced by this government.

I point

particularly to education. Education is the root of everything that is

good and caring in this province. This government has done more for

education that any government in the history of the province. As a

mother, as a member of government, as a parent and as a taxpayer, I

applaud the changes that have been made by the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Brummet). I am particularly pleased with the new emphasis on

how to teach children to learn, to teach teachers to care about the

self-esteem of children, to try to convince parents that self-esteem,

and how to learn, is one of the most important aspects of education.

For many years children have been sent to school to do as they're told

and to learn as they're told. As we all know, not all children are

created equal; many of them have learning disabilities and problems at

home that cause difficulties in their learning process. So for me the

most important part of the new announcements is contained in the aspect

that cares more about the individual child.

The Minister of

Advanced Education and job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) made an

announcement that one of the press called "a good-news bombshell"

yesterday. I can say that I was there to hear the announcement, to see

the happiness and the pride that all of the college and university

administrators have for this program. I'm happy to be part of a caucus

and a government that has made this announcement and has made it

possible for some 15,000 students to take advantage of university

programs over the next six years.

Then the minister has

done a wonderful job in his ministry. I think that of all the ministers

who have had that portfolio, he has probably had the best relationship

with the universities and colleges. I am very pleased with the

announcement and the initiatives made yesterday.

I want to

talk about my own constituency, Langley, one of the fastest-growing

areas in this province. I want to put the Minister of Education on

notice that the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) and I are

looking forward to the announcement of a new secondary school in Walnut

Grove. We thank the minister for the extra money he has put in his

budget for capital projects such as the secondary school in Walnut

Grove.

I also want to put the Minister of Transportation

and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) on notice that we in Langley are looking

forward to the widening of 200th Street in this budget year. I know

that the people of Langley will be grateful for that initiative, Mr.

Minister.

I also want to say how happy I am with the Go

B.C. grant initiative. Already in my constituency many groups have

taken advantage of the program. It has helped many groups to put

together programs and worthwhile projects that otherwise would never

have gotten off the ground.

I want at this time to compliment the Premier on the initiative of a women's ministry.

Interjections.

MRS. GRAN :

It doesn't matter, hon. members, who that minister is. What matters is

that the government has recognized the issue. At the same time, I want

to say that even without that ministry this government has done a good

job. I particularly want to point out the Minister of Advanced

Education and Job Training, who has been extremely sensitive to women's

issues, and I want to say here and now that he has done an excellent

job in that area. I also want to point out to this House that the

Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) has also handled the

day care issue extremely well and very sensitively. And the

Attorney-General's ministry: I must mention the family maintenance

program. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, although I'm very

happy about the women's ministry, I wouldn't want anyone to

[ Page 5637 ]

think that this government has not been sensitive to women's issues — because it has.

move from women's issues to the horse industry. I spoke about this in

the first throne speech. The horse industry is one of the most

economically viable industries In this province, and nowhere is it more

evident than in the Fraser Valley. Langley has half of the thoroughbred

breeders in the whole province. We also have standardbred and

quarterhorse. We have a lot of horses in Langley. It is a big industry,

and that industry is looking for a new racetrack, a new facility to

carry on an industry that we must all care about, even those from the

city.

Interjection.

MRS. GRAN : I particularly want to point this out to the member for Vancouver East, who probably knows very little about horses — those kinds of horses. I'm hoping that member will be supportive of the horse industry.

This

government has been successful; this government has listened and this

government has acted, Whenever a mighty party like the Social Credit

Party stumbles, it's interesting how it creates fear, and the most

interesting part of that is its fear of socialism. The other

interesting

part is how the socialists are now calling themselves

something else, and appearing before the business community and saying:

"We care about you; we've changed our stripes; we're not socialists any

more."

MR. R. FRASER : Who believes that?

MRS. GRAN : Absolutely no one believes that. I think it's safe to say — and the Premier should take heart in this —

that imitation is the purest form of flattery. But you are, hon.

members, a very poor imitation of free-enterprisers. After all of the

things that you've said about business — and I remember it well as a rookie through the debate on Bill 19 —

business is a dirty word on that side of the House. How those members

today can stand in front of the business community and say that they

care is beyond me. It tells you how flexible that side of the House is.

Power is the only thing that matters. "I don't care about my

philosophy. What I want to do is win, and if in order to win I have to

change my philosophy on the outside, then I will." Hon. members, that

won't work. Socialism is dying around the world and free enterprise is

thriving everywhere. When the next election comes, hon. members, Social

Credit will still be government in this province.

I want to

conclude my remarks on a more serious note concerning personal attacks

on members in this Legislature. I want to say, here and now, that I

would never participate in a personal attack on a member of the NDP.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

have to relate to the experience that I had with the allegations made

that I had somehow helped my son with B.C. Hydro. I find that kind of

political manoeuvring really difficult to understand. None of us is

without fault, without things in our lives that we would rather not

read in the newspapers. Hon. members, we set the example for the people

out there. When we act without integrity, without caring about each

other, regardless of our politics, we set a very bad example.

have to say that the disappointment that I felt, particularly in the

Leader of the Opposition in participating in that exercise, was very

difficult for me to deal with. I have a very high regard for many

members on that side of the House, but to know that to gain some

political points an issue like that would be used

I think

it's time for all of us to think about the job that we have to do here.

It's fine to debate issues and to heckle one another across the room,

but I think it's another thing when we attack one another

personally — particularly using someone's family.

read the Blues yesterday and I listened. I read the jokes made by the

Leader of the Opposition, and I want to offer some constructive advice.

The jokes aren't funny or becoming of a man in his position. I would

suggest to the members on the opposite side of the House — not all of them but some of them — that they start acting in a more responsible manner.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to see you back in the chair, and it's a

disappointment to see that the Premier is leaving now. I thought he

might want to stick around for a few more minutes, because I have a

number of comments that I want to make which I think ought to be

brought to his attention.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I saw it was you getting up, and I decided....

MR. SIHOTA : That comment, Mr. Premier, after the comment from the member for Langley.... You two better get your act together.

You

know, it's not surprising that the Premier is leaving the chamber at

this moment. He's been in the habit of leaving the province for the

past few months and particularly during the course of the by-elections

in Point Grey and Nanaimo, when he chose not — or dared not — to visit those two ridings. I am going to talk about that a little bit later.

[10:45]

We are here today dealing with the throne speech, and this is the

third throne speech that I've been witness to since being elected as a

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. This throne speech should be

considered in light of the events which preceded it, because it's only

when one begins to look at what has transpired over the past two and a

half years that the reasons for this throne speech become evident.

As I said earlier, I think those events are best epitomized by the Point Grey and Nanaimo by-elections. Those by-elections —

and there goes the member for Langley now, having made her spiel and

preferring not to listen anymore to what we have to say —

epitomize what's wrong with this government and in many ways symbolize

what British Columbians feel today about this government.

[ Page 5638 ]

Quite

frankly, British Columbians are fed up with this government. British

Columbians are fed up with a government which chooses to impose its own

morality on others. British Columbians are fed up with a government

which favours insiders within the Premier's circle and excludes all

others.

British Columbians are fed up with the record of

this government which includes fiascos such as the Knight Street Pub

affair — we talked about those inside the Premier's circle —

and situations like the Coquihalla Highway where this government chose

to disguise, deliberately in my view, some $500 million in over

expenditures on that highway. They are fed up with a government which

Introduced legislation along the lines of Bill 19 and engaged in a

so-called public process of consultation prior to that legislation when

it was sitting back drafting its own legislation.

One

wonders now if the same type of charade is taking place with respect to

what we see in the forest sector and the traveling road show of the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker). By virtue of those by-election

results and the feedback that Social Credit members are getting, the

government knows that it is in trouble.

They know that they

are in deep trouble, and all the rhetoric from people like the member

for Langley or the Premier won't change the basic fact, which is that

people feel this government is totally out of touch, and they are fed

up with its actions. That's obvious not only to us but to members

opposite; therefore it wasn't a surprise to read during the time we

were off the comments from the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R.

Fraser) when he talked about the new cabinet and the role of others

within the back bench and the cabinet.

It wasn't a surprise

to hear the comments from the first member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) and hear her displeasure with the direction of

the government, and from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Mr. B.R.

Smith), who I have a lot of respect for, and who has, in his own way,

expressed his disenchantment with the direction of this government.

This government knows full well that it is in trouble and as a

consequence of that, it has gone out and hired the image-makers from

the Bennett era.

Mr. Heal is now producing a film for, I

believe, the Ministry of Tourism. Mr. Lampert is back now to try to

resurrect the image of this government. That's what this throne speech

is all about — image. It's all about trying to change the image of

this government. You know, you can, try to change the image as much as

you wish; the problem still remains that you can't change the way of

thinking, and you can't change the lack of substance. That’s what has

been the fatal flaw of this government right from the beginning, right

since the 1986 election. It was an election predicated on style and not

substance. The record of the government speaks to the absence of

substance.

You can change the image, but you can't change

the thinking. You can't change the type of right-wing mentality that

has crippled this province in terms of both its economic and social

sectors. We'll talk about that In a minute as well.

This

throne speech is in part about the changing of image and in part an

admission of failure, an acknowledgement that this government has

failed in trying to deliver the message it wanted to deliver to the

people of this province. Now in its throne speech this government would

have us believe that it cares about the environment, about the economy,

about education and about health care. I'm going to submit that nothing

could be further from the truth when we get to this government. If it

cared, it would have taken a whole series of actions in advance of this

throne speech.

Let's take each of those areas one by one.

Let's take a look at the environment and the newfound sensitivity of

this government to the environment. In my riding, as well as that of my

colleague the member for Victoria, and I believe even that of my

colleague the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), we experienced

this year the devastating effects of an oil spill along our coastline.

It was felt deeply in my riding, particularly from Metchosin-Sooke, up

to Port Renfrew and into that precious resource that we know as the

Pacific Rim Park.

This government, which supposedly cares

about the environment, failed to react. In fact, when it did react to

that oil spill, in many ways it did so negligently. For days, while

reports were coming into my constituency office, while they were being

reported by the press, this Ministry of Environment sat on its hands

and allowed the deterioration and erosion of those precious beaches and

coastline in my riding.

The provincial emergency program,

designed to deal with environmental disasters, had some three months

prior to that sold off all its supplies. The government had said that

it had to sell off, for example, all excess garbage bags that it had

stored to deal with this type of spill. When the spill occurred, the

provincial emergency program did not have the cleaners and apparatus

necessary to engage in the essential cleanup activities.

That's

planning for environmental disaster. Where was the sensitivity of this

government to the environment then? And since then? Since then, what

steps has it taken to upgrade the provincial emergency program?

Last

month I received about 20 letters, unprompted, from grades 3 and 5

students at Sooke Elementary, who wrote on their own wondering how this

spill could happen and why it was allowed to go on in the neglectful

fashion demonstrated by this government.

If this government

cared about the environment, the provincial emergency program would be

fully funded. It would not be bounced around from the Ministry of

Environment to the Attorney-General Ministry to the Ministry of the

Solicitor-General. It would not be cut by 6 percent. It would not be

issued a directive in the first week of March saying: "You can't go to

any preventative seminars, because we've run out of money." It would

fully fund the provincial emergency program.

[ Page 5639 ]

this government cared about the environment and wanted to prevent and

deal with oil spills should they occur, it would buy the vehicles

necessary to get out on the ocean and lick up the oil on the water. All

we're talking about is $250,000 to buy one vehicle that we could have

on standby, located either in Victoria or Port Renfrew to deal with

these types of spills. Yet this government was not prepared to make

that type of nominal commitment.

That's not to say that

those types of vehicles would sit vacant for years. We always have oil

spills and minor incidents within our harbours, and those machines

could be used for that. This government did not have the foresight nor

the desire to buy it, despite lobbying — yes, to the member for Langley — from the business sector. I've got the letters to prove that.

This

government was not able during the course of that oil spill to

coordinate its activities with the military. The federal member from

Esquimalt — the former Premier of this province — and I met

with the military, and they were aghast that they had not been asked by

anybody, including the provincial emergency program, to deal with the

oil spill despite their ready resources to do it. That's coordination.

That's caring about the environment. There was no quick response

capability within the Ministry of Environment. Now this government

hasn't even moved to take legal action against the state of Washington,

to seek damages...

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : The minister says the legal advice is wrong. He should read the Trail smelter case.

...

and take action against the American government in the same way the

Americans took action against us in the sixties with respect to the

Trail smelter case. I could be wrong in terms of the date of the Trail

smelter case, but they took action against us; they didn't hesitate.

This government hasn't taken action.

If this government

cared about the environment, it would do something about the Carmanah

Valley, which sits adjacent to my riding. We've made our position

clear. We've indicated where we stand on that. Where is your

sensitivity to that issue in dealing with the environmental problems

that are not so much because we've got this unique wilderness called

the Carmanah Valley but because this government has allowed for clear

cutting policies in our forests? We have raped our forests to the point

that we now begin to intrude upon environmentally sensitive areas like

the Carmanah Valley. Where was your concern and your vision for the

environment then? Now when we have a problem and we are intruding upon

the environment in areas like Carmanah Valley, the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and others engage in duck-and-cover

activities, play ostrich and don't want to deal with the issue.

I am glad to see that the Minister of Environment is back in the House now.

Now

this government would have us believe that it's going to get tough with

polluters; it is going to enforce its new regulations. Hell, it could

not enforce its first set of regulations. How many actions, Mr.

Minister — now that you are here — has your government

commenced against polluters in the last decade? Even you would agree by

now, I would think, that your record was horrendous. The minister now

wants the public to believe that its new found sensitivity to the

environment will allow it to take action against corporate polluters.

Good luck, Mr. Minister, because nobody believes that your government

has the political will to deal with the environment.

[11:00]

Environment was just one matter that came up during the course of

the throne speech. What about forestry? In my riding, where forestry

was once a major employer, that industry is virtually non-existent

today. It wasn't that way in the past. I can remember — as someone who grew up in the Lake Cowichan area and ultimately here in the Victoria area —

that you never thought that there would be an end to our forest supply.

But again, because of the policies of this government, the clear

cutting, the absence of silviculture programs, the absence of

restocking programs, the absence of regulation and monitoring by the

Forest Service, the cutbacks in the Forest Service and the elimination

of sustained-yield requirements in the Forest Act — because of all those types of activities —

we now have a falldown effect on the coast, because of the negligence

of this government in terms of forest policy. Four hundred and

twenty-five jobs in Victoria at Fletcher Challenge. Up to 80 percent of

my constituents who are working in Port Renfrew in the forest sector

are facing the prospect of layoffs. We will talk more about Port

Renfrew in a minute.

This government has allowed the deterioration — some would say the rape —

of our most valuable resource. Now in this throne speech they say they

are going to do something about it. What about the last decade? What

about the last generation of mismanagement by this government?

there is one policy that this government ought to be defeated on in the

next provincial election, it is its neglect of the forest resources in

this province. I will predict today that that will become the salient

issue in the next provincial election, because we are going to see more

layoffs — that the layoffs we just saw at Fletcher Challenge and

the effect we are having on communities such as Port Renfrew is just

the cutting edge. All of you who sit in cabinet and are here today know

that as well as I do.

Mr. Speaker, this government says

that it has done a wonderful job with the economy. I see that the

member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) has his pom-poms out on

that comment. You say it's good. Those on the other side of the House

who would advocate that ought to go to Port Renfrew and tell that to

the people I represent in that riding. They ought to tell them about

the economic record, and they ought to listen.

[ Page 5640 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH : Are you inviting me to your riding?

MR. SIHOTA : I would invite the minister to my riding any time he wants to come, and I will take him out to Port Renfrew.

MR. MILLER : Bring the minister of culture with you. Tell him to wear that green tie.

MR. SIHOTA : Culture is spelled with a "K" to the minister of culture.

This

throne speech says absolutely nothing about the effect of the forest

policies on single-industry villages like Port Renfrew; not one word is

mentioned. They accept the fact that there have been layoffs in

Victoria; they accept the fact that up to 80 percent of the workforce

in Port Renfrew may be out of work. But they say nothing about a

strategy to deal with single-industry villages like Port Renfrew.

Port

Renfrew is a community that has a tremendous amount of potential. If we

did the most basic of things, we could diversify its economy. I note

that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) is

here today. The basic requirement for Port Renfrew in terms of giving

that village some hope, in light of the cutbacks in forestry, is to

provide a decent road to Port Renfrew — from Sooke to Port Renfrew

to Lake Cowichan. It is impossible to believe that in this day and age

there is not an adequate road to Port Renfrew to allow for tourists in

this province who visit the greater Victoria area in incredible

numbers. An alternative route up-Island would take them past some of

the most incredible natural resources that we have: China Beach,

Botanical Beach, Sombrio — just to name three along that route.

The potential is enormous. We have the best fishing areas on the Island

in Port Renfrew, surpassing those of Campbell River, and we can't get

this government to put some money Into developing the wharf in Port

Renfrew.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Have you asked them?

MR. SIHOTA : Yes, I have asked, Mr. Minister, and I will be happy to produce a stack of letters that I have written to various ministers.

have tourists who come from Japan, Germany and all over the world to

Port Renfrew because they are aware that it is the starting point for

the trek through the Pacific Rim Park. It is embarrassing to think that

they have to travel on that type of road. I say to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways that this government ought to give not just

serious consideration, but priority consideration — in light of what has happened in the forest sector in that community —

to providing a proper road from Port Renfrew to Lake Cowichan. I will

join with the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) in saying from

Lake Cowichan to Port Alberni. That is what should happen in order to

open up that portion of this province.

This government is

totally insensitive. I talk about the tourists who come; you know,

there are not even outdoor toilet facilities for the public in Port

Renfrew.

Last year when I wrote to the Minister of Tourism

asking him to put two in Port Renfrew, I didn't even get the courtesy

of a reply from him. So the businesses have to deal with all the

campers coming out after seven or eight days of hiking.

Mr.

Minister of Highways, you are here; you have heard what I have to say.

The challenge before you, sir, is to make sure that we get that type of

road. The challenge, Mr. Speaker, to this government is to begin to

think in real terms about what it takes to diversify the economy of a

village like Port Renfrew that has been gutted by this government's

neglect of our forest policies.

HON. MR. VANT . Will you answer my letter?

MR. SIHOTA :

Then Minister says: "Will you answer my letter?" I'll be very happy to

answer his letter if he answers all mine, and I think we will have a

good correspondence going back and forth.

Then this

government says they are so good on the economy. Let's leave Port

Renfrew and talk to the workers at Lilydale, which is the

chicken-processing plant in my riding in the Western Communities. This

government, through the policies of the Minister of Agriculture and

Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage), has provided $700,000 in subsidies to a

rival plant in Saanich to the detriment of the plant in the Western

Communities, That plant is now on the verge of closing. About 200 jobs

in my riding are at stake.

The member for Langley, the

minister-to-be of women, says: "We are free enterprisers." I want to

tell you there is a difference between free enterprise and Social

Credit enterprise. Social Credit enterprise is a type of activity that

we're seeing happen in Saanich right now, in terms of the funding

that's going to the rival chicken processing plant, which will have the

effect of closing down a plant in my riding. That's Social Credit

enterprise. That's throwing money at one plant to shut down another

plant. What kind of logic is that? That's intrusion in the marketplace

by some misconceived, misguided policies by the Minister of

Agriculture. That's not free enterprise; that's Social Credit

enterprise. And Social Credit enterprise means a lack of jobs. It means

increasing deficits. It means unemployment in communities like Port

Renfrew and at Lilydale.

This government says that it has now found this new sensitivity about education.

MR. BLENCOE : The "u" back in education.

MR. SIHOTA : They've put the "u" back in education.

The

Premier, who isn't here now.... I noted what he had to say when he was

here, when he was heckling my friend from Prince George North; he was

saying: "Nobody has done to education what we have done to education."

He's right.

If this government truly cared about education

and post-secondary education, it would do something about access to

post-secondary education. I have sitting on my desk about 200 letters

from students at the University of Victoria complaining about

[ Page 5641 ]

tuition

fees and tuition fee increases in this province. And they're right. If

you want to talk about barriers to education, you start talking about

financial barriers. You talk about the financial barriers this

government has imposed through its policy of increasing tuition fees;

through its policy of deciding not to provide grants to students who

need them to complete their education; through its policy of cutting

back student loans. You can talk as much as you want about creating

more spaces, but you've got to talk about getting the students there.

You're not getting them there; you're keeping them out, through fiscal

policies like increases in tuition fees and absence of student loans

and grants. If you want to increase access to education, that's how you

do it.

The Premier is right. Nobody has done to education

what this government has done to education. It's a shame. And now, all

of a sudden, not because there's any will but for reasons of improving

your public image, you're talking about some changes in education.

Housing.

I have constituents in my riding, like I know my good friend from

Victoria has, who are facing massive, onerous increases in rent. When

you're talking about 15 percent or 20 percent or 25 percent to a senior

citizen on fixed income or to a single parent on social assistance,

you're talking about significant increases to their budgets. I remember

the rhetoric of a few years ago, when they said: "The government is

going to vacate the field, and the private sector will begin to provide

housing for those of low or moderate incomes." Well, take a look at

what's happening today. That never happened, and the comments that we

were making in the House at that time indeed have come to pass: yes, it

is true that the private sector did not fill the void. Now this

government begins to talk about all sorts of policies for housing and

about its so-called housing action plan.

If you want to

help those people who have problems with housing, this government

should have announced, first of all, the re-creation of the rentalsman.

It should have announced a fair and equitable rent review mechanism. It

should have announced new legislation to deal with mobile home owners,

who have no protection at all. It should have announced policies in

terms of landbanking. It should have been aggressive in dealing with

the problem. But you didn't do it. For reasons of public relations, you

just wanted to talk about housing, to say: "Yes, we care." Where is the

evidence that you care?

Mr. Speaker, I see my time is just about up.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA :

The members opposite applaud that, because they don't want to hear any

more. They don't want to hear about their shameful, deceitful,

despicable record as government over the last three years. They don't

want to hear about their new efforts to try to change their image. You

know, I'm bitter, because this government has done nothing about the

problems that I've listed; yet now it says that it will. Now it says it

will get on with making the changes that British Columbians want. After

two and a half years of neglect there is little or no reason for

British Columbians to have faith in what this government has to say.

[11:15]

Mr.

Speaker, the members like to chortle and heckle on the other side

because they have very little else to say in terms of substance.

HON. MR. REID : You should go back to one of those access colleges that they just opened up.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Minister says I should back to college: this is from the minister

who spells culture with a "k". I think the minister should be going

back to college.

As I said in my opening comments, this is

the third throne speech that I've been witness to. It will be the last

for the Social Credit Party This government is out of touch, and its

days are numbered.

MR. LOVICK : I would like to

inform the House that we have some visitors from my constituency of

Nanaimo. We have a group of some 30 students, people associated with

the Nanaimo Skills Training Centre and with Project Interface, along

with their instructors, Paulette Dash-Hagel, Mr. David Hagel and Ms.

Anne McGougan. As well as these people, I notice directly in front of

me another member from my constituency, Mr. Murray Charleson, who was

recently appointed to the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with

Disabilities. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming all these

people.

HON. MR. REID : Mr. Speaker, might I also

take this privilege, if I may, to welcome Murray to the chamber. I

wasn't aware he was with us today.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

It is indeed a pleasure to stand and speak in favour of the throne

speech and to reject the motion of non-confidence in the throne speech

and this government. I want to tell you that I have this podium here to

hide another portfolio: I'm on a diet, Mr. Speaker. I've lost two

pounds already and I want to say to this House that I'm going to lose

30; that's on the record.

I think that the throne speech

we've just heard from His Honour is the best yet. Of all the speeches

that I've had the pleasure to hear, dating back to 1976, this one

represents the most positive, most enthusiastic, most comprehensive

throne speech on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to congratulate you, in your role as Deputy Speaker

of this assembly and on your re-election. You do a super job. As well,

I want to congratulate Mr. Speaker himself. Mr. Speaker has a tough

job. His adherence to the rules of the House has made the debate

reasoned and has maintained the decorum that is a tradition of the

parliamentary system of government, and I want to congratulate the

Speaker for that.

[ Page 5642 ]

want to talk for a few minutes about the constituency of

Burnaby-Willingdon, which I've had the pleasure to represent.

Burnaby-Willingdon is changing in demographics; it's changing in many

ways. When I first moved to Burnaby some 20 years ago, it was a bedroom

community on the outskirts of Vancouver and people were moving out

there to establish industries and businesses because of high land

values in Vancouver. Now with the advent of the new Metrotown complex,

which I'm told will be the second-largest complex of its kind in Canada

and perhaps in North America, and with the change in demographics, we

have a new set of opportunities and a new set of problems.

One

of the causes clbres that I started out to do something about many

years ago was the removal of the Oakalla Prison. I am here to tell you

today that after all these long years since 1975, all the elements are

in place that will remove that blight from the landscape. It's being

done by the Social Credit Party, and I'm very thankful to the people

involved — to the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and my colleagues in cabinet — for allowing that to happen. It will be gone shortly. Low-rise housing, I'm told — whatever the planning people and the people in the area happen to agree upon — and parks will replace this dismal prison, and it will be a thing of the past in the most beautiful part of the lower mainland.

This

throne speech offers British Columbians an important view of the

future, a future which all British Columbians can look forward to with

anticipation. I want to talk about a few points involved in the throne

speech.

We talked about the establishment of a full ministry of environment — I'll say a little more about that later on —

and I see that as a very positive move. I want to talk about a new set

of legislation that will be con-ting down through the auspices of my

ministry which will deal in a new way with business assistance programs

and other types of industrial and incentive programs throughout British

Columbia. I salute the initiative in the Speech from the Throne for the

establishment of a minister of state responsible for women's issues. I

think it's long past the time when that should receive far more

prominence. As one who held that position for a very brief period, I

believe it needs to be given more prominence. Like the first member for

Langley (Mrs. Gran), I agree that the minister currently in charge, the

Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen), has

done a super job in administering that part of his portfolio.

Someone

said that the future is here today in British Columbia, and I believe

that's true. As you look out and see the changes in demographics, the

changes in the mix and industry, the future is indeed here today in the

province. It's important for us to look forward, but it's also

important for us to look back and take some cognizance of the past,

because the wisdom of the ages is very important to us in this

province. In my opinion, modern history in British Columbia started in

1952, when the Social Credit government first came into power.

HON. MR. REID : How many times since?

HON. MR. VEITCH : Many times since, and we'll get into that later.

In 1952, W.A.C. Bennett formed the government here In this very same chamber —

not the majority government, but a party that had one member more than

any of the other parties that happened to be in the House. He came

forward with what was described at the time — I was reading some of the newspapers —

as a "rag-tag group of individuals that would never make government and

would never succeed." From 1952 to 1972, Social Credit gave the best

government that this province had ever seen at any other point in time

and history up until that time.

Then the forces of private

enterprise and the forces of reason in this province let their guard

down. We had 1,200 days and 1,200 nights of the type of administration

that did not suit this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH : My good friend the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid) gets excited when I make these kinds of speeches.

HON. MR. REID : Keep going. You're doing great.

HON. MR. VEITCH : I appreciate that.

was interesting for me to hear the Leader of the Opposition say the

other day in an interview in one of the hallways here, in a serum, that

the administration from 1972 to the fall of 1975 was misunderstood. A

lot of people misunderstood it, and they voted with their feet by

moving out of the province during that time.

Then in the

fall of 1975, the leader of the government then, Premier Barrett,

called an election at that time. I remember it very well. He called it

close to Christmas. He felt that somehow in the foggy dew of an

election they would be able to sneak through and retain the government

after the poor job they did.

The people returned a Social

Credit government to office. From 1976 to 1986, it provided the best

government this province had ever seen at any other point in time.

Then

there was another era, and the people spoke again. The NDP don't

believe in trusting the people, as Churchill used to say. That's

something they never believe in. If you live outside of a certain area,

you're rural rednecks. You know, we classify people, put them in slots

and we hyphenate British Columbians from time to time. But we always

trust the people. I am going to tell you....

MR. MILLER : We're not rednecks. We have faith in people of this province.

HON. MR. VEITCH : I am glad to see that you have faith, so hang on — you're going to require a whole bunch more of it when you're defeated in the next election.

Interjections.

[ Page 5643 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

Hon. members, everyone is enjoying this little repartee that's going on

here, but I think we should give the minister the opportunity to

conclude his speech. He's having some problems, and some of them are

coming from his own side. We'd ask the minister to proceed, please.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Speaker, if you could help me, if my side could slow down and they

could kind of pep it up, it will give me something to talk about as we

move along here. It will help me a little bit.

We elect

visionaries in this province. We elected the first visionary with

W.A.C. Bennett, we elected a visionary in William Richards Bennett, and

we elected another one. We elect people with vision, and we wonder why

they think differently than we do and why they do things differently.

It takes a while for these things to work through the system, and

leadership is sometimes doing things that are not always popular at

that point in time.

One of these visionary things I'd like

to talk about for a few moments is the provincial program of

regionalization. Regionalization is not the product of some eccentric

mind in Victoria, although there are a few eccentric minds in Victoria

that you can note from time to time. It's a worldwide movement; it's

happening all over the world. We'll note that the world is breaking

down into more sectoral parts.

When the government was

re-elected in 1986 the current Premier promised an open government. He

promised a government where people have impact, where people have

something to say about their future and something to say about the

economy and the areas in which they live.

I don't believe, really, in the principle — and this is not original; it comes from a lot of people who are involved in regional thinking —

of a world economy. I don't believe in the principle of a national

economy or even a provincial economy. I believe it's only the sum of

the parts, or the regions, that make up those individual economies.

That's certainly true here in this province.

If you have a

series of regions that are strong, we can say that we have a strong

provincial economy. If we have a series of provinces which are strong

and they are buoyant and their economies are good, we can say that we

have a national economy. The same thing is true of countries and of the

world. If you want to ensure that you have a strong provincial economy,

then you'd better pay attention to the regions individually. You'd

better pay attention to what they think. Wild and chimerical as this

may seem, this government believes that people in Prince George and

people in Merritt know a heck of a lot more about what should happen in

their economy than someone who happens to be here in Victoria. I know

that's wild thinking, but that's what regionalization is all about.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH : In Alberni, too. Hang on, my friend. Good things will happen in spite of you.

[11:30]

Canada — and British Columbia — has what is traditionally

known as an open economy. That simply means that we don't have enough

people within our economy to consume the goods and services that we

produce. We have to export them, move them out. We have to be

competitive.

We also have to pay attention to each and

every part of this province and every part of this country if we are to

be a true nation, a strong nation, a strong province, and sustain the

economy and the lifestyle that we have become accustomed to. I will

tell you what the opposite of regionalization is — and I can

understand some of the frustrations of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds

(Mr. Mercier). It is what is happening right now with respect to

interest rates in Canada.

There is a little area in Toronto

not far from where I was born that is called the Golden Horseshoe. It's

about 80 or 85 linear miles of space that has an economy that's heating

and bubbling. The unemployment rate there is absolutely zilch and the

inflation is about 9 percent. It's boiling to such an extent that the

Bank of Canada every Thursday takes cognizance of it. It continually

increases the rate that they charge chartered banks, thereby driving up

the interest rate. Because of a small area in central Canada — central Ontario, Toronto —

someone in Kimberley, someone in Prince George and someone in Burnaby

is put out of business because they can't afford to service the

interest on those loans.

MR. WILLIAMS : Or somebody in Richmond.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Yes, somebody in Richmond.

The

best thing that could happen, in my opinion, in a national government

in a Canada which I love and in a Canada which must stay together and

the government of Ontario to get their house in order and act the way

the province of British Columbia is acting from a fiscal point of view.

That would be one of the best examples we could ever set.

Ontario

sees itself as a leader. It is not leadership when they continually

spend. With the economy they have, they should be awash in money in

their provincial treasury. Instead of that, they're putting inordinate

pressure on the rest of Canada. I believe that's a message we have to

continually explain to eastern Canada. They have to think regionally. I

understand that we can't change the monetary system within the type of

jurisdiction we have, but we can certainly change the fiscal system in

Canada to reward those people who are doing well and keeping their

house in order, and perhaps not reward so much those who aren't.

Regionalization

is working in British Columbia, and it's working in a very positive

way. It's working in all regions. The economy of British Columbia is

[ Page 5644 ]

moving upwards. Some areas are resisting this upward trend. We're working on that.

want to tell you some of the things that we're doing. In Prince George

there's a new FMC plant for hydrogen peroxide production, as my good

friend the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) mentioned. In

Mission we established a new studio ranch for producing movies and took

off the street some of the young people who are working there. Other

young people who are working there receive wages up to $35,000 a year.

In Nanaimo there's a ferrochromium plant to bring in chron-dte from

offshore, produce it and send it out again - pure export, employing

hundreds of people in an area that requires employment. In the Peace

River area there are several initiatives.

In the little

village of Oliver, the mayor, along with my good friend the minister of

state for that area and the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands (Hon.

Mr. Dirks), got together and established a schnapps factory that will

employ a hundred and some people in Oliver — regionalization working.

was up on the Sunshine Coast a week or two ago, in Powell River,

Sechelt and Gibsons. In Sechelt we announced the Hillside industrial

park, which will give the potential for another deep-sea port in that

particular part of the world — brought about through

regionalization. I will recount the words of the economic development

officer in that area. He said: "When you first came through this area

talking about decentralization and regionalization, I was not a

convert. I didn't believe in it." But he said:

"There's

an old adage that with females you say nice things to the face; with

men you generally say nice things or bad things behind their back. I'm

going to reverse that order. I'm going to tell you that I now believe

in this thing. I've been working on it for seven years, and it took the

regional process to bring it to fruition and make it happen."

Dealing

directly with people through the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long),

dealing directly through my ministry-of-state office and the various

ministries involved we were able, in a few months, to turn something

around that had been going on for seven years. That's people working

and the committees working in the areas. That's regionalization

working. There are people all over sending in testimonials.

HON. MR. REID : Hear, hear, All over. Port Alberni. Prince Rupert.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I want you folks on the other side to listen to this, and I know my

good friend the Provincial Secretary will listen as well. This is a

letter from one of the mayors in British Columbia.

I'd like to thank you on behalf of the council and our

administration" — I'm leaving out the names to protect the innocent

for a while — "for the opportunity to meet you and the Premier and your

cabinet colleagues. We were greatly encouraged by the interest and enthusiasm

expressed by cabinet committee on the ideas we presented and look forward to

continuing participation with you in their realization.

As noted, our particular immediate concerns concern transportation.

We will be pleased to provide more detailed information as you require it.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to participate

in the regional development process. I assure you that we appreciate the need

for your regional development initiatives and Surrey intends to be an active

partner.

Robert J. Bose, PhD

Mayor of Surrey

amazing convert, Mr. Speaker. The last time I saw Mr. Bose, he was not

a member of our party, was he? But he now believes in and now accepts

regionalization.

They are not the only ones that accept it, Mr. Speaker. Looking back through some of the misunderstood era — as far as the NDP is concerned —

and the economic development strategy of the NDP for British Columbia

in 1979, you see a regional map. I know I'm not supposed to hold it up,

Mr. Speaker, but at that time they said they had ten regions. They must

have lost three. They proposed regions to be set up in British

Columbia: a southeast region, an Okanagan region, a Kamloops region, a

lower mainland region, a Vancouver Island region, a central British

Columbia and Prince George region, and northeast and northwest regions.

also noted that the way they spoke of regional development at the time

was interesting. They said: "The NDP is committed to reducing the

disparities by giving special attention to the needs of other regions

and other groups." They said on the next page: "The NDP, of course, is

committed to regaining control over key sectors of the British Columbia

economy and placing greater decision-making power in the hands of the

average B.C. resident." It goes on and on.

Here are some of the interesting things they said back there and that I believe they still believe today:

"The

goal of an NDP industrial strategy is to shift the power to the people

of B.C. These alternatives include public ownership of natural

resources" — creation of wealth, you see — "taxation,

competitive bidding and public entrepreneurship. Most of B.C.'s natural

resources are publicly owned. Nominal public ownership of resources is

not sufficient to ensure control of these resources."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

They go on to talk about

setting up several Crown corporations, because they see this as the way

to create wealth in the economy and to bring about economic

development: the B.C. Coal Corporation, the B.C. Land Corporation, a

new B.C. Investment corporation — it goes on and on with the proliferation.

The

mayor of Surrey supports regionalization. Many mayors of all political

stripes throughout the province of British Columbia are supporting

regionalization. I believe that you're supporting regionalization, too.

As a matter of fact, I turned on my television during the federal

election campaign and saw the leader of the New Democratic Party, when

he was up in Prince George, saying: "You know

[ Page 5645 ]

what

we're going to do when we form the government in Canada? We are going

to establish regional committees, regional groups, so that the people

in the areas can bring their ideas back to government. It's too far.

It's 30,000 miles one way from Ottawa and 3,000 miles the other, and as

the NDP we're going to change all that." They are true converts, I can

tell you.

I can see the mayor of Surrey converting. I like

the mayor of Surrey, and I can see that. My faith was instantly buoyed

when the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) converted to something

akin to capitalism. I believe It's market socialism. He's one step

along the way — an amazing conversion, if I have ever seen one.

could see the Leader of the Opposition converting, because he has never

really been any place. As I said the other day, he has both feet firmly

planted in the air at all times, ready to move either way. I can see

his conversion.

I believe that even Mikey likes.... I

shouldn't say that. Even the Leader of the Opposition likes

regionalization. On March 16 the Vancouver Sun — an impeccable source of information, as you well know, Mr. Speaker —

quotes the Leader of the Opposition saying: "What we're interested in

doing, instead of seeing the provincial government playing sugar

daddy...is that we work with local communities and regions." It's

wonderful. This latent me-tooism is interesting.

What is happening here — and I'm confident of it —

is that the NDP have hired some pollsters again. They are out looking

around the province, and they say: "Darn it, acceptance of this

regionalization is over 65 percent among the general population in the

province. This is something we'll have to get on board with. And they

don't like our socialism. So we'll go and have a talk to the Business

Council of B. C. and we'll show them...."

Mr. Speaker, any

businessman who would look for help from the NDP would be like a

chicken going over to Colonel Sanders, looking for aid and succour; it

would be about the same sort of situation. They're never going to

change their stripes.

I'll tell you what the Leader of the

Opposition is: he's a nice guy. I like him very much. He's a super guy.

I've known the Leader of the Opposition for a long time, Mr. Speaker.

He's a super fellow. He's not a raving socialist. No, he's a little

more of an opportunist. He's none of those things. I'll tell you one

thing he is not: he is not an entrepreneur. He wouldn't know Milton

Friedman from Milton Berle, I'm telling you.

MR. MILLER :

Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I may have misheard; I will allow the

Provincial Secretary an opportunity to clarify it. In reference to the

leader of my party, I clearly heard him say that he was an opportunist.

If that is the case, I would ask that the member withdraw that

statement.

HON. MR. REID : If the term "opportunist" doesn't apply to the Leader of the Opposition, I withdraw.

HON. MR. VEITCH : I want to thank the hon. member for giving me a break. I appreciate that. He and I are also good friends.

want to tell you what the Leader of the Opposition also is not: he is

not a leader. He's only a priest of the oracles. I'm not too sure who

those oracles are, but I think maybe the first member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Williams) is one of them; the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) is the other. If, on any sorry day, the people of

this province might have a lapse in thinking and might re-elect, heaven

forbid, the NDP to power, do you know who would be leading? It would

not be the Leader of the Opposition in his role as Premier; it would be

the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). I think following

closely on his coat-tails would be the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew. That's the kind of leadership that....

[11:45]

MR. MILLER : What about me?

HON. MR. VEITCH : No, you're not a trained seal; you're only a seal in training. You're coming along; you've got a way to go yet.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to tell you that this thing is working well in British

Columbia. Things are going well in this province, and we're doing

darned well here.

I want to tell you some of the things

that we're doing through the ministry of state for Mainland Southwest.

During February and March, my staff organized meetings with

representatives of banks, trust companies and credit unions. The

purpose of the meetings was to explain the regional seed capital

program; specifically, to detail the guarantee document. Other

incentive programs were also addressed. A total of 18 meetings were

held in that month in 15 communities. That's getting out to the people

of British Columbia and working with them.

HON. MR. REID : That's leadership.

HON. MR. VEITCH : That's leadership, and that's working with them.

Following

the above, the ministry of state advertised one-hour counselling and

information sessions to be conducted by economic development officers

in the more distant communities in the regions of British Columbia. The

purpose of all these sessions is to deliver the services of the

minister out to the communities and to work with them in their

communities.

One-hour, one-to-one meetings are booked

through the government agents or the chamber of commerce. It's intended

that the officers will travel. They'll get out of their offices in

Victoria, New Westminster and Vancouver and into the communities, to

work with the regional people where things are happening. To date, the

sessions in Main-

[ Page 5646 ]

land-Southwest were held in: Squamish, 18 appointments; Whistler, 12 appointments —

the reason they couldn't have more is they were doubled-booked, and the

next time we go back we'll have to lengthen the time; Chilliwack, 26

appointments; Hope, four appointments; that's a total of 60

appointments. Sessions to be held right away in this month are:

Mission, 26 appointments; Sechelt, eight appointments; Pemberton, four

appointments; and Lillooet, nine appointments. We're doing well in

British Columbia.

My colleague the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) has established this

freedom-to-move opportunity, which is the best initiative in

transportation since 1958. 1 want to congratulate the minister for it.

had the Delcan study, which identified $7 billion worth of new highway

construction and maintenance that needs to be done in the province of

British Columbia. The only reason that we can pay for this is because

of the vibrancy of the economy. There is a study into all modes of

transportation.

Yes, there are problems. There are problems

because this government is doing things and moving the economy forward

in a way that has never happened before. We're going to deal with

Surrey, and we're going to deal with Burnaby. When I stand up to speak

on the throne speech debate, I'll have a lot more to say. I want to

thank you for your tolerance.

MS. MARZARI : The

throne speech for 1989 suffers from its promise of too little too late.

The ground of social justice and economic stability has been parched

for too long. Our province has cracked and dried under restraint. The

thin layer of fertilizer which the speech promises is a sad scattering

of help upon ground which needs deep watering and ploughing before new

promises can sprout new programs.

However, new winds are

blowing, and we find at the end of the speech, just before natives and

just after substance abuse, the "w" word: women. An interesting

addition, since women thus far have only been viewed by this government

as mothers — mothers in aprons, mothers in kitchens or as

mothers-to-be. Where they have been poor, the effort by this government

has been to get them into the workplace. Where they have been rich, the

effort by this government is to keep them insecure and put them back in

the kitchen.

Imagine my surprise then to find a new

commitment to women as workers in the throne speech. Mind you, the

terms of reference make it clear that these women are still mothers,

and need help with "family responsibilities" — meaning children, I

would imagine. Despite the edge of sexism and the odour of inaction, I

must say welcome to the turf of justice and common sense.

But,

gentlemen, you haven't paid your dues. In politics, as in management,

as in business, you can't make good ideas work without good structures

to fit them in. Building seed capital funds for business will not work

unless you've got a stable financial apparatus to deliver them.

Creating tourism programs, for example, with local industry won't work

unless you are rebuilding a Ministry of Tourism that has the capacity

and the budget to promote our province to the world. Conversely, in

politics you can't have good structures without good ideas to fill them

with. If you attempt to do so, you will build a house of cards which

will be blown away with the first wind of reality.

Such is

your ministry of state for women's issues: a structure built with no

rationale, no goals, no idea of what to do, except your terrible fear

that women have watched your performance over the past year and have

reeled back in alarm and disgust. Your polls must be telling you what

ours are telling us. If you can't read the message from the polls,

perhaps you can read messages from four by-elections, the last one in

Point Grey, the bastion of B.C. business.

Women want a

status-of-women commission. We are the only province in Canada not to

have one. They want a chance to tell government directly what is on

their minds, with public reports and public recommendations. I'll begin

the process right now, before the new minister, whoever she may be, is

announced.

AN HON. MEMBER : Maybe it will be a he.

MS. MARZARI : If it were a man I would not be surprised.

Women

want equality; they want security; they want choice. Under equality,

they want equality in the workplace, where women have long understood

they were undervalued and underpaid. Now the experts have actually

measured the level of their subsidy to their male co-workers: women

earn on average 60 cents for every male dollar earned in the office or

factory. In the home they want recognition for child-rearing, through

better pensions for homemakers. Where they are poor, single parents,

they want livable welfare rates. They want minimum wage rates until

their chances in the job market improve and they choose to enter it.

They want real training that leads to real jobs, real alternatives to

the poverty of welfare and being working poor.

Women's

legal equality is fought daily in the courts and in, of all places, the

banks. Women in small business is big business in B.C. Yet I have

letters on my desk right now from two women who are being told to haul

their spouses down to the bank manager to cosign business loans.

Women's right to constitutional equality is encumbered by Meech Lake

amendments that would bump their interests down the list of people

worth listening to. After native and multicultural interests, Meech

poses the possibility of a woman's right to an abortion or even to

birth control information being curtailed if the culture in which she

lives is opposed.

Security. When women speak of security,

they refer not just to income security, although welfare rates that are

60 percent below subsistence levels affect 85,000 children and 35,000

single parents in B.C. You should understand that 60-cent dollars in

the private sector and dependence on subsistence welfare are facts that

taxpayers pay for, that we subsidize

[ Page 5647 ]

every

day. Society pays in a hundred ways for this decision to keep women

poor. Poverty is expensive. Security is cheaper. Mr. Borglund's lawyer,

Bill Smart, reminded us of that on Friday last, when he suggested that

the two and a half million dollars which will be spent keeping his

client in jail for the next 25 years would have been better spent when

he was a kid in obvious need.

So we pay. We pay in jail

costs, court costs, health costs, police costs, and worst of all, in

human potential lost. We could have been preventing that by spending in

social housing for women and families, in safe, secure licensed child

care and home care for families in need, in counselling and support for

the victims the community create.

Women as seniors need

security, which they deserve. Yet homemaker services that should be

doubled are being halved, and the women who do it are working for a

terrible pay and watching the standards for training in their field

being extinguished daily. Worker safety is a security, and women work

hard towards safety in the workplace for themselves and their male

colleagues. Decent child care and nursing home care is a security which

we must afford. They are everyone's issues, not ones to be discussed

just by the women's minister.

There are connections in all

these issues with every aspect of our lives. It is in making the

connections that we see how certain classes of people get singled out

for abuse.

Increasingly, poor people in our community are

women, and with poverty comes helplessness, ill health, dependence,

vulnerability and, inevitably, abuse towards women and their children,

whether that be sexual and physical abuse by a father or a boyfriend or

emotional abuse by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

Rather

than making the connection, your government has delivered food banks

and cutbacks for poverty, advocated Jesus Christ for hopelessness, and

aimlessly shovelled a few of the abused between foster homes and

transition houses. Now a minister will be tossed into the limelight to

deal with these issues that she won't understand. The issue will not be

to deal with the connections, the threads that need drawing together to

remake the quilt. That is my fear.

Finally, along with

equality and security, women need reproductive choice. It is the first

requisite and the first priority for women today. As long as the state

attempts to go past the skin of a woman and dictate how and when she

will give birth, equality and security are demeaned. She is forever

vulnerable.

If the Canadian government decides that

abortion at any stage is a criminal act rather than a procedure to be

discussed by a woman and her doctor, then legally that woman can be

hostage to other people's agendas for her fetus — hardly what

women want. That's hardly what society wants, but it's apparently what

this government seems to want as it refuses to fund the Everywoman's

Health Centre, as it refuses to sit down and discuss a program with the

fair planning association, as it authorizes the apprehension of a fetus

before birth and then deliberately provokes a court hearing, hoping the

court will ratify its stand.

No, gentlemen, your ministry

for women's issues is a contradiction in terms. A minister should be

there to empower, not to control. You won't fund abortion clinics. You

blew a chance to get decent day care when the federal bill was on the

floor. You never adopted a bargaining stance and you denied needing new

spaces. You want to put welfare moms in the day care business — that's what you tried to do last year. Now you want to study day care.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to adjourn debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER : Before the government House Leader adjourns, the second member for Nanaimo has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK :

I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming today a group of

50 visiting Japanese students. They are studying at the Canadian

Pacific College in Nanaimo, the principal of which is Mr. Bruce Avis.

We're also joined by the president of Poole Gakuin Junior College in

Osaka, Rev. Hikaru Yanagihara. Please make them welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Mr. Speaker, I move the house do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1989, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada