1991 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

11971 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 11971

Ministerial Post-Employment Conflict Act (Bill M201). Mr. Harcourt

Introduction and first reading –– 11971

Oral Questions

Sale of Fantasy Garden World Inc. Mr. Clark –– 11971

Gang violence witness protection. Mrs. McCarthy –– 11972

Sale of Fantasy Garden World Inc. Mr. Clark –– 11972

Mr. Sihota

Ministerial Statement

Mental Health Week. Mr. Loenen –– 11974

Mr. Perry

Throne Speech Debate

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 11976

Mr. Barlee –– 11980

Hon. Mr. Bruce –– 11981

Ms. Marzari –– 11985

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 11988

Mr. Lovick –– 11993

Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 11995

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would like to introduce the Ambassador of Lebanon to Canada, His Excellency Dr. Assem Salman Jaber.

MR. ROSE: It's my pleasure today to introduce two federal

MPs. As you know, the House is not sitting and won't be sitting until

next Monday. We are very pleased to welcome Mr. Phil Edmonston, who is

the member for Chambly and the first New Democrat elected in Quebec.

We're pleased to have Mr. Edmonston here. He's accompanied by another

MP who has a famous name, for his father and his wife and perhaps even

himself: John Brewin from Victoria.

MR. DUECK: On behalf of my colleague the second member for

Central Fraser Valley and myself, I would like to introduce to the

members of the Legislature Cathy Goodfellow and Laurel Parks,

co-chairpersons from the Matsqui-Abbotsford committee on education.

They will be meeting with the Ministry of Education this afternoon.

Accompanying them are another 70, 80 or 90 people, including parents

and students from the valley. Would this House please make them welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to join in welcoming the group from the

Matsqui-Abbotsford Citizens for Education, with whom I've just had an

opportunity to meet on the steps of the Legislature. I'd like

specifically to ask the House to extend greetings to Shirley Cooke, who

is the NDP candidate in Abbotsford and is with that group today.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to

introduce Michael Logie, son of my ministerial assistant, Barb Logie.

Michael's back here for the summer, returning from the University of

Toronto, where he is taking his law degree.

Also, I am pleased to introduce Nancy Stitt from Toronto, who is

visiting the Logie family here in Victoria, and of course, staying in

Delta. Would this House please make them welcome.

MR. BARLEE: We should recognize Mr. Charles Stone from Rock

Creek, who will be running for the Social Credit Party against me in

Boundary-Similkameen in the coming election. Welcome to the House,

Charles.

MR. SPEAKER: There are so many members in the gallery who want to be on the floor. We could exchange.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, visiting us in the precincts

today from that great city of Vancouver — one of the most romantic

cities in the world — are representatives of the Talmud Torah School in

the Vancouver–Little Mountain constituency. I'd ask the House to give

them a warm welcome.

MR. MILLER: If you think Vancouver's romantic, you should come to Prince Rupert.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome today a gentleman

I've known for over 20 years. He used to live in Prince Rupert; he now

lives in the Fraser Valley and is a candidate in Matsqui: Mr. Dave

Dutana. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Railway Group for 1990.

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt tabled the annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia for 1990.

Introduction of Bills

MINISTERIAL POST-EMPLOYMENT

CONFLICT ACT

Mr. Harcourt presented a bill intituled Ministerial Post-employment Conflict Act.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure that former

ministers of the Crown, their parliamentary secretaries and appointed

officials, for a period of up to 24 months after leaving government,

will not be able to use their public service for purposes of personal

profit or private gain.

The prohibited activities include: (1) accepting a position with a

corporation with which the official had significant dealings or a

corporation which is likely to have dealings with the official's former

agency or ministry; (2) lobbying on behalf of such a corporation or

entity; and (3) giving counsel for commercial purposes concerning the

programs or policies of the agency or ministry with which the official

was formerly associated.

Bill M201 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Oral Questions

SALE OF FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC.

MR. CLARK: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday you told

the House that your deputy minister was directed by cabinet to review

the sale of Fantasy Gardens and report back to cabinet. Your deputy's

lawyer has confirmed the detailed directions issued by cabinet.

It is now abundantly clear that cabinet knew about the details of

the Fantasy Gardens sale from last fall until April. Yet on April 8 you

said: "As to the issue of the former Premier's private affairs and the

sale of Fantasy Gardens, we the cabinet were not dealing with those,

because we didn't know they existed. We thought he had transferred

ownership of the gardens to Lillian, and we did not know he was

involved in the sale."

[ Page 11972 ]

In light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, will the

Premier now acknowledge that her statement of April 8 was incorrect?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, no.

MR. CLARK: You told British Columbians on April 8 that you

and the cabinet were unaware of the details of the Fantasy Gardens sale

until the Hughes report came down. The public record now includes the

former Finance minister's admission yesterday that the cabinet

discussed the Fantasy Gardens sale on at least two or three dozen

occasions, including before October, 1990. Will you set the record

straight today and explain to the House why your statement of April 8

differs from the public record that we now know?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, my statement does not differ from the public record.

MR. CLARK: I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the

minister's statement. The statement on April 8 said that cabinet did

not discuss the Fantasy Gardens sale. "We thought he had transferred

ownership of the gardens to Lillian, and we did not know he was

involved in the sale." That is patently false.

[2:15]

Your statements yesterday indicated that David Emerson was asked by

cabinet to review the sale documents of Fantasy Gardens. How do you

reconcile that with your statement of April 8?

The Premier should know that last week in the newspaper she

reiterated that cabinet asked Mr. Emerson to look into the sale of

Fantasy Gardens. It is very clear that those discussions took place,

and she has confirmed that in this chamber. That differs from her

statement of April 8. I'd like her to explain how she reconciles the

statement of April 8 with the statements we have before the House now.

The Premier refuses to answer the question. The question is clear.

Yesterday you said that David Emerson was asked by cabinet to review

the sale of Fantasy Gardens; on April 8 you said cabinet did not

discuss the sale of Fantasy Gardens. Those are completely contradictory

statements. How do you reconcile them?

PROTECTION OF WITNESSES

TO GANG VIOLENCE

MRS. McCARTHY: My question is for the Attorney General. In

view of the shocking situation in Vancouver yesterday, in which charges

were stayed against a youth gang because teenage witnesses' identities

could not be protected, could the Attorney-General investigate this

case and, if necessary, review it with his federal colleagues and

consider a witness protection fund to protect witnesses from

retaliation by vicious gangs or any others?

HON. MR. FRASER: The problem of crime affects all of us. It's a

serious problem in some sections of the province today. It is not one to be

dealt with lightly, and I thank the member for her question. There is no doubt

that what your question suggests is that witnesses are being intimidated. I

don't think that's new, but it's not acceptable either.

Certainly I will make every effort, along with my colleagues on this

side of the House, and presumably with the support of the members

opposite as well, to make sure that witnesses feel secure when they

come to testify in courtrooms, that people guilty of crimes are

convicted, that people who are innocent of crimes are acquitted and

that the justice system of B.C. lives up to its honourable reputation.

SALE OF FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC.

MR. CLARK: To the Premier. You said on Monday that you had

nothing to hide, yet the evidence is clear that there was a cabinet

cover-up of the Fantasy Gardens sale. Four and a half months after the

sale we heard repeated denials that cabinet knew what was going on.

That is contradicted by the public evidence; it contradicts your

statement of April 8. I'm asking the Premier; I'm giving her an

opportunity to tell the truth. Which statement is correct — your April

8 statement that you knew nothing about the sale of Fantasy Gardens, or

all the documented evidence from your deputy, from your comments in the

House and from the former Finance minister that cabinet discussed the

Fantasy Gardens sale on dozens of occasions?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, prior to even attempting to

respond to that outburst, I would ask that the member apologize. His

statements with regard to a cover-up by cabinet are an out-and-out lie,

and he owes this House an apology.

MR. CLARK: The evidence is clear, and you have an obligation

to set the record straight. First you said on April 8 that cabinet was

not involved — that you didn't know what was going on. Yesterday you

admitted that cabinet....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A point or order from the first member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is somewhat

unusual, but during this line of questioning my position has been

mentioned twice. I'd like your guidance as to whether it would be

appropriate for me to respond, at least in part, to the question

phrased.

MR. SPEAKER: Regretfully, the only persons who may respond to

questions are members of the executive council and the member of the

opposition party who is the Chairman of the Select Standing Committee

on Public Accounts. It is appropriate, however, for members to ask

questions from the government side of the House if they need to.

Before we proceed with question period, I would remind members —

which I reminded them of this morning — that acrimony in this House is

acceptable, but personal allusions are not. The member made a

[ Page

11973 ]

statement about cabinet in general, and that

blanket accusation carries to all members of cabinet. As a tradition in

this House we have discussed facts separate from personalities. If we

can continue to do it in that way, the public's business could be done

without personalities being involved.

I'd ask the member for Vancouver East to continue.

MR. CLARK: I'll let the public decide the facts on the record.

I want to quote for the Premier the former Finance minister's very

clear statement yesterday: "In terms of the discussion at the cabinet

level and at the various cabinet committee levels, it must be two or

three dozen times at least that the Fantasy Gardens sale was

discussed." I ask you: which is correct — that statement from the

former Minister of Finance or your statement of April 8 that cabinet

did not know what was going on with respect to the sale of Fantasy

Gardens?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, as I stated yesterday, the

discussions at the cabinet table are confidential. But it is not

difficult to assume, as a result of the day-by-day newspaper articles

which referred continually to Fantasy Gardens, that in very broad and

general terms the Fantasy Gardens issue was a matter of discussion.

That is the extent of my comment.

MR. CLARK: I want to remind the Premier of her statement of

April 8, 1991: "We the cabinet were not dealing with those, because we

didn't know they existed. We thought he had transferred ownership of

the gardens to Lillian, and we did not know he was involved in the

sale." The evidence is clear. Your deputy's lawyer has made clear his

directions from cabinet. You said in this House yesterday that cabinet

directed Mr. Emerson to review the sale documents.

Mr. Speaker, one of those versions is the truth, and I'm asking the

Premier which version is the truth — her statement yesterday, the

statement by the Finance minister which corroborates that or the

statement of April 8? Which is correct?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, they're all correct.

MR. CLARK: Can the Premier explain and reconcile the position

she took on April 8, which I just read to you, and the position she's

just saying? She's saying both are correct. Clearly, on a plain reading

of the evidence, they're both contradictory. I would ask you to

reconcile those contradictory statements.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: My question to the Premier is this. She made a number of

statements on radio on April 8, 1991. They were clearly calculated to leave

the impression that cabinet knew nothing, and that the current Premier was shocked

by the revelations in the Hughes report. On April 8, she calculatingly made

statements to suggest that cabinet knew nothing. All of the uncontradicted evidence

to date points to the fact that cabinet knew everything. The question to the

Premier is: which version do you prefer — the version that cabinet knew everything

or the version that cabinet knew nothing? Which is correct?

The Premier says she didn't hear the question. Which of those two versions do you prefer?

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: A new question to the Premier. The Premier said a

few minutes ago in response to a question from my colleague that it was

a lie to suggest that cabinet knew everything. Mr. Emerson, through his

counsel, has said that he was asked to report to cabinet to the fullest

extent possible, to tell cabinet everything about the details. If you

are suggesting that my colleague is lying by saying what he said, are

you now also suggesting that Mr. Emerson was lying?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I find it very distasteful

that members of this House would, during question period, purposely

malign a career civil servant working for the people of British

Columbia. I am just wondering how you feel that you are entitled to do

that. The deputy has absolutely no opportunity to defend himself or his

actions; he has to do it through a lawyer's office. Members on the

opposite side of this House stand up because of the immunity we have in

this House and make whatever statements they care to. I think that's

shameful.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, what is shameful is that this

Premier is unwilling to answer the basic question: what did she know

and when did she know it? That's the basic question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Members, the questions must be

questions, and the answers must be answers. There's no requirement for

a member to respond with an answer, but the subject of the question

cannot be as broad as some of the questions put, and I think the

preambles are tending to make the House a little testy. Could we just

stick to questions during question period.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier has indicated that somehow she

believes that Mr. Emerson has been maligned. It is now open to her,

then, to correct the record and tell the truth. The question to the

Premier is: did cabinet know the details of the sale? Did they know the

details of the vendor financing? Did they know the details of the

structure of the transaction? What did you know, Madam Premier, and

when did you know it?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I knew that the then Premier

and his family lived at Fantasy Gardens, they had for some time and

they developed the property. I visited the site on numerous occasions,

as did many other people of British Columbia. But I never did feel it

was any of my business to pry into the personal and business

relationships that were con-

[ Page 11974 ]

ducted at Fantasy Gardens. So I knew the details of the sale at precisely the same time that you did, hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell mercifully terminates question period.

Ministerial Statement

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

MR. LOENEN: On behalf of the Minister of Health it is my

pleasure to make some brief remarks in recognition of Mental Health

Week, May 6 through 12.

To give the House some idea of the magnitude of this health issue,

Mr. Speaker, consider that one in every six British Columbians will

experience a mental illness at some time in their life. Today an

estimated 150,000 residents of this province have some form of mental

illness.

[2:30]

Many members of the House will recall that in February 1990 the

Minister of Health introduced the B.C. mental health initiative. A

major objective of this ongoing initiative is to strengthen community

services for the mentally ill to enable these people to live more

independently. By achieving this objective, we can reduce the pressure

on institutional care services and at the same time promote a well

community.

Since this initiative was announced, the Ministry of Health has

worked closely with the Mental Health Communications Council, which

represents the major mental health care agencies in the province, to

increase overall public awareness of mental illness. As part of this

campaign, the council has developed a theme line entitled: "See mental

health in a new light."

One of the first uses of this new theme will be on our mental health

community resource kit, a prototype of which I have right here. This

kit, which has been developed by the Ministry of Health in conjunction

with the B.C. Friends of Schizophrenics, will be issued to more than

500 health care agencies and care providers throughout the province. It

is designed to inform communities about services available to people

with a mental illness and about the B.C. mental health initiative. To

accomplish this task, the resource kit contains a video and printed

information on the initiative, a directory of community services for

people with mental illness, a booklet on schizophrenia and brochures on

services available through the mental health services division of the

Ministry of Health.

I would like to briefly comment on the progress that has been

achieved in the past year since the B.C. mental health initiative was

first announced. The initiative provides for $20 million to be added to

base funding for the mental health care system in the next three to

four years. The first instalment of $6 million was made this year. In

partnership with the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, financing

of $3 million has been set aside for new community care services for

mentally handicapped people with a mental illness.

As well, a provincial mental health advisory council has been created to represent

the major consumer and advocacy groups, community organizations, municipalities

and mental health care providers in the province. Other advances include increases

in the level of services provided through rehabilitation and support programs.

The assessment and treatment of mental illness has also been substantially enhanced.

Housing is another area where we're making great strides.

The central focus of the mental health initiative is to create

caring communities that accept and support people with a mental

illness. Towards that end, support groups for families and friends of

people with mental illness have been greatly expanded, along with

caregiver training programs, respite care and other formal services.

A $1 million special competition for mental health research has been

established through the B.C. Health Research Foundation to coordinate

mental health research and evaluation.

With regard to the child and youth mental health initiative

introduced in 1986, $10 million has been allocated to increasing the

local availability of specialized services for children, youths and

their families.

The personal and social costs of mental illness are enormous.

However, I'm proud to be able to tell you today that during Mental

Health Week we will make great strides. We are pleased to be helping

British Columbians who suffer from mental illness to live more

independent lives within communities that support their hopes and

ambitions.

MR. PERRY: I was pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary

to the Minister of Health on his feet. It shows that the new Social

Credit slogan "Forty-three-fifty-four or Fight" is not dead. For those

of you who missed the historical allusion, they've redefined the old

"Fifty-four-forty" to be 43 ministers in 54 months. So perhaps there's

hope for the member yet.

Interjections.

MR. PERRY: The former Minister of Education asked if I'll

deal with the issue, and I assure him I will. I'm pleased that today,

when this statement has been pronounced, there are members of the

Friends of Schizophrenics.... I see one very active one, Ms. Shirley

Cooke of Abbotsford, and I hope there are others here to listen to what

we are debating, because this chamber has not always taken the issues

of mental health seriously.

In fact, this has not been a particularly good year for mental

health in this province, nor have any of the last four years. I have a

long interest in this subject. My father — who I hope is watching now —

is one of the first scientists in British Columbia to seriously

investigate schizophrenia. In the old days he had to force his way into

Riverview, past physicians, nurses and psychiatrists who felt that

schizophrenia was a disease foisted upon children by their overbearing

parents, in the era of grotesque ignorance about mental illness. I've

had a long interest in that. I worked as a volunteer in laboratories

when I was a university and high school student in an attempt to

understand schizophre-

[ Page

11975 ]

nia. Regrettably, we're not much further ahead, but we're beginning to get somewhere.

That's why it is disappointing to know that in this province no

progress has been made on a centre of excellence for schizophrenia. In

fact, only a few years ago we lost Dr. Barry Jones, who was one of the

promising young investigators in this field. The discovery of a

heritable form of schizophrenia made in this province at the Children's

Hospital and the University Hospital in Vancouver has led to no

progress on that centre of excellence.

Last year we witnessed the sad spectacle of a strike in the

psychiatric services brought on largely by the intransigence of the

former Minister of Finance, who said that a nurse is not a nurse is not

a nurse. He revealed his attitude on the importance of nursing and

psychiatric services for people who require hospitalization.

I was called in to Riverview Hospital in the midst of that strike

because the former Minister of Health, now the Minister of Finance, was

not aware of the suffering that was going on in that hospital at that

time. I had to draw those facts directly to his attention because of

the ignorance of and contempt for the suffering of people with

schizophrenia that occurred at the time.

As I listen to this boast about the $6 million which has been

expended under the mental health plan, I wonder how the Minister of

Health would reconcile that with the recommendation made two years ago

by the medical health officer of Vancouver, Dr. Blatherwick, that $20

million was needed urgently for housing for people who now are on the

streets of Vancouver. There are people sleeping in the park in Comox,

who are mentally ill and have no place to be housed. There is a Triage

centre — a last-ditch centre — for the most desperately mentally ill

about to be imposed upon the east-end neighbourhood of Strathcona in

Vancouver, which already is overburdened with social problems. In this

province the government does not believe that mentally ill people

should be looked after in their own homes. It has not provided the

resources to look after them and to house them properly in their own

communities.

What progress has been made — and there has been substantial

progress — has come from the communities themselves, thank heavens, and

from groups like the Friends of Schizophrenics who have worked hard and

have raised their voices.

Mr. Speaker, I could talk about the layoff of sessional psychologists in the

Surrey and Whalley mental health program, where children with mental illness

are now waiting on lists for up to 12 months to receive basic psychological

assessment. I could talk about the letters I have received from psychologists

during the recent dispute that the government forced on psychologists in mental

health centres. I could talk about what we learned yesterday from Debra McPherson,

the president of the B.C. Nurses' Union, who described an attack on nurses

with sharpened sticks by a mentally ill patient in the Kamloops Royal Inland

Hospital, because the facilities do not exist there to look after acutely psychotic

and violent patients adequately. I could talk about the situation at The Maples,

where adolescents with schizophrenia and chronic severe depression have been

threatened — and their families have been threatened — with their being moved

into a locked ward, when they did not need to be locked up. For a year now those

families have been living with that anxiety. My colleague from Burnaby has received

letters from the families of children suffering under that threat.

But I can't express the issue any more eloquently than in the words

of the mother of a schizophrenic patient who wrote to my colleague the

member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, and I request the patience of the House

to communicate to you what she has said, because it speaks for itself

better than any of us could put this issue. It's dated May 1, 1991,

from Mrs. Elizabeth Holden of Victoria.

"Last week my husband and I visited our son in

Riverview Hospital for his thirty-seventh birthday. He has been there

since he was 21 years old. He was then a tall, well-built, handsome

young man in good physical health but unable to fit into 'normal' life.

He was eventually diagnosed as schizophrenic, but not to an extreme

degree. There was no place for him on the Island, so he was cut off

from his family and friends at a time when he desperately needed their

support. He, who would not take even an aspirin at home, was heavily

drugged every day.

"Several years later he had a massive stroke, which

resulted in permanent paralysis on one side, and he can no longer

speak. He is now in a wheelchair, too weak to sit upright and bent over

like an old man. His teeth are rotting and gradually falling out. He is

so emaciated that his shoulder bones are sticking through his shirt.

The only semblance that remains of our beautiful young son are his big

dark eyes, which are his only way of communicating with us, and his

long graceful hands with which he used to write poetry and stories.

"His companions are old, brain-damaged men. His home

is an old, dark, small building with windows barred and doors locked.

The patients walk up and down the short corridor, up and down,

endlessly, as if looking for a way out. Not one word was spoken by any

of them whilst we were there. They were like robots with staring,

desperate eyes on their stiff, expressionless faces. Some were sitting

like our son, who cannot walk, bent over motionless, just breathing.

Life imprisonment is their sentence 'for not fitting in.'

"My last correspondence with the present government

was in 1988, when I was told that plans were underway to provide

suitable accommodation for our son and similar patients on Vancouver

Island. We are still waiting.

"Our son has suffered more than it is humanly possible

to imagine, both mentally and physically, but the sense of abandonment

must be the cruellest and most unbearable of all. In the name of mercy,

let us not be ignored any longer. Is there any way that you can help

us?"

She wrote that letter to my colleague the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

Mr. Speaker, that's why I reluctantly conclude that the statement

presented by the government member represents little more than

hypocrisy. If I thought I could believe it seriously, I would not raise

these points. But having fought in this Legislature for two years, and

knowing that my colleague the member for

[ Page 11976 ]

Maillardville-Coquitlam has fought much longer, and

that my colleague from Surrey-Guildford-Whalley has fought

unsuccessfully in every way possible to bring relief to families and

suffering people like this, I see little on the horizon. I see relief

from the professionals, the nurses, the physicians, the families and

the social workers, but from this government I see nothing but

contempt. I hope that will change soon.

[2:45]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, you all have a copy of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia .

I would commend it, especially to members of the executive council who

prepare and have prepared on their behalf ministerial statements that

seem to me like a

summary of estimates speeches. We have badly violated

our own rules this afternoon. I trust that there will be some guidance

when ministerial statements are made in the future.

MR. SIHOTA: Inasmuch as I did not have an opportunity to read

yesterday's Blues until 2 o'clock today, I wish to reserve my right,

and give you notice of this, to raise a matter of privilege arising out

of yesterday and what may have been said today — a matter of privilege

with respect to the Premier. I just wish to reserve my right to that,

and give you notice of that at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take that matter as notice.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this is not the

first opportunity that the member has had to raise this point. The

House did sit this morning.

MR. SPEAKER: The determination of that matter will be made by the Chair.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

HON. MR. FRASER: It is my pleasure to take my place in this

debate on the address from the throne, and to join with all members in

this lively debate, for I know it's going to be interesting. It's

particularly a pleasure for me to sit with the first woman Premier in

Canada, an undoubtedly strong lady. Indeed, I look forward to being

back here after the next election, as the member for Vancouver-Langara,

and on the government side of the House.

To those on the government side who will not seek election again, I say thanks

to you on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and I extend the same greetings

to the members opposite who will not seek office. A special thank-you to my

colleagues who have been the victims of unwarranted criticism; for this is a

tough business, not for the faint of heart. Those of us who sit in this chamber

have special privileges of immunity with respect to what we say, and accordingly

that presents us with a great obligation, for now that we have television in

the House, and now that everybody across the province can see and hear us, we

do have a special obligation to protect the reputations of those people who

are innocent.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'm pleased to say, as Attorney-General of this great province, that

the justice system is in good shape. We have come through every review

with flying colours. By comparison, those who made those unfounded

charges do not look as good. They have been exposed for their attacks

on the system for what can only be political purposes, and that's

unacceptable. The Leader of the Opposition will either have to take

credit for that unwarranted attack or deny that he's a leader, neither

of which is a particularly good choice.

I was reading the paper the other day and looked at the Leader of

the Opposition wrapped in a flag like a dummy. I know that our Premier

will never do that. This is a lady who will keep B.C. on course, on

target, on budget, on time, in tune with reality, in harmony with her

schedule of the vision for the province of British Columbia. This is a

lady who will make this province hum. We are waiting, by the way, for

the next election.

Incidentally, she's not the acting leader, or the interim leader, or

the whatever; she is the Premier. For those who of you who don't know,

now you know.

I'm sure there will be some attacks on this good lady who happens to

be the Premier of the province of British Columbia, and people across

the way will say she doesn't have much education. Well, she may not

have a lot of formal education, but she's received good education

working out in the community since the day she could first work. I know

that she can stand in her place anywhere in this province with her

husband and say: "Every dime we have we earned." She understands the

demand from the taxpayers for fiscal responsibility. Yet as you can

see, that demand is tempered with compassion for those who are not as

fortunate as some of us might be.

If we stop for just one minute to think about what makes this country great, you'll hear two opinions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Women.

HON. MR. FRASER: Three opinions.

There are two basic reasons, whether you happen to be a man or a

woman, why this country is great. The opposition is likely to say this

country is great because of the social safety net. But anybody who

understands will say the country is great because of hard work and an

abundant land which gave us the money to provide the social safety net.

If we don't know that now, we're going to know it soon. I'm here to

remind you, although I know I don't have to, that the good people of

Ontario just found out that they have 9.7 billion reasons to realize

why they don't want an NDP government.

In the unforeseen event that there are people out there who do not

know about these problems, I thought I'd bring a few of them to light.

We have found

[ Page

11977 ]

already that 26 out of the 76 promises made during

the last election by the NDP in Ontario have been broken. We have found

that while they promised a deficit of $2 billion, they went beyond

their wildest dreams and made it almost $10 billion. They promised more

money for education but less was delivered. They promised 20,000 day

care spaces, but 5,000 were delivered. For northern development, $400

million was promised and nothing was delivered. Some great revolution.

The NDP strategies in the last eight months have cost 200,000 jobs —

some record!

Need I go on? Maybe I will. It's as if they consciously set out in

Ontario to destroy the entire economy of the province, let alone the

country. What for? Why would they do it? I can only think of one

reason: when the whole thing crunches, they want to buy them all up and

take them over as government enterprises, just like they tried to do

here. Somehow our old friend Bob Williams lives. His spirit is there,

isn't it?

What about this glorious little transition team we hear about? The

Leader of the Opposition talks about open government. How about open

opposition? It wouldn't be such a bad start; it might improve it. He

says three or four members of caucus — apparently not knowing how many

— plus a few resource people form this crack transition team. They went

down to Ontario and helped Bob Rae take over. "We're ready to go," he

said. This crack team of three or four resource people — we're not sure

how many or who — went and put Ontario on the course to economic ruin.

Who are they? Why won't he tell us? The Leader of the Opposition —

remember that fellow wrapped in the flag, ready to take over. I doubt

it.

In this newspaper

article he talks about the NDP playbook — the

macho sports lingo of a man who says he has no gender bias, by the way.

Imagine that. The road to disaster. These are the people who say they

want to run British Columbia. Spare us from that, Mr Speaker. There's

no way.

What have they promised so far? A couple of little tidbits to keep

you warmed up, to make you feel warm and cosy They've said that they're

going to have a minimum corporate tax. Isn't that great? Just think,

we're going to tax somebody else; we'll be saved. Mr Speaker, you and I

and everybody who understands knows, and every working taxpayer knows,

that if a company has to pay taxes in the year of a loss and can't make

it, they go under; they go bankrupt. What's the result of that? Job

loss. They can't seem to get a grip on the fact that if you don't have

the work and you don't make the money, the social net is gone. They

have no idea that the more debt they pile on our system, the more

trouble they cause for the social network that we're so proud of in

this country. Surely we'll have to get a grip on that. If we don't,

we're in trouble.

With the kinds of policies they have, Mr. Speaker, I'm reminded of Woody

Allen, and I'll paraphrase a little bit. But the kinds of choices they would

give us are these: we have a difficult choice to make today.... As Woody Allen

would say: "We have two roads to go down: one leads to chaos and disaster,

and the other leads to extinction. God give us the wisdom to choose the right

one." That's the kind of choice we'd get from that side of the

House. That's why we don't want it, and that's why the people of

this province won't give it to us. Thank goodness for them; at least they

understand.

I intend to show that the claim for consistency led by the Leader of

the Opposition doesn't hold any water; it has no foundation. Let's

begin. As I said, he says he believes in open government but obviously

not open opposition. Who is this transition team he talks about?

Tell us about your platform. What is it? Who paid for it? Who's

going to pay for it? The crack transition team went to Ontario. We see

articles here from a former worker, who incidentally was let go, about

the welfare system we now see in Ontario. Spare us from this — the

system is so open-ended that the former employee suspects that

organized rings are scamming taxpayers by collecting multiple cheques

from many different welfare offices around the province using false

identification documents such as passports, birth certificates and

drivers' licences. They don't even ask if it's true or if the documents

are correct. They don't cross-reference.

In Ontario you can be on welfare and own two residences. You don't

have to do a thing with your own wallet until you've been off six

months. You don't have to live there. A welfare recipient in Ontario

can live in Mexico, and they'll send you the money by electronic mail.

Is that what you want? No, we don't. No job check, no checking, and no

residence requirements. Why do we care in this great province of

British Columbia? Because we pay for part of that disaster. How can we

understand that point of view? Nobody can. Don't they sound soft and

syrupy? Aren't they warm and cuddly? Look at the bank-book.

Now we talk about social services. Here's what the Leader of the

Opposition said four or five months ago: "In terms of health care, we

have to stop endlessly pouring money into hospitals, into high tech,

into drugs, into doctors, and cap the sickness part of the system and

shift the resource into preventive community services." Finally, as we

underline these critical words from the Leader of the Opposition — the

man who would be Premier, the man who would break your bank and your

back at the same time — he said: "So I don't think that we're getting

good value, either in education or in health care or in social

services, for the tax dollars that people are putting into them." By

the way, "either/or" means two, not three, so he's even grammatically

incorrect.

Let him tell the doctors that they're getting too much money in

health care. Let him tell the nurses that there's too much money in

health care. Let him tell the teachers there's too much money in

education. How about that!

Let's look at education spending. I have a little graph here that

says education expenditures, as a percentage of total expenditures in

British Columbia, are the highest in the land. Take that. Education as

a total expenditure in B.C. is going up, and guess what it's doing in

Ontario? Down, down, down. How do we do this?

[ Page 11978 ]

Let's talk about job protection. According to an informal survey of

top executives, 76 percent felt that an NDP victory would be negative

for the British Columbia economy. Surprise! The Leader of the

Opposition wants to create 9,000 jobs. Too bad. We created 28,000 jobs.

He's the same one who would put one tug on a ship going out of the

harbour; we've got four on it now.

B.C. has the lowest commercial bankruptcy rate in Canada and the

highest average weekly wages. The rate of capital invested in B.C. is

double the forecast for Canada as a whole. That's how you protect jobs.

You make the economy work.

The fact is that value-added manufacturing exports have been growing

at more than twice the rate of provincial exports. That's how to create

jobs. He talks about value-added Asia-Pacific trade. What have we done?

British Columbia exports have enjoyed a very strong period of growth

since 1986. Total B.C. exports in 1986 were $12.1 billion. By 1989 this

had reached $17.8 billion, an increase of over 40 percent. That's how

you protect jobs; that's how you protect the social net; that's how you

fund health care; that's how you fund education; that's how you fund

social services. Value-added manufacturing exports have been growing at

more than twice the rate of provincial exports.

He said this morning that he would adopt the David Anderson report

right away. It just happens that we commissioned the report. We made it

happen. Here are some of the reports that he would adopt instantly:

"That as a matter of environmental policy, there would be no further

development of export trade of crude oil from the port of Vancouver;

that as a matter of environmental policy, existing exports of crude oil

from the port of Vancouver be phased out; that until such traffic ends,

no crude oil tanker would be permitted to load for offshore

destinations until a contingency plan for spill response," da de da de

da.

Who killed the Mackenzie Valley pipeline? Who was that? It was the

opposition — Mr. Barrett and friends. There wouldn't have been a Valdez

spill if you'd had the wisdom to do it right. There's no party like the

NDP to have 20-20 hindsight; even that sometimes makes you wonder. I'm

not sure about that.

The Leader of the Opposition says: "Within two months of being the

Premier of the province, I will take a trip to Asia." To join with the

other seven junkets he took as the mayor of Vancouver. Two months on

the job and he wants a day off. What does he know about working? He

says it's important to link the Asia-Pacific countries. It's

fascinating material.

What does the Finance critic say? Nice young fellow from Vancouver.

He says: "They" — talking about the government — "are keeping the

campaign promise of linking our economy with Asia-Pacific. I agree the

government's moving in that direction. I'm not as convinced as the

government that this is necessary."

The leader said: "Oh, it's very important. I'm going to go to

Asia. I'm going to review all my old friends and see them all again like

I did when I was the mayor of Vancouver." The critic says: "Oh, I

don't think that's so important."

AN HON. MEMBER: Some of them are out of office now.

HON. MR. FRASER: Right. Then he says: "We're going to set

timetables now. We're going to do it right like this country.... We're

going to say that's terrific." He said that in six months we're going

to settle the land claims. Just what are you going to do with all the

loggers? Here's what the Leader of the Opposition said: "New Democrats

recognize what the courts have said, and the courts have said clearly

that aboriginal title exists."

The courts never said that. That's not true. The Leader of the

Opposition said: "Native Indians still hold aboriginal title to British

Columbia's land mass and no sustainable resource development can occur

in B.C. until the provincial government admits it." The courts didn't

say that.

[3:00]

The Leader of the Opposition said: "The NDP would in particular, as

soon as elected, institute a moratorium on all major logging, mining,

hydroelectric development within the following areas: South Moresby,

the Stein River watershed, Meares Island, proposed Stikine watershed,

Khutzeymateen River valley, the southern Chilcotin and the proposed

Cascade addition to Manning Park. Isn't that interesting? What are

those loggers going to live on? What are those miners going to live on?

Do you realize how much territory that is? Do you realize that is just

one-sixth of the area they're going to set aside for parks if they get

elected?

If they double the parkland like they promised, 3,500 jobs will be

lost in the forest industry alone. What a policy! What an idea! So the

idea is that these guys are going to become park rangers. Terrific.

They complain about corporate taxes and personal taxes. Mr. Speaker,

I can tell you this. Corporation income tax revenues have grown at an

annual rate of nearly 26 percent since 1986-87 — twice the rate of

personal income taxes. Who cares about people? The government does. Who

says they care? They do. They can't demonstrate that with their

policies. They can't do it.

We'll go on to that later, Mr. Speaker. But in the throne speech

there was some mention of our colleague the late Hon. Jack Davis, who

had a great career as an athlete, a scholar, a philosopher and a decent

human being. I was pleased to see that his name was mentioned and that

a building will be named after him in the energy and mines portfolio.

He was a man who worked hard all the time, who was determined to serve

his country constantly and who worked night and day. I am pleased to

see that tribute to him in there. He was a man we shall not forget

easily; he was a decent human being who worked hard, cared for his

family and loved his country. He made the country go because he was a

builder.

Of the many things that were not mentioned about this great

individual was the pipeline he brought across to the Vancouver Island

area so that we could burn natural gas and take pollution out of the

skies on the west winds blowing over to the mainland up the

[ Page

11979 ]

Fraser Valley.... He did that. He pushed and struggled, and he got it done.

He was the man who struggled to bring the ALRT to the city of

Vancouver over the objections of the former mayor who sits as Leader of

the Opposition. That transit system is equivalent to 24 lanes of

highway. That's the kind of thing he did. That's the kind of leadership

this party has delivered.

Do you remember when we built highways out in the province, and they

said, "highways to nowhere"? We opened up the north and the interior.

When we put a tunnel under the Fraser River, they said, "a tunnel to

nowhere." Some nowhere! The Deas Island tunnel — some tunnel to nowhere!

We're building on the science and technology of our students. Our

students are doing well in exams and beating out other students all

over the country. That's the future: education. That's the money that's

going in. Our children are doing well. Let them work in school; it's

good for them. We're going to give them the chance.

As I said, while the Premier has not had extensive formal education

herself, she understands the value more than some who have those fancy

degrees. That's why this government will do what it has to do to give

the children and the students in the province of British Columbia the

chance to go as far as they can in their education.

I'm not suggesting to you that the system is perfect. No system ever

is. But that lady understands why we should have it, and that's why her

motivation is in the direction it is, and that's why the spending on

education in B.C. is going up. Why would it be going down in Ontario?

Ask them. Ask their crack "transition team," as we say. What do they

know? Look at the province. The whole country is just astounded at the

social network damaged by debt. How can they do it? There's no

comprehension there.

We talked briefly about the system of justice. My colleague the

Solicitor-General and I will be working on a joint task force to

respond to a problem not unlike that brought up by my colleague from

Little Mountain earlier today in question period. We are concerned

about safety in the streets in every town and city in the province, no

matter where it is, how big or small, and whether they've got a

full-time mayor or a part-time mayor or a large or small police force.

We want to make sure that the people who come to live in this country

understand that we want to be able to walk on any street in any town at

any time without the fear of being assaulted.

We want to have witnesses able to go to court to testify without the

fear of being intimidated or without being intimidated and having fear.

In harmony with the Owen Discretion to Prosecute Inquiry ,

we will be bringing in legislation. I propose to bring in legislation

that will address those needs so there will be no attack on a system

that works so well, so there will be no damage to personal reputations

when they have done their job right and so the people who work in the

system — the policemen, the prosecutors, the lawyers, the judges, the

citizens, the volunteers, those on the jury — can serve and defend the

system. We have probably the best justice system in the land.

Let me remind you that in a recent decision called the Askov

decision, it has been determined that if you have a systemic delay in

the justice system, your trial should be stayed and the charges

dropped. In the great province of Ontario, run by the New Democratic

Party, 34,000 trials have been dropped because of systemic delays.

They've had to pump in nearly $40 million to bring it up to speed. They

have stayed charges of homicide. It's not right. The system here is

working. We can be really proud of our system here.

How are we going to approach the country in the next months and

years? What do we think about this great country? What are we going to

do with it? Let's reach out as individuals, as members of a community,

as a committee of the Legislature and go to the towns, cities,

communities and say: "What do you want to do? How do you want to make

this country work? Is there any way anybody that knows anything about

this great country can sit there and let it crumble?" And the answer

ought to be: "No." Are we trying to do it? Yes, we are.

What are we doing? We're asking for people to submit papers. We're

trying to give the public an outline of what they might want to

address. Instead of being mad at one province or another, let's see if

we can make it work. It's too good to let go. It's not sensible for us

to have six Senators and have a population of three million, when the

province of New Brunswick has 11 Senators in a province of 700,000.

That doesn't make any sense. We can address that. But we can't rip it

up first and put it back together; that won't work.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: We're going to do that. How else are we

going to protect the people of the province? What are we going to do?

The Leader of the Opposition said that they participated right out of

it. "Overparticipated" was what he said. Too much participation. How

can you have too much participation in a democratic system? You can't.

They want to run it all. "We're so smart. We're so great. Make me the

government. I'm good, therefore, what I do is good." Is that the circle

they tell? It's not right.

You want to reach out and let people vote on referendums. Let's

start the process gently, a step at a time, one inch at a time, before

we're.... How would you like us to behave in this area or that? You can

trust in this government the confidence to deliver the future to the

children of the province intact. We have to encourage people to

participate in the democratic system. We have to give them the chance

to do that. And we can do that by getting into a referendum system.

Let's start the process. It has already been started.

[3:15]

In spite of the problems we've had, we've had the best government in

Canada by a wide margin. I'm proud to stand here as a member of Premier

Johnston's cabinet and say that and to work with her and everybody else

in the House to make this province work. We want changes to the charter.

[ Page 11980 ]

The disappointing part of the opposition party.... I remember how

upset I used to be when the media would say: "We have to behave as the

unofficial opposition." I was told directly, eyeball to eyeball, that

it's what they have to do. And it used to upset me that they would do

that. But now I don't think that way anymore.

I want the opposition to be spoon-fed, as long they're willing to

take it, because if you're on the spoon, you're not old enough to do it

by yourself; you never grow up, and you never would. Running in and

out; running in with notes, one to the media, one to the NDP. What do

they want? Nothing. Oh, good grief! What do you want then? Listen to

the slogan. "Time for a change." What else? Can't you think of anything

else? It's the weakest thing you could do.

It's not that they're dumb; it's their attitude. Everybody is a

victim, according to them. They never think of people as individuals

and little groups. They never think of people as being responsible,

successful, creative. Oh, no. They think that if they were the

government they could solve all the problems of the world. I've got to

tell you that there's not a hope of that being true.

They don't even call themselves socialists anymore. They don't call

themselves social democrats anymore. They're sort of Liberals with a

west-coast accent.

It's like this: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and

hangs out with other ducks, you want us to think it's a flying

squirrel. I'm not going to do that.

What do we see in the news here? In the Globe and Mail after

the budget speech in Ontario: two grown men laughing that they've

dumped a $9.7 billion deficit. That's not funny. The provincial

treasurer there likes to call himself Pink Floyd. It will be blood red

before it's all over.

What did Jeffrey Simpson say? "They failed to innovate."

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, Attorney, your time has expired under standing orders.

MR. BARLEE: I find the previous member very amusing, very

interesting and easy to listen to, but perhaps we should be a little

more analytical of the throne speech, which is really the subject of

the debate

I listened rather attentively to the throne speech two days ago. I

noticed that there were a few new initiatives and a number of recycled

initiatives, but the interesting thing were the errors of omission.

These errors of omission are quite important. I'll tell you why.

I represent a riding, one of two members in this particular constituency. It's

rather a poor riding in British Columbia — one of the two poorest. We've

been hard hit by the free trade deal. We've been hard hit by the slide in

the tree fruits industry. We've been hard hit by the closing of many of

our small businesses. When I listened to that speech, I noticed that the errors

of omission were almost damning for a government. I'll tell you why. The

errors of omission were these. They forgot some very important areas. They forgot

the agricultural industry.

The Lieutenant-Governor went through 20 pages. I listened extremely

carefully and I read the text. There was no mention of the agricultural

industry in British Columbia — not one word. Last year it was

remarkable: there was a whole 30 seconds. An industry that employs

75,000 people, brings in $1.2 billion per annum in annual receipts and

preserves the quality of life for many in British Columbia.... The

agricultural greenbelts are extremely important. I didn't notice that

from the previous speaker. He was very jocular and pleasant to listen

to. He was funny. But that isn't what a government is all about. A

government is really more serious.

When I discuss these issues, I think about a farmer of Portuguese

origin in my riding. He works eight hours a day, five days a week, then

he comes back and works seven days a week on his orchard. He has 20

acres. Because that land base, which was once an asset, is now a

liability — and he can thank this government, and you may be sure he

will in the next election — he pays interest of $34,000 a year just to

hold on to his land. This government didn't find that important enough

to discuss in the throne speech, which is the major speech on their

strategy for the future. I find that incredible.

What else didn't they discuss? They didn't discuss the tourism

industry — not a word. The tourism industry is the fastest-growing

industry in the world. It is soon going to be our number one industry

It employs tens of thousands of people. It can pick up the slack in

some of our ridings.

The previous member mentioned all the jobs created. Let's take a

close look at the jobs created by this government. I just went over the

figures about four days ago. Alberta has a lower unemployment rate than

British Columbia. So does poor Saskatchewan, and so does Manitoba. Yet

we say we create all these jobs. Indeed this government does create a

lot of jobs, but how long do they last? They last six weeks usually.

They're short-term jobs. And how much do they pay? They pay the minimum

wage. Often they are part-time. Anyone can create jobs like that,

because there is really no strategy.

It isn't just agriculture. It isn't just tourism. It goes right down

the line. One of the backbones of this particular government, the

bedrock of their support, has been the small businesses in British

Columbia. You've essentially abandoned the small businesses.

Eighty-five percent of the new jobs in British Columbia are created by

small business — and not one word about it in the throne speech. These

errors of omission are not good enough.

There are a number of other things. For instance, I was astounded

not to hear one mention of the impact of the free trade deal. The free

trade deal is impacting negatively on virtually everyone in British

Columbia. It cost this province $800 million last year. Those are

one-way dollars. They go into the States and stay there. The prognosis

for this year is $1.5 billion in one-way dollars. That's $500 for every

man, woman and child in British Columbia flowing out of British

Columbia into the state of Washington. That $500 per capita is

[ Page

11981 ]

incredible. With it go thousands and thousands of British Columbia jobs.

This is a government that supported the free trade agreement. You wonder why

Ontario lost their 200,000 jobs. You can lay it at the door of the free trade

agreement. That's the manufacturing centre of Canada.

They did lose 200,000 jobs — in fact, slightly more.

Those jobs are continuing to be lost 50 and 100 and 1,500 at a time because

of the free trade agreement, an agreement that every member of the opposite

side supported wholeheartedly. I frankly don't think it's good enough.

It isn't good enough for British Columbians, for British Columbia business,

for British Columbia agriculturalists or for the people in the tourism industry.

It absolutely amazes me. All of these things are glossed over.

You talk about your record. Well, let's take a look at your record —

and it's quite a record. When you really analyze it, it isn't very

good. I'll tell you why it isn't very good. Out of the last ten years,

you've balanced the budget twice. Isn't that marvellous! In eight out

of ten, you've had a deficit. When did you balance them?

In the two years when you sold the assets of British Columbia. B.C. Petroleum

Corporation went down the line for $250 million. What did it earn for British

Columbia? It earned a billion dollars, and you sold it for $250 million. That's

why you showed a surplus for those two years: because you sold out part of the

stock.

When you didn't sell part of the stock, you started selling the

store. There is very little left. So your record of financial

management is incredible; it's financial mismanagement. Any other

government in Canada would have been long gone.

I can reiterate just a few of the areas of mismanagement. You talk a great

deal about the Coquihalla. Did it come in on budget? I guess it didn't.

It was $500 million over — that we know of. Let's not stop there; let's

look at some of the other issues. Let's look at SkyTrain. I agree with SkyTrain.

Couldn't you bring it on budget? Did it have to be $720 million over? Not

$50 million, not $70 million — $720 million.

Let's take a look at northeast coal. That was really a marvel. What

did you do up there? You didn't even put the mine in the right place,

and you fired your chief geologist because he said you didn't. That was

a billion dollars over.

You make much of Expo. Well, let's take a look at Expo.

Interjections.

MR. BARLEE: Oh, I see from the member for Okanagan South that we're

hitting a little sensitive chord.

Well, let's take a look at a bit more; let's look at Expo. Expo was

really quite marvellous. The only problem is that, again, it was another $350

million over.

Ah, but we were going to cure that; we were going to sell the Expo lands. Well,

we did — to an offshore buyer, Li Ka-shing. Do you know something? Instead of

leasing it, which any knowledgeable businessman would have said, Li Ka-shing

stands to make $1 billion net profit from the Expo lands. Now that's pretty

tough to take. Does that billion dollars stay here? You bet it doesn't.

This government says it watches taxes. Well, here are your taxes

since 1986 — almost 800. I can stretch his list of taxes 24 feet —

right from here to the member for Cariboo. Twenty-four feet; 800 taxes.

Everyone watching has paid $3,000 more in taxes in his province than

they should have.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Let's take a little look at some of those taxes. What's the most

common tax? The most common tax is the gas tax. Go right outside and

stop at Chevron, Esso or Shell. Do you know what the price is in

British Columbia? I find it very interesting: the price in British

Columbia on average is 54.9 cents per litre for a low-grade gas. Our

federal and provincial taxes — by the way, our provincial taxes on gas

are among the highest in the nation — are 22.8. You take 22.8 off 54.9,

and that means that the multinational oil companies — Shell, Esso and

all the rest — make 32 cents a litre; 32.1 if you want to be precise.

That's their gross revenue per litre.

It's very interesting. Drop into the state of Washington — Seattle

or Spokane — and you will find that gas there averages 30 cents a

litre, and their state and federal taxes are 10 cents a litre. Their

gross revenue per litre — this is all converted into Canadian funds —

is 20 cents a litre. So in the state of Washington, the oil companies

make 20 cents a litre, and in British Columbia, they make 32 cents a

litre. That's a 60 percent difference, and they're even buying some of

our gas. Why the difference? I think it's a little agreement between

the federal government, the provincial government and the multinational

oil companies.

What does that mean to every driver in British Columbia? It means

$200 goes directly out of your back pocket every year in extra profit

to the oil companies, over and above the 20 cents. What does that extra

12 cents per litre, which is not staying in British Columbia, mean? It

means $435 million a year. That's $36 million for every cent — $36.2

million, if you want to be exact.

So as far as fiscal management is concerned, this government is

absolutely astonishing. To me, the throne speech was absolutely

unbelievable: errors of omission.... Really, it did not cover the

ground that I expected it to cover. I don't think it covered the ground

that a lot of other British Columbians expected either.

[3:30]

HON. MR. BRUCE: I'm pleased to join in the debate today on

the throne speech. Five sessions ago, I guess it was, when I was able

to take my seat in this chamber and speak for the first time, I

mentioned a good friend of mine, a good friend of this House and a good

friend of the parliamentary process. He's not with us any longer. His

name was Ned DeBeck, and he was actually kind of adoptive grandfather

to me. As a much younger guy, I spent many nights and evenings with him

in his home debating the pros and cons of the

[ Page 11982 ]

parliamentary process and playing rummy. I used to

get whipped thoroughly every time I did, but I found him, although an

older gentleman, to be light-years ahead of many of us when it came to

the process of parliament and how it should function.

Today I'd also like to mention another departed colleague who I

think was light-years ahead, the Hon. Jack Davis. He had many thoughts

and wrote many papers and books with respect to how parliament should

operate. I quote him in one aspect of what he wrote in his book Popular

Politics, and I would urge others to take the time to read this.

"...the slender power base of the individual must be

strengthened, the powers of big government, big business, big labour

constrained. These collectives must be our servants, not our masters."

That, my friends, is why I got involved in politics years ago. That

is why this side of the House today represents us in the province of

British Columbia as government. That is why this side of the House must

continue to do what we can to bring to the people of this province the

message that big labour, big government and big business must be

constrained.

I'd like to quote a few other things. Jack Davis wrote some very

interesting articles in this book. I'd just like to take the time to

read into the record a couple of comments that I think truly represent

what Jack was all about. He said:

"In politics, small can be beautiful. Quality and

sincerity count. So does the will to act. Citizens need a vehicle

through which they can express themselves. They need the right

institutions; they need leaders with missionary zeal. Individualism,

given these qualities, can succeed, make its mark in a society which is

willing to listen, hear advocates out and make rational decisions based

on facts."

I go on quoting from other portions of this book that Jack wrote.

"The family unit is precious and must be preserved.

Private clubs and voluntary bodies have their virtues. There is also a

place for partnerships, local chambers of commerce, professional

associations, cooperatives. But the bias, if any, must be in favour of

the person, the individual, the basic unit in society.

"The key words are 'decentralize' and 'democratize.'

Their advantages to the individual must be extolled repeatedly. While

majorities rule, minorities must be respected. Weak collectives must

not be wiped out by strong collectives. Their membership must be given

many of the privileges the citizen enjoys.

"Protest must be possible, always. Different ideas, no

matter how strange, must be considered on their merits. Welcome

dissent, for how, otherwise, can truth prevail?

"This is the road to human betterment, culture and

civilization. As the late Kenneth Clark said in his internationally

acclaimed television series, 'Civilization requires a modicum of

material prosperity...but, far more, it requires confidence —

confidence in the society in which one lives, belief in its

philosophies, beliefs in its laws, and confidence, above all, in one's

own mental powers and possibilities.'

"Most great works, says Clark, call for a certain vigour,

energy and vitality: all of the great civilizations of civilizing epochs have

had a weight of energy behind them. People sometimes think that civilization

consists of fine sensibilities and good conversation. But these are the agreeable

results. They are a manifestation of its existence, not its fountainhead, not

its driving force. People are. Gifted individuals are, citizens who are both

able and take it on themselves to influence mankind.

"Remember, everything of value invented, developed and

introduced beneficially to society has been due to single minds of

genius, not collectives, groups, corporations or states.

"Many of the great figures of history...were a

reflection of their times. They stood out, daring to be different. They

attracted attention, expressed feelings, did things to which their

contemporaries could relate. They caused others to venture into matters

of intellect and passion. They helped to change their world, yet they

were alone. They were individuals whose impact on society must, through

their example, give us a feeling of confidence in ourselves.

"To be effective politically, the society wherein we

live must be open to new ideas, welcome competition, encourage the

best. It must reserve the largest area of activity for the individual,

contain collectives, direct the state. This will happen when popular

opinion is sought on all issues, when democracy extends to the

workplace and when moral and ethical issues are left to each of us

separately in the privacy of our own home. This is the world I want to

live in. This is the kind of politics I espouse — populism at its best."

These are the words of Jack Davis, a man whom I greatly respected

and who I think contributed greatly not only to British Columbia but to

this great country of Canada.

And I will read to you one other quote with respect to the workings

of the House and Parliament itself. We should spend much more time in

this House on how we conduct our affairs — and likewise in the other

legislatures across this country and certainly in the House of Commons.

"Herewith a word about party loyalties and party

discipline. The party concept itself is anti-individualist,

anti-representative and anti-constitutional in the sense there are many

points of view and many plans circulating in the community. Once

elected, a politician must do his best to represent all his voters,

putting forward pros and cons on each issue, voting as the majority of

his constituents would have him vote, not following the party line day

in, day out, regardless of what he hears from whom."

The Hon. Jack Davis spent many years in both this House and the

House of Commons and understood better than most of us how the real

workings of parliament should take place.

I look forward to having some discussion in a forum dealing with the

constitutional changes that will be brought about in Canada. But we in

this House, whether as government or as opposition, or whether those

roles — God forbid! — may change, should take the time to reflect on

those words, particularly on how this House operates. The people of

British Columbia want representation in this House not solely from a

party perspective. They want those elected as representatives to come

to this House and speak as individuals on behalf of their constituents

— not to take the party and government line back to their

constituencies but to bring to this House the thoughts of the people

and to debate in a serious and meaningful way those aspirations the

people of their constituencies have. It's not

[ Page

11983 ]

new. It's been done, and it is done. We're

certainly not reinventing the wheel; it's operating already. All we

have to do is have the will in this House, as elected individuals and

as people who represent our constituents and the people of British

Columbia, to make those changes.

Whether it is I who stands in this House after the next election or

whether it is some of my colleagues or those of you on the other side,

I request of you, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, that

this Legislature look at these types of changes in a meaningful, real

and positive way.

It is the way that small-town British Columbia can be represented in

this House, and we all know that the majority of us come from

small-town British Columbia. It is what makes this province and what

makes this country. There is a fundamental restructuring taking place

in the small towns throughout British Columbia. Communities that have

been for many years based on a single industry, with the economy

revolving around one mine or one mill or one sector of the industry,

are now changing.

This government has taken steps to alleviate the restructuring of

our community economies. But the changes that are the most meaningful,

resilient and long-lasting are the changes that come from the

communities themselves — the types of initiatives that most communities

have and many have brought along in their own way.

I have seen that firsthand with my own little community in my

riding, Chemainus, where in 1983 we saw a very large milling operation

go down. Rather than wait for big government, big industry or some

other wonderful force to solve our problems, the community there took

it upon itself to make the difference. They understood that meaningful

and lasting change had to come from within. It could not be put down

from the top. That little town today has a bright and rosy future

because the people — not the state, not the large corporation, not the

large union, but individuals within that community — seized the

opportunity. They are the real pioneers of what has made this country

great.

I hear all too often from many who talk about tourism. The comment

is made that we have to diversify and move into tourism; and on the

other side I hear the argument: yes, but they're only popcorn-paying

jobs. I have seen what a real thrust into tourism can mean. Let me tell

you, I take offence when I hear that people talk about them as

"popcorn" jobs. I take offence because my sister, who I know and love

well, has done well in developing two small businesses which employ a

couple of people in each store. She has done well for herself and for

that community through the development of tourism.

There is a future throughout this great province. There is a future

in the tourist industry. But, my friends, there is also a future in the

forestry sector. All too often we hear comments that we have to move

from forestry. But in my view, the future of the economy, the social

fabric of this great province, is intertwined and based in the forestry

sector.

Yes, there is a change in how the forestry industry operates. There

are fewer jobs in the traditional milling side as we know it. As

examples have been relayed here by my colleagues in respect of other

value-added operations, I too have seen them directly within my

community. There are many more jobs in that way.

There are also jobs in the intensive aspect of growing those trees.

In planting those carrots, tending them row by row and in brushing and

weeding them, there are literally thousands of jobs. But society as a

whole — not government alone — has to make a commitment to understand

that that is an investment. When one spends those types of dollars on

the actual tending of that forestry crop, in the end result, when all

is said and done, you'll have to cut those trees down. As difficult as

it may be in some instances, you still have to cut some trees down.

[3:45]

There's nothing more beautiful than a forest that's growing in a

resilient, healthy state; there's nothing more tragic than seeing a

forest after it has been harvested. But it's what this country is all

about. It's what makes the economy not only of this province but of

Canada tick. It's what pays for the social nets that we have. It's what

pays for our health and education. It's what gives the jobs and the

purpose and meaning for so many hundreds of thousands of people in this

country. It's simply not good enough to say we will save this

particular area and walk away from it and leave those who live in those

communities — the small towns of this province — who are dependent upon

those jobs, to fight it out on their own.

There is a very strong future in the forestry sector. It's the role

of this House to talk about those forestry issues and to bring to this

forum the discussion that's necessary so that we all have a better

understanding of what's actually happening in the forests of this

province and of this country.

I speak with not great experience but with some, having seen the

effects of taking the small forest that we had in the municipality of

North Cowichan, of which I was the mayor at the time, and being able to

use the resources and knowledge of the people of my community who had

been involved in the forestry sector. We put together what I and others

consider a model of how community forestry can operate, a model of how

intensive management ought to be taking place and a model of how the

jobs and the social fabric of the community can be strengthened by a

strong and healthy forestry base. It's a challenge for all of us. But

let us keep in mind that even when those steps are taken, there will

come a time when one has to cut that tree down, as sad as it may be.

The Leader of the Opposition and the opposition collectively, in

times past, have spoken about the aspect of log exports and often make

it sound like we are exporting every log and every job out of this

province. I had the good fortune of chairing the Standing Committee on

Forests and Lands, an all-party committee. The Leader of the Opposition

should know that his forestry critic was part of that committee. Let me

just quote from our report that we presented to this House in regard to

the issue of log exports.

[ Page 11984 ]

Factually speaking — not the political harangue and rhetoric that

will go on, and I'm sure will come again when we get into the election

— the log export aspect of things has been very minimal. If you want to

go back as far as the 1930s.... Log exports since the turn of the

century have averaged less than 2 percent per year of the allowable

annual cut. From 1930 to 1939, log exports contributed proportionately

more to provincial revenues and averaged about 8 percent per annum.

That was way back in 1930-39. More recently, if one just refers to the

work that this Legislature did, you will see that in 1988 the

percentage of the annual allowable provincial cut which was exported

was just over 4 percent. In 1989 it was reduced to just over 3 percent,

and in 1990 it was just over 2 percent. I quote from the report: "It

can be seen that log exports have been reduced by almost 50 percent

over the last three years." British Columbia has had a long requirement

to manufacture the province's logs originating from lands alienated

from the Crown after March 12, 1906. There has been a commitment by

this province, by this government, to manufacture those logs at home.

The actual total export of logs has been minimal.

The Leader of the Opposition should think twice before he stands and

brings out this type of information which makes it sound like we are

exporting all sorts of logs and jobs. Particularly when he thinks of

his own colleague from Prince Rupert, whose community of Stewart is

dependent today upon the export business. It would be fine and great to

shut it all down and not let one log leave this province, but what do

we say to the people of Stewart? Bye-bye? Adios? Farewell? What do they

do?

It's a developing province, and there is reason from time to time to

allow for the export of logs. But let us remember that when we talk

about that, we talk about it in very small numbers. I was quite taken

aback that the Leader of the Opposition had not realized that the

aspect of log exports in this province was well in hand and the actual

exported logs were very few.

We also talk about research and development. I heard the Leader of

the Opposition talk about that too, whether he had just found out, or

whether he was thinking about something that he'd dreamed about. We

have been leaders in research and development.

Forintek is a fine example of forest research across this country

and here in the province of British Columbia. I know that you'll join

with me in congratulating this government on its commitment to and

investment in Forintek. I can hear it now from the other side: great

applause congratulating the people of the province of British Columbia

for investing their dollars in Forintek, because the research and

development that has taken place has helped so many small mills in each

of your constituencies. There is a little mill, I'm sure, that has

adapted some portion of the research and development that has come from

Forintek. I know within my community that's the case, and I know it's

the case in your communities too.

Certainly, let's put more money into research and development. Let's

put more money into every single thing we can do. Great — providing the taxpayer

can afford to pay it. But let's not given the impression that there's

not been any research and development. There's been tremendous research

and development in the forestry sector. Let's not pretend or give the illusion

that the forestry sector in this country has not been the leader in many ways

in respect to the forest industry around the world. Yes, there are things we

have to improve upon and that we can do better; but my friends, there are many

things that we do well.

I'm pleased to see in the throne speech reference to the issue of

the native Indians and the commitment by this government to move ahead

and resolve that issue. I have in my riding the Cowichan Indian band,

the largest Indian band in the province in population. I have worked

with the Cowichans and several other of the bands within my

constituency to do what I can in a small way to improve the economic

and social well-being of our native Indian people.

I would encourage all of you to take the opportunity, the next time

you're in my community, of attending the Native Heritage Centre. It's

had some problems, yes, but it's going to continue. Attend the movie

house there and take in the film called Great Deeds ,

a production they've put together on the story of the Indian people in

Cowichan, a story of the trials and tribulations and the persecution

and racial prejudice that they have felt and been through. I can

guarantee you that on seeing that film and leaving the theatre, there's

not a dry eye. It's a very moving production.

We do have to make some major steps in respect to the concerns of

our native people. I can remember as the president of my student

council at Mount Prevost school, a few years back....

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

HON. MR. BRUCE: A few years back. I can remember how the

Indian students who came to that school in grade 8 would come in full

of life, still reaching to the future, still not really having faced

and understood or been opened to the pressures of being a minority

group, and the prejudices there in hand. I can remember seeing those

faces as some of them would get involved in those student council

activities. Not that there was anything that we did as a larger student

body which was specifically pointed at those students, but over time,

by grade 9 and certainly by grade 10, we'd been able to put them in

their own compartment. We'd been able to put them aside — put them in

their place, so to speak. As I say, not by any intent, but by how

society was not responding. Society was not understanding the problems

of the Indian people. I feel better today, but we have a long way to go

— this House, this government — in looking after the concerns of the

native Indian people.

There is much that has been going on in my particular community. I

noted a comment from the second member for Nanaimo, talking about the

concerns and aspirations of the WAVAW organization — Women Against

Violence Against Women— whose office is right behind my office in the

same building. I've come to have a fair interest in what has been going

on there. I listened to her comments this morning, and I was concerned

that she left the impression that this

[ Page

11985 ]

government hadn't done anything in that way, that

things were in a crisis, and that we really hadn't paid much attention.

I take exception to that. I've taken great interest in what has been

going on there.

Just to point out in the dollars and cents thing, although it would

always be nice to have more money, we were able — in the Cowichan area

— to increase our funding from $48,000 to the current level of $64,000

for that operation. That's not a bad increase. I'm not prepared to

simply stand here and say that's great; leave it at that; that's all

you need. Certainly, they need more. But I didn't want this House to

think that there hadn't been anything done in that respect in our

community Far from it. The WAVAW organization in my area is a very

vibrant and active organization.

I also have great concern and am deeply troubled by this whole

discussion of conflict of interest. We are the supposedly honourable

members in this House. And whether you sit in government or in

opposition, or you are a member of the Social Credit or NDP, the day

will come — as only your colleagues in Ontario have already found —

when conflict of interest or some conflict engulfs you, whether you

went and knowingly did it or whether you were caught in it.

I am pleased that we are going to take this whole

conflict-of-interest issue to a standing committee of this House,

because this is an honourable profession. But the people today in the

province and the country do not see politics as an honourable

profession. There is wrongdoing. But when one looks at the great number

that have had to resign across this country in one government or

another, you will find that the details of it — their resignation — was

done in an honourable tradition.

I'm offended that we in this House collectively have not seen fit to

clear my colleague from the Fraser Valley — a man who is clean and is

respected, who resigned in an honourable way.

Regardless of the political party that you may be in, regardless of

the political persuasion that you may have, we do no favour for the

people of this province or this country by going on in the manner that

we are in respect to the conflict-of-interest issue. I hope this

committee that is being set up will work in a fashion that will bring

to us a process in which we can discharge our duties in an honourable

way.

[4:00]

MS. MARZARI: Interestingly enough, I found the most

articulate and most cogent part of the throne speech addressed the

issues that affect women. The passages that described promises around

child care, promises to deal with domestic violence and promises to

listen to women in their communities were carefully thought through and

well presented — better than the rest of the throne speech.

In retrospect, the words were carefully chosen to attract the attention of

women who wrote off the Social Credit government back in February 1988, when,

in a fit of what can only be described as hysteria, the government attempted

to refuse abortion services to the women of British Columbia, even after — or

directly after, I should say — the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled that women

were full persons under the law.

We have to look closer then at the throne speech to see below the

shining surface of the carefully chosen words and to understand what

exactly women are being offered by the throne speech, particularly in

respect to their physical protection against violence in the home, at

work and on the streets. We on this side of the House believe the

government has given women a dead-end phone: one which encourages them

to call but takes them nowhere. Literally this is the case with the

violence line: advertised extensively and expensively, seen by everyone

in this province with a graphic image of an ordinary man being removed

from his home in handcuffs by police officers after a phone call from

his obviously beaten wife. It's a horrific scene. It has imprinted

itself on everyone's minds in this province. But we have to ask

ourselves: is this what really happens when that first call is made? Do

the police really press charges? Is the man truly convicted? Does the

court listen? What happens to the woman and her child in the morning,

or next year?

We say these questions don't have positive answers for women in

British Columbia. We feel B.C. women have been given a number with no

connection. Metaphorically speaking, this can be said to be true of

many of the programs offered. We fear that promises made about child

care won't be followed through on. Task forces on violence have been

established. If they do make the connections they need, we will find

ourselves in much the same position we're in now, because those

connections require a massive change of attitudes in our community

towards women, children and the vulnerable.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prof. Christine Boyle, a visiting professor at UBC law school from

Dalhousie, said at a conference here in Victoria in 1990 called

"Women's Lives": "If women are seen as appropriate objects of abuse, we

are hardly also seen, therefore, as equal partners in the political,

economic, social and reproductive lives of our communities...the fear

and reality of abuse helped to define what it means to be a woman in

our society. Domestic violence affects us all."

I liken the cycle of violence towards women to a bicycle wheel with

endless spokes. Each spoke maintains the shape of the wheel. The hub of

the wheel is a centre of preconceived social and cultural notions about

the place of women in our community. It is encircled by a rigid and

inflexible rim of public agencies, policies and case law. The spokes

themselves represent attitudes that we carry in our community about

women and the vulnerable in our society. This wheel is driven on

poverty; it's driven on poor health; it's driven on women's sense of

helplessness. Most importantly, it is driven in silence.

We don't have to go very far to find the statistics on violence in

our community. We need only pick up our paper almost every day to see

the statistics on violence towards women. In fact, the statistics are

almost overwhelming. After a while you almost become satu-

[ Page 11986 ]

rated, completely filled with the statistics on abuse of women.

On February 21 in the Province , it said:

"Family violence is 'one of the most serious and persistent

problems plaguing our society today.'

"At least one in every ten women in Canada is battered by

her male partner. Vancouver's Battered Women's Support Services say

the most recent statistics are one in six women. In Canada, one murder in five

is linked to family violence. One girl in four and one boy in ten is sexually

abused before they reach age 16."

These are statistics brought to us by Mary Collins, federal Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

Here in British Columbia we have constant reminders of what violence

is doing in our communities. Heather Nelson at the Port Alberni women's

centre says: "Many of the women who come to us are as a direct result

of problems associated with job loss or lengthy layoff. Alcoholism,

drugs and wife-beating are all part of the scenario leading to women

turning to us for help." Community dislocation and community

instability lead to violence.

On Monday, February 25, 1991, the Province

said: "One in six Canadian women are regularly battered by the men they

live with — 119 of them were killed last year. Seventy-five percent of

all assaults on women take place in the home, and 62 percent result in

physical injury."

These are dead-end phone calls. These are the metaphorical dead-end

phone calls that we are faced with as women in our communities.

The economics of women in poverty are connected to health as well.

Hélène Cadrin in Montreal produced a study which claims: "Battered

women are almost four times more likely to suffer mental and physical

problems than other women in their socioeconomic group.... Violence

destroys a woman's control over her own life, and that control does not

automatically return when the beating stops. These women are wounded,

anxious, stressed. They are affected to the depths of their souls." I'm

talking about one in six women.

Beatings can be deadly. The dead-end phone call is not good enough when we

read this from the Province on Monday, February 11: "Three Edmonton women who were battered by their husbands

recently filed for divorce. Today, two are dead and one is clinging to life.

Maria David-Evans, chairwoman of a local committee investigating family violence

in Edmonton, said: 'The greatest danger to life and limb is when a wife

leaves her husband'."

Calls to Rape Relief, WAVAW, sexual abuse centres and transition houses have quadrupled or quintupled.

They have increased tenfold over the last eight or nine years. In 1983-84,

phone calls to the crisis line in Vancouver show that 438 were for sexual abuse,

child sexual abuse and battering. In 1989-90, the equivalent number is 2,051.

That's just for the crisis line.

Women Against Violence Against Women say that their calls are up by 46 percent in the last two years.

Rape Relief in Vancouver claim that in 1974 they received 112 calls. In 1989

they received 848 calls. In 1989 the Vancouver police sexual offence squad received

560 complaints of sexual assault, with 301 involving adults.

Does this mean that the actual offences are increasing? The people

on the front lines claim no, that's not necessarily so. What is

increasing is the willingness of women and children to bring their

cases into the public eye, to finally blow the whistle and to say that

this is happening to them.

What do we give them? What has this province given those women? A

phone line. A well-advertised, well-publicized phone line, but a phone

line. Where does the phone call lead to? Laura Anderson of the women's

ministry says in the Province on March 17: "What callers really get is

information about services available in their area. But you are right,"

she says to the interviewer, Fabian Dawson, "quite a few think they can

get counselling or direct help by calling the number."

I've travelled about the province recently, and I've been in

Smithers at the transition house that was housing about five more women

than it could possibly hold. I was talking to five very tired workers

who had put in a whole weekend without sleep as families were coming

through the door. I was there when the call came from a woman 50 miles

down the road who was reporting a beating. She had no money and no car.

There was no bus to Smithers at that time. Were one of the five women

going to try to reach her in order to bring her back? Did they have the

money for a cab to be able to tell her to come? No. Neither the money,

the facilities nor the vehicle were available for that woman. The woman

spent the night down the road — hopefully in a friend's house. We don't

know; she was distraught.

The whole system we're talking about here and this huge number of

cases that I've just read into the record — how can it be? How can we

have a system that lives on so much suffering of one gender? It's

because of the silence — that's the answer to that question — that

women have been encouraged to maintain by the spokes in the wheel I

talked about.

Every study that has been done by the National Action Committee on

the Status of Women, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of

Women, and other publications, has talked of the silence that women are

encouraged to maintain about domestic violence. When they do make that

first phone call, they are occasionally encouraged not to press charges

— not by police maliciously telling them not to bother bringing it

forward because it's not worth anything, but by sometimes overworked,

undertrained police officers who don't think they're ever going to be

able to take a case through to conviction. They actually will advise a

woman not to be bothered carrying the case any further than that first

phone call. That is a dead-end phone call.

Crown attorneys very often report that women who have been battered often ask

to have the charges dropped after the charges have been laid. Obviously the woman

thinks twice, understands what her chances are going to be away from the home,

sees the full transition houses, understands that there won't be a lot of

support for her in the community and says: "Where

[ Page

11987 ]

were you when I last needed you?" Then she returns home and drops the charges. That is a dead-end phone call.

So you can see that the silence we seem to build into our systems is

essential for the maintenance of those systems, and that silence, in

itself, is a dead-end phone call. What we must do in this province is

move away from that dead-end phone call — providing services and

changed attitudes and talking to changed and reformed public

institutions and policies at the end of that phone call.

[4:15]

First of all, we have to look at changing policies. When that first

phone call is made from a woman who has previously been silent, we have

to make sure that there is someone at the end of the line who is

prepared to come, who has been trained, who knows what they're doing

and can help that woman go through the process she needs to go through

to make things better for herself and her children. The police officer

who first emerges on the scene should be appropriately accompanied,

assisted or helped by that front line of defence — possibly someone

from a women's centre, a sexual assault centre or the community who is

going to be there to act as an advocate for that woman. Police must

start to encourage women to lay the charge. They must be specially

trained in what domestic violence is and be encouraged to think of it

as something that is top priority, not bottom priority.

We have, announced in the throne speech, an intention to double our

gang squads in Vancouver. There was no such promise to double the

domestic violence squads. In fact, I'm not sure that there is a

domestic violence squad in Vancouver, let alone in the rest of the

province.

We know that throughout the province there is a huge discrepancy

between regions. Native peoples do not receive the attention they need.

The north does not receive the kind of attention it needs in terms of

violence against women.

Legal aid. These battered women and kids are very often without

representation whatsoever. Legal aid lawyers are very often overworked

and undertrained in dealing with family and domestic violence. In the

far north, there are virtually no legal aid lawyers. In fact, lawyers

are flown up to the north by Legal Aid. The tariff for legal aid

excludes hundreds of women. It is too low. You know yourselves that

legal aid lawyers have served notice on this government that unless the

tariff increases, they will not be serving. This is their final line of

defence. We also know that people who apply for legal aid very often

don't qualify for it. You have to be so poor to qualify that thousands

of women literally do not have access to it.

We find out today that there is a new moratorium on restraining orders. Your

government has traditionally paid an extra dividend to lawyers for emergency

restraining orders. That restraining order is absolutely essential if a woman

has finally made that phone call. In an abusive situation, she is entitled to

receive a restraining order. Your government in the last two days has put the

kibosh on that and declared a moratorium That woman is not going to be allowed

to have access to special attention from a lawyer. Mr. Attorney-General, I'm

not even sure if you know about it, but she might have to wait, in an emergency

situation, up to two weeks.

When the woman gets to court, if she gets to court.... I'm told by

very tired, very disillusioned family lawyers that when they get to

court, the Crown prosecutor's office is very often overworked, once

again not especially trained to deal with domestic violence, very often

unable to spend more than a few minutes with the woman, who is now a

client, and having very little time to work on cases. Victim Assistance

doesn't do this; in fact, nobody does it. Consequently women, once they

reach the court, very often find they are dealt with in a very

superficial manner — if they get there in the first place. They find

that the Limitation Act restricts them to suing within two years of the

abuse, so they have two years in which to actually bring a suit. Very

often, women will take much longer than that before they make the

decision to go to court; the two-year limitation is artificial.

After court, there's very little opportunity in the community for

women to regain any semblance of stability with their kids. We know

that second-stage housing is as bad as it has ever been. It's

hopelessly underfunded. Transition houses are full; second-stage

housing barely exists. We know that women have a really difficult time

getting themselves into retraining programs, because the fabric of our

society seems to be built around access to post-secondary and training

programs for men, but not necessarily for women. They don't have a

pretty picture facing them before, during or after a court case.

We can't leave this debate without turning for a moment to what

actually happens in court. I want to turn for a few minutes to a

discussion of the Letendre case, which was tried a few weeks ago in

Vancouver. The Letendre case was basically a case of date rape, of

violence against a woman which was brought by the woman to the court.

The details of the case itself are not important for this House. What

is important is the fact that in the transcript of the judgment, the

judge revealed a particular attitude towards date rape, towards the

actions that had been taken and towards the case itself. On page 27 of

a 33-page decision, the judge said:

"The mating practice, if I may call it that, is a less

than precise relationship. At times, no may mean maybe or wait awhile.

The acts of one of the participants may be easily misinterpreted, a

participant may change his or her mind, one way or another, partway

through it, and cooperation as well as enjoyment may be faked for a

number of reasons.

"However, my main concerns relate more to what she didn't say and didn't do than what she did say and did."

These comments encapsulate what I've been telling this House about

silence, about a woman's fear and vulnerability, and about a woman's

temptation to stay silent for two years, for 20 years, in order not to

cause disruption to herself or her family and in order not to disturb

her sense of well-being. In fact, her sense of

[ Page 11988 ]

well-being has been hopelessly shattered on many occasions.

In this case the judge was basically using language to express his

attitude towards what he called "the mating ritual." He makes these

statements clearly and unequivocally; they are the backdrop against

which the evidence was displayed. Oh, the silence we want from our

women. Oh, if only they would be clear and unequivocal, the judge says.

Oh, the judge says, the defendant honestly believed that the plaintiff

had consented. Well, we have to ask ourselves, just in this one case —

and there are many others like it — what no does really mean. We have

to ask, first of all, whether the judge knew about Queen's University

male students saying: "No doesn't mean no. No means harder; no means

more." We have to ask whether the judge knew that and, if he did,

whether he was just being malicious. If he didn't know that, how come

he was so out of touch?

We have to ask what the legal implications are for future law on

date rape. What does no mean? Should honest belief be a legitimate

defence in law in a criminal case that deals with rape? Can we ever

look forward in British Columbia and in our country to equality in the

courts in issues of sexual consent, where adult people say no or yes to

each other? Can we look forward to some kind of sexual equality there?

We can ask the Hughes committee, the committee investigating gender

bias in the justice system and the legal profession, to attempt to

answer those questions. We can ask the federal Minister of Justice,

when she sponsors her special symposium on women, law and the

administration of justice, for some answers around these questions,

because they are pertinent to the future of the

interpretation of the

law in our country.

The last question that has to be asked before this House is this:

what's the impact on a woman who's been raped — date-raped or raped by

a stranger? I'll tell you what the impact is. The impact on that woman

is encouragement to remain silent, because the judge's decision

suggests that no matter what she would say, her defence was not

forcible enough. There would be the chance that she would be dragged

through the court as a victim of the court as well as a victim of the

assault. The very thing that the Criminal Code amendments had attempted

to get away from could well be happening now as a result of that

particular decision.

There are a number of things that Mr. Hughes's task force has to

look at in terms of public policy: Rape Relief, sexual assault centres,

the integration of services, advocacy, and education for women who need

assistance and for the general community, which desperately needs to

have its attitudes looked at and gradually changed.

In the last analysis, what women seek is not piecemeal sympathy or lip-service.

They're not looking for chivalry any longer. They want the phones connected

to protection, which is their right as citizens, and they want that wheel I

referred to dismantled and rebuilt to include them. Women want respect. They

want recognition for the responsibility they have for holding up half the sky.

They want fairness in our systems, and they want justice in our courts. B.C.

women understand as never before that their silence is finally breaking and

that their ringing phone has to be answered. Their voice is stronger than it's

ever been. Their call has not been answered by this government.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate

you in your elevation again to the position of Deputy Speaker of this

House. Sir, you are a good parliamentarian, a good friend, a good

member of this House, and above all a gentleman. I congratulate you.

I also congratulate the member for North Vancouver–Capilano on being

chosen as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House for this

Legislature. I know he will also carry out his duties, as we enter the

committee stages and the debate on estimates in this House, in a very

forward, direct and good way.

Mr. Speaker, we're looking forward in British Columbia to a new

future. We're looking forward to the nineties and to an election. As we

look at that election, which will certainly be coming up this year, we

look at the issues around which that election will be framed: the

economy, the environment, health care and how it's delivered, and

political leadership.

More importantly, the issue that will really come down in British

Columbia is the same choice that every British Columbian of voting age

has enjoyed since 1952 when the first Social Credit government was

elected to office in British Columbia. That's the choice between NDP or

CCF socialism and the free enterprise concept of Social Credit. Those

are the only real choices in British Columbia. Those are the choices

you are going to respond to at the polls: the difference between

socialism and all that it embodies, and free enterprise and the freedom

that goes with it. Those are the choices you're going to have in

British Columbia.

[4:30]

We are going to talk about the real choices that face the people of

British Columbia in the next election — choices of who will control the

purse-strings of the province and how that control will be exercised.

And we're going to tell about how the transition team that was made up

here — some of them, I believe, are members of the opposition — went to

Ontario and put in place the policy that's driving the industrial

heartland of this country down the economic drain. We're going to talk

about that. We're going to talk about those choices as we go across the

length and breadth of this province. It's instructive to remember,

because if we don't remember the lessons of history, we're certainly

going to be condemned by history.

The NDP say that 1972 to 1975 is no longer relevant in British

Columbia, that it doesn't matter anymore, that they're a new breed now,

that they're fiscal conservatives. They're no more fiscal conservatives

now than they were back in 1972 to 1975. It's important to remember,

and it's important to tell the people, that when the NDP took over the

purse-strings in 1972, in current dollars of that day, W.A.C. Bennett

left behind $97 million. That was a huge legacy — a huge amount of

money — in 1972 terms and a legacy that any government in Canada would

have been proud to have. It should have set in place an era of

prosperity, because we remember that from 1972 to 1975, the

[ Page

11989 ]

economy all over the world was on the ascendancy.

The NDP, through its mining policies, through other actions and through

legislation, literally turned ore into rock in British Columbia. It

went down, down, down.

I remember, after the election, the Minister of Mines at that time

was the Hon. Leo Nimsick. He was interviewed, and they asked him what

he thought about his mining policy. He said: "I sure turned it around;

I sure turned the mining industry around." He turned it around, and he

turned it down. He buried it.

In 1975, by the time we were elected — I was elected to the

Legislature along with a group of other new, fresh-faced MLAs and

free-enterprisers — and by the time Bill Bennett pried the chequebook

out of the cold, stiff, politically dead fingers of Dave Barrett, there

was a new colour of ink in the books of British Columbia: it was

NDP-deficit red. To the tune of current dollars in 1975, $588 million

in the glue — that during the best economic times this country had ever

seen. What do you think about that? I don't think they've learned

anything. In 1,200 days and 1,200 nights, the NDP under Dave Barrett

and the same thinking that prevails today — the same thinking that

prevails in Ontario — turned a $98 million surplus into a $588 million

deficit. They sure turned things around in British Columbia.

The choice is clear: the choice was clear in 1975, and the choice is

going to be clear in 1991. People will once again vote for free

enterprise in British Columbia. Don't forget it for a moment.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I hear the new and improved leader of the NDP saying that they are

now fiscal conservatives, that '72 to '75 are no longer relevant. The

new NDP are no more conservative today than they were then. Look at

what their transition team did to Ontario. It's instructive to look at

Ontario; it's instructive to see what they've done to their budget.

Mr. Speaker, they didn't believe, anymore than Mr. Barrett believed

at the time, that they were going to get elected to government. They

didn't know; they didn't understand that. They were elected by a quirk

of our electoral system. They were elected with around 39 percent of

the popular vote. They received an overwhelming majority in the House.

I want to tell you that by the time an election rolls around again

in Ontario, the people of Ontario will throw them out — to a person.

It's instructive for us to tell the people of British Columbia what has

happened in Ontario. On top of the $700 million deficit that was left

behind by wanton Liberal government spending in Ontario, the new NDP

government immediately increased that deficit to $1.5 billion. By the

time the year was out, that deficit had reached $3 billion. These new

fiscal conservatives that took over talk about us having problems here.

In one year, cabinet minister after cabinet minister has gone down the

tube in Ontario. One MPP even wound up in jail under that great and

wonderful government.

The new budget from Pink Floyd from Sudbury — Floyd Laughren, the

Treasurer of Ontario: what does he bring in? In the 1991-92 budget, he

has gone from a $700 million deficit left behind by the Liberals — yes,

they spent and — to predicting almost $10 billion. That's in the

heartland of Canada's industrial.... It's right in the heartland of

where industry starts — in Ontario. That's the place where they should

be doing better than anywhere else. In Ontario 200,000 jobs have been

lost since the NDP took power. Do you know that, Mr. Attorney? They're

heading to British Columbia in droves.

When I was Minister of International Business, I had people coming

to me from Ontario and saying: "We're waiting for an election." I said:

"So am I. Why are you waiting for it?" "We're waiting so that when you

win again we can move from Ontario to British Columbia." That's where

the growth in British Columbia is going to come from.

What are they looking at for '92-93? They are looking at $8.9

billion, and I believe it will be more. What are they looking at for

'93-94? It's $7.8 billion. The total debt will double in Ontario to

nearly $70 billion over three years of socialist bliss in that

province. Some fiscal conservatives. It's instructive to look at what

is happening in the province of Ontario and remember that some of the

transition team came from the NDP benches right here in British

Columbia.

Who are they? Who paid for them? I don't know. These are questions

that the people of British Columbia need answers to. Who paid for their

bills? Was there any British Columbia money, either directly or

indirectly, that wound up in financing that transition team? If it did,

we wasted our money on a huge scale. Those are questions we need to ask.

Tax increases in the province of Ontario — fiscal conservatives; gas

is up 30 percent; tax on auto insurance premiums.... They've got a

mining tax increase and a capital tax increase for financial

institutions. Doesn't it sound all over again like déjà vu, as Yogi

Berra used to say? Doesn't it sound like that? Isn't that shades of

1972 to 1975? Remember what they did here? Remember the royalty?

Remember the super-royalty, Mr. Minister of Labour? You were involved

in that business. That's what they're planning for British Columbia.

If that Leader of the Opposition ever becomes Premier, that's the

story. That's the choice we've got to make. That's the story that you

and I, Mr. Speaker, have to take out to each and every hamlet in

British Columbia. We're going to do it, and we're going to win. Don't

hold your breath, NDP. I can tell you that right now.

The reason I'm mentioning this to you is that the Leader of the

Opposition said in his address, and has said it before, that Ontario —

not Sweden anymore, because, you see, Sweden is passé now; it's gone —

is now the model for the new fiscal-conservative socialists, the NDP.

Ontario is now their model. Welfare costs are up 40 percent due to

fiscal policies that discourage business and investment in the province

of Ontario. Reduction of coverage for out-of-country medical expenses,

which will mean loss of universality and the need for purchasing

private medical insurance when

[ Page 11990 ]

travelling — that's all gone. Under a socialist heaven, that's all gone.

An increase in the cost of new government housing — that's what they

plan for British Columbia. New units to be built in '91-92 will cost

$1,250 per month each to the taxpayers of Ontario. That's what they

need to do. That's what they're going to do, Mr. Minister of Housing.

But that's not what you're going to do; you're going to build housing

for people.

How do the NDP respond to the loss of 200,000 jobs? They respond the

only way that socialists know how to respond — by doubling welfare

rates. You see, we've got a choice in British Columbia: it's jobs with

Social Credit or welfare with the NDP. That's the choice we've got for

the people in this province, that's the real choice.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about Canada. He commented on

Canada, and I agree with him. I agree with his comments that we live in

a wonderful country. Some of my people on one side came here as United

Empire Loyalists, living in this country of Canada for many years. I've

had the privilege of living in Ontario, in la belle province .

I've had the chance to live in Nova Scotia. I've worked in

Saskatchewan, and lived in Alberta and in the greatest province of all,

British Columbia, for many years. But I want to tell you that there are

people around the world who are looking to what we have in Canada and

the basis of what has made Canada great. They're not looking to

socialism in Canada. They don't want to emulate socialism; they don't

want us drifting down that road. The people coming to Canada are trying

to escape the bonds of slavery — economic or otherwise — that constrain

people, Mr. Speaker. That's the difference.

I was reminded of this the other day when the ambassador from the

Czech and Slovak Republic was here. I was talking in Davos,

Switzerland, to the minister of economics and finance for the new Czech

and Slovak Republic. He was telling me about a young gentleman during

the 14-day general strike, the Czech revolution. This gentleman in

Prague, Czechoslovakia, stood up in Wenceslaus Square in the middle of

all this furor.... Some of us saw it on television: the white-helmeted

police, the tear-gas and the rubber bullets, when the socialists and

communists were trying to put down democracy. This 26-year-old brewery

worker stood up and repeated these words: "We believe these truths to

be self-evident. We believe that each man is endowed with certain

inalienable rights. Not the least among these are the right to life,

liberty and the pursuit of happiness." He wasn't talking about

socialism. He was looking to the right to pursue life. We forget these

things. We know what they are. We understand that that is some of

Jefferson's independence address. It's the

preamble to the great

constitution of the United States of America.

[4:45]

I'll tell you, socialism is the antithesis of all the things that built

this country and all the things that this province stands for. We are not going....

We have a duty to make choices clear and available t